Opinion: There are worse things than butter
By Mark Bittman, New York Times
Julia Child, goddess of fat, is beaming somewhere. Butter is back, and when you’re looking for a few chunks of pork for a stew, you can resume searching for the best pieces — the ones with the most fat. Eventually, your friends will stop glaring at you as if you’re trying to kill them.
That the worm is turning became increasingly evident a couple of weeks ago, when a meta-analysis published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that there’s just no evidence to support the notion that saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease. (In fact, there’s some evidence that a lack of saturated fat may be damaging.) The researchers looked at 72 different studies and, as usual, said more work — including more clinical studies — is needed. For sure. But the days of skinless chicken breasts and tubs of I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! may finally be drawing to a close.
The tip of this iceberg has been visible for years, and we’re finally beginning to see the base. Of course, no study is perfect and few are definitive. But the real villains in our diet — sugar and ultra-processed foods — are becoming increasingly apparent. You can go back to eating butter, if you haven’t already.
Which is why anybody who claims “the science is settled”, is NO scientist! The “facts” change all the time, with new and better information. It’s been that way throughout our history.
But as to butter, about 30 years ago, a very smart friend pointed out to me that I had a choice. I could use butter, and maybe die of heart disease, or use margarine, and maybe die of cancer. I choose the heart attack! Haven’t used anything but real butter since!
Wrong.
The science is settled. The earth is much older than 20,000 years.
Which people said ‘the science is settled’?
Is this another one of your straw-men?
New and better information is one thing. Corporate manipulation, and cherry picking of ‘experts’, and research criteria is another.