Opinion America Stopped Cooking With Tallow for a Reason - Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s view on fats is about bucking convention, not promoting health.

1733170323713.png
Illustration by Matteo Giuseppe Pani / The Atlantic. Sources: Rebecca Noble / Getty; Pixel-shot / Alamy; Reading Room 2020 / Alamy.

By Yasmin Tayag
December 2, 2024, 1:17 PM ET

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s latest spin on MAGA, “Make frying oil tallow again,” is surprisingly straightforward for a man who has spent decades downplaying his most controversial opinions. Last month, Kennedy argued in an Instagram post that Americans were healthier when restaurants such as McDonald’s cooked fries in beef tallow—that is, cow fat—instead of seed oils, a catchall term for common vegetable-derived oils including corn, canola, and sunflower. Americans, he wrote, are “being unknowingly poisoned” by seed oils; in his view, we’d all be better off cooking with solid fats such as tallow, butter, and lard. In a video that Kennedy posted on Thanksgiving, he deep-fries a whole turkey in beef tallow and says, “This is how we cook the MAHA way.”

Cardiologists shuddered at the thought. Conventional medical guidance has long recommended the reverse: less solid fat, more plant oils. But in recent years, a fringe theory has gained prominence for arguing that seed oils are toxic, put into food by a nefarious elite—including Big Pharma, the FDA, and food manufacturers—to keep Americans unhealthy and dependent. Most nutrition scientists squarely dismiss this idea as a conspiracy theory. But the movement probes some unresolved, fundamental questions about nutrition. Are saturated fatty acids—the kind in animal fat—actually dangerous? And are polyunsaturated ones—found in plant-derived oils—really all that great for your heart? The fact that these debates remain unsettled does not validate Kennedy’s view on fats, which represents a complete reversal of conventional health beliefs. But it does leave plenty of room for his philosophy to proliferate.

When McDonald’s started using beef tallow in the 1950s, relatively little was known about the relationship between fat and heart health. Tallow was used because it was cheap and tasty. Previous animal studies had already hinted at a link between fat intake and heart disease. Subsequent research on humans pegged the correlation to saturated fat, which comes from animals and is typically solid at room temperature. In contrast, polyunsaturated fat, which is derived from plants and is generally liquid at room temperature, was found to reduce levels of the “bad” LDL cholesterol associated with increased risk of heart disease. By the 1970s, a large body of research had demonstrated that the typical American diet, high in saturated fat and cholesterol, was associated with a high risk of heart disease. The first U.S. dietary guidelines, released in 1980, recommended reducing total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol. (They also advocated for eating more carbohydrates, which backfired.) In 1988, a Nebraska-based businessman launched a passionate nationwide crusade calling on McDonald’s to end its use of tallow and stop its “poisoning of America.” (This rhetoric, like Kennedy’s, is an exaggeration, but at least it was rooted in reality.) In 1990, McDonald’s switched to 100 percent vegetable oil, as did chains such as Wendy’s and Burger King.

Read: Americans have lost the plot on cooking oil

The shift from saturated to polyunsaturated fats—not just in restaurants but in home kitchens—corresponded with major health gains in the United States. In 1962, Americans began to consume more vegetable fats, largely in the form of margarine; four years later, cardiovascular deaths began a decades-long decline. From 1940 to 1996, deaths from heart disease fell by 56 percent, and they continued falling through 2013, albeit at a lower rate. Although the decline can be partly attributed to factors such as better blood-pressure control and lower rates of smoking, “the increase in polyunsaturated fat is probably one of the primary factors, if not the primary factor, in dramatically reducing heart-disease death” as well as lowering the risk of diabetes, dementia, and total mortality, Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of nutrition and epidemiology, told me.

The research has continued to bear out the dangers of saturated fats—and, crucially, the benefits of replacing them with polyunsaturated ones. The most recent version of the U.S. dietary guidelines caps saturated fat intake at roughly 20 grams a day. Federal guidance holds that “the best way to protect your health is not just to limit saturated fat—it’s to replace it with healthier unsaturated fats.” That is to say, no one should be replacing their seed oils with beef tallow.

The arguments in favor of saturated fats can largely be split into three categories. The first questions the validity of the research that established the harms of saturated fats. Two commonly cited meta-analyses—studies of existing studies—published in 2010 and 2014 concluded that the evidence for consuming less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat was inconclusive. Both stoked fiery debates and rigorous scrutiny. A correction to the 2014 study essentially nullified its findings. Neither study accounted for what people ate in place of saturated fat. More to the point, the authors of these studies questioned the existing consensus on dietary fats—but did not call for the total elimination of seed oils from the American diet.

Read: The vindication of cheese, butter, and full-fat milk

The second category alleges the harms of seed oil. Some tallow truthers claim that consuming too much omega-6, a polyunsaturated fatty acid commonly found in seed oils, allows it to outcompete its more healthful cousin, omega-3, which is found in nuts and fish. But, according to Willett, the body’s regulatory mechanisms prevent such imbalances, and viewing individual fatty acids as competitors is “an extreme oversimplification of what actually goes on in our metabolic system.” The physician Catherine Shanahan’s book Dark Calories, an exhaustive account of the arguments against seed oil, posits that polyunsaturated seed oils promote oxidative stress, which drives all disease. When I asked Shanahan, popularly known as Dr. Cate, why this was not reflected in the existing scientific literature, she questioned its credibility. “They haven’t seen all the data,” she told me. “They’ve only seen what we’ve been fed.” Another popular wellness influencer known as Carnivore Aurelius, who advocates for an all-meat diet, has claimed without evidence that seed oils are “toxic sludge” that disrupts the functioning of mitochondria.

The third category, which is perhaps the most puzzling, comprises a bona fide enthusiasm for tallow—which, to be fair, makes a delicious french fry. Tallow, according to certain corners of the internet, can drive weight loss, boost the immune system, and improve cognition. (No substantial evidence exists to support any of these claims.) Americans aren’t just eating beef tallow—they’re also smearing it on their faces as a supposedly natural alternative to conventional moisturizer, despite a lack of scientific evidence, and, sometimes, the faint smell of cow.

The crux of the anti-seed-oil, pro-tallow position is a belief that the medical consensus on dietary fats is compromised by financial interests—of the seed-oil and medical industries, of universities, of the government. Suspicion of corporate interests is central to Kennedy’s views on health in general. His campaign to “Make America healthy again” is rooted in stamping out corruption in government health agencies. As I wrote previously, this anti-establishment attitude resonates throughout the wellness space: among seed-oil truthers, sure, but also proponents of raw milk, carnivorism, and alternative nutrition in general. Arguments for these dietary choices have been endlessly debunked by mainstream scientists and journalists. But such corrections will hold little sway over people who fundamentally distrust the data they are based on.

Read: ‘Make America Healthy Again’ sounds good until you start asking questions

For Kennedy and his supporters, the science isn’t really the point—bucking convention is. Rejecting the consensus about saturated fats makes a political statement. (As a bonus, it creates a market for Make Frying Oil Tallow Again crop tops, trucker caps, and dog bandanas.) But as far as scientists can tell, it’s not going to make anyone healthier. Between potatoes deep-fried in tallow or in seed oils, the latter is “for sure better,” Willett said. Still, no matter your political stance, no french fry is ever going to be healthy.

Source (Archive)
 
Just for the record, the entire "Saturated Fats are Bad for your heart," argument is based on a study by Ancel Keyes. If you actually read the study you'll find that is no actual link between saturated fats and heart disease, Keyes cherry picked only the countries that had an increase in saturated fat consumption and an increase in heart disease, but ignored the ones that showed increases in saturated fat consumption but no increase in heart disease or the other way around. Why would he do this, you ask? See, a small company named Proctor and Gamble had bought the rights to canola oil, but was finding it difficult to sell as a lubricant, but it was edible and it could be made into a butter substitute. No demand for that, Americans were happy with butter and animal fats, so P&G threw lots of money at Keyes study and wouldn't you know, his conclusion was exactly what P&G wanted, even if the actual research didn't add up. So the reason you eat garbage oils filled with shitty polyunsaturated fatty acids is because one of the first megacorporations wanted green line to go up. Laugh in the face of the "experts," they're always for sale.

Also for the record, what the study actually showed was that increased prosperity post-WWII lead to an increase in consumption of all food types, and the countries with the largest increase in consumption, especially in things like sugar, saw an increase in heart disease. Experts and academics are whores, anyone who believes them without thought or question is a retard and should consider removing themselves from the gene pool in whatever way you find suitable.
 
See, a small company named Proctor and Gamble had bought the rights to canola oil, but was finding it difficult to sell as a lubricant
Canola was not developed as a lubricant. Rapeseed was used as a lubricating oil because it had a bitter taste and high levels of uric acid, which can cause gout. Canola (CANadian Oilseed) is a cultivar of rapeseed which has low uric acid and milder flavour so that it can be used as cooking oil.
 
Canola was not developed as a lubricant. Rapeseed was used as a lubricating oil because it had a bitter taste and high levels of uric acid, which can cause gout. Canola (CANadian Oilseed) is a cultivar of rapeseed which has low uric acid and milder flavour so that it can be used as cooking oil.
Yes, technically P&G had licensed Rapeseed oil in general and was searching for a niche they could sell it in, which ever form it was in. I assume most people are just familiar with it as Canola and don't need it "Well Acktualied"
 
Just because we stopped doing something and then changed to something else, doesn't mean we should follow through by inertia. That's the core concept progressiveness, btw: what's new is good and better then going back because new is always better then old. It's not always the case.
 
Some tallow truthers claim that consuming too much omega-6, a polyunsaturated fatty acid commonly found in seed oils, allows it to outcompete its more healthful cousin, omega-3
This isn't the claim though*. This is a deliberate misrepresentation by the author.
You don't hate journalists enough.

*The assertion of the anti-seed-oil side isn't that it "out-competes". It's that our modern diet has a lot of omega-6s in it, and not enough omega-3s, so by avoiding seed oils you can keep that ratio closer to where it "should" be.
 
I ended up inheriting a 5 gallon bucket of fat that needed rendering about 6 months ago (relative that's a hunter couldn't be bothered to deal with it).

Food tastes better compared to using vegetable oils.

Also, apparently you can buy bacon grease at the grocery store (it's next to the lard). I'd rather just buy bacon and then save the drippings.
 
Just because we stopped doing something and then changed to something else, doesn't mean we should follow through by inertia. That's the core concept progressiveness, btw: what's new is good and better then going back because new is always better then old. It's not always the case.
I think that's what drives me crazy about this stuff. Innovation comes from iterative experimentation with self correction, you don't just keep pushing in one direction for progress without applying the scientific method. I guess we can ascertain that their progress is advertised falsely, and the core purpose is destruction of human prosperity and security.
 
I would bet a gorillion dollars that this "science writer" and "covid journalist" lecturing us on the unhealthiness of tallow, has also written pieces on how the morbidly obese ackchyually can be just as healthy as normal people, that working out too much is the real danger, and that those hyper-processed fake meat slops are good for you.
 
I would bet a gorillion dollars that this "science writer" and "covid journalist" lecturing us on the unhealthiness of tallow, has also written pieces on how the morbidly obese ackchyually can be just as healthy as normal people, that working out too much is the real danger, and that those hyper-processed fake meat slops are good for you.
Let's find out! Here are some more posts from Yasmin Tayag
 
The fat debate is a distraction from the fact that modern diet are all deficient in essential nutrients; micronutrients, fibers, etc.

Various human populations through history have been eating different amounts and ratios of (un)saturated fats and we still do not have conclusive evidence that any of them is "bad for you". The cholesterol levels as a sole biomarker for heart disease is retarded, it's all much more complex.

In any case, deep fried foods are definitely not healthy and advocating for changing the frying fat is retarded and missing the root problem. Imagine Kennedy saying deep fried foods like french fries should be banned. People would be outraged. He's just a sensationalist.
 
I think that's what drives me crazy about this stuff. Innovation comes from iterative experimentation with self correction, you don't just keep pushing in one direction for progress without applying the scientific method. I guess we can ascertain that their progress is advertised falsely, and the core purpose is destruction of human prosperity and security.
You can when you've turned academia into a fucking joke and poisoned people's minds into thinking they're the few and enlightened, because a fancy piece of paper says so. The new Twitter hotness is some lady posted her accomplishment to become a Doctor (PhD) type; you know what doctorate was about, if you think someone smells bad, you're probably a racist. Yes, I'm fucking serious.

Archive: https://archive.is/EDYap

Anyway, that aside, they've turned absolute mongoloid retards into the so-called educated betters, who look down on anyone with a dissenting opinion and claim to be the arbiters of truth because some fucking school says so. Without a single thought that they'd be for the ruination of Ignaz Semmelweis for daring to say washing your hands can prevent newborn illnesses; the medical community at the time ruined his life, despite him documenting his work. Or they'd be with the Catholic Church for putting Galileo on trial for suggesting that the Earth is not the center of the universe. The science has been settled, and any deviation will be met with severe penalties; whether it's hundreds of years ago or current.

All this shit aside, without getting into big brained studies and shit; I'd just compare and contrast society to the before and after seed oils. Sure, we're a lot more sedentary, and should exercise more; but the people who built nations and conquered the world did it on animal fats, not new age bullshit from a liar.
 
Last edited:
What I don't like about this article is that it's saturated fat vs. polyunsaturated fats. It's well known that too much polyunsaturated fat in your diet is also bad for you, especially for your liver, and promotes MASLD (used to be called NAFLD, but they changed it since they thought that the F [for Fatty] was stigmatizing, I shit you not). Monounsaturated fats are better for you than polyunsaturated fats, according to the most recent research, and the problem of a high poly-unsaturated diet are well researched going back 40 years. So, in order of fats that are best for you it should be: Mono > Poly > Saturated.
 
Last edited:
The biggest sign that RFK is right and knows what he is talking about is the deafening silence of the media and medical/food instrusty trying to destroy and discredit him on one of his biggest claims to fame, the one thing his book on Fauci spent almost 2/3rs of it's text on, and the thing that he has advocated the most since the mid 90's.

HIV is harmless. It has nothing to do with AIDS. AIDS as a disease is a case of industrial grifting by big pharma that knowingly killed people with wrong treatments until enough new doctors joined who tried new things, and then "suddenly" AIDS was no longer a death sentence.

Not one word on this. Not one paragraph of text. Not a single mention of this earth shattering "conspiracy theory" by RFK anywhere on these long winded attacks on the man. It makes no sense at all.

...Unless he is right. And giving him a chance to sperg out about it in public is too big of a risk for the shitshow it would cause.
 
Back