The Associated Press (Left) showed strong bias in a recent piece covering the debate over seed oils. AP showed types of bias including slant, bias by viewpoint, word choice bias, spin, and bias by omission. Instead of helping readers to get a full understanding of the debate over vegetable oils, AP manipulated them into thinking seed oil critics are unfounded. Here’s how.

The bias starts in AP’s headline, “Kennedy and influencers bash seed oils, baffling nutrition scientists.” By pitting “influencers” against “scientists,” AP suggests there’s a scientific consensus in favor of seed oil consumption, and that no reputable scientists are critical of it, showing bias by word choice, slant, and viewpoint omission. Words like “bash” and “baffling” are also spin words that sensationalize.

AP’s piece does not directly name or quote any nutrition scientists who believe seed oils may have negative health impacts. It also displays imbalanced sourcing: AP mentions a study that reportedly found “people who ate the highest amounts of butter had a 15% higher risk of dying than those who ate the least,” but it does not mention any studies or examinations critical of the guidance to reduce saturated fats — nor does it give proper context on the financial connection between proponents and sellers of seed oils.

The Debate

The idea that saturated fat (found in sources like butter, olive oil, tallow, avocado oil, and coconut oil) causes cardiovascular disease has guided American nutrition policy since the mid 20th century, with major health authorities like the American Heart Association   (AHA) recommending Americans limit their consumption. But some nutrition scientists have questioned that guidance, and some social media influencers have argued against seed oil consumption in recent years. It was only after U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. highlighted the issue that mainstream outlets like AP News began to cover it.

AP’s Bias on Seed Oils

In a somewhat subtle show of bias by word choice, AP repeatedly states that “nutrition scientists” and “experts” are “baffled” by seed oil critique; meanwhile, it only identifies seed oil critics as “internet influencers, wellness gurus, and politicians.” By refusing to name or directly quote nutrition scientists who are critical of American public health guidance and a food industry that heavily relies on seed oils, AP downplays those voices, making them appear less authoritative.

In a show of bias by omission, AP also omits any background information on how American dietary guidelines on this issue came to be — including a major financial conflict of interest at the heart of the American Heart Association (AHA)’s recommendation. It only includes the benefits of seed oils, but cons of fruit oils.

Nina Teicholz, PhD. and founder of The Nutrition Coalition, reports that the idea that saturated fats cause heart disease was introduced in the 1950s by Ancel Keys, a physiologist at the University of Minnesota. Keys then influenced Paul Dudley White, a cardiologist and the personal doctor for President Dwight D. Eisenhower. When Eisenhower suffered his first heart attack in September 1955, White elevated the idea that diet was to blame for heart disease, and guided Eisenhower into a new diet that was low in cholesterol and saturated fats; the president shunned butter for margarine.

White had been a founder of The American Heart Association (AHA), and Eisenhower had hosted fundraisers for the large nonprofit at the White House. 

“Throughout the 1950s, the AHA had resisted giving advice on heart disease prevention, citing a lack of evidence, yet in 1960, Keys was appointed to the group's nutrition committee, and one year later, although no greater evidence could be cited, he had convinced his colleagues to recommend his idea as official AHA policy,” Teicholz writes. “Thus, from 1961 on, the AHA recommended that all men (and subsequently women) decrease their consumption of saturated fat, replacing these fats whenever possible with polyunsaturated vegetable oils, as the most promising measure of protection against heart disease.”

In 1977, the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs formally recommended Americans should reduce their consumption of total and saturated fat. 

The Associated Press notes none of this history, and also does not note the conflict of interest that was at play when the guidelines were officially adopted: “It is worth noting that the AHA had a significant conflict of interest, since in 1948, it had received $1.7 million, or about $20 million in today's dollars, from Procter & Gamble (P&G), the makers of Crisco oil,” Teicholz writes. “This donation was transformative for the AHA, propelling what was a small group into a national organization; the P&G funds were the ‘bang of big bucks’ that ‘launched’ the group, according to the organization's own official history. Vegetable oils such as Crisco have reaped the benefits of this recommendation ever since, as Americans increased their consumption of these oils by nearly 90% from 1970 to 2014.”

AP also does not note the drop in trust between the public and public health authorities since COVID-19. Trust in the Centers for Disease Control, for instance, dropped 26% since the onset of the Covid response, according to Axios (Lean Left)/Ipsos (though a majority of Americans still trust the CDC). Skeptics don't trust government guidance and its ability to keep us safe in a post-Covid world, during which public guidance like masks and lockdowns was highly controversial. By oversimplifying a complex debate like the one on seed oils, skeptics feel lied to, eroding public trust even further.

By giving the impression there are no reputable scientists who are critical of seed oil consumption, omitting important historical details, and refusing to report on studies that may back up critics’ arguments, AP does not give readers a broad view on the seed oil issue that would help them to decide what they think for themselves.

Julie Mastrine is the Director of Marketing and Media Bias Ratings at AllSides. She has a Lean Right bias.

This piece was reviewed by Henry Brechter, Editor-in-chief (Center bias), and Evan Wagner, Product Manager (Lean Left bias).