Talk:Vegetable oil

The redirect Partially hydrogenated oil has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 6 § Partially hydrogenated oil until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The column headed "ω-6:3 ratio" in the section 'Composition of fats' seems to have two things wrong with it. There are twenty entries in it and eighteen are numeric (with two as "very high" and one blank, since it would be the ratio of 0:0!) Nine of the entries ARE ratios, ie, they have two numbers separated by a colon, eg, 4.5:1, and nine are not. That's the first wrong thing, which is minor if the other nine could all have ":1" added, or the first nine could have their ":1" removed. The other wrong thing is that two other columns contain ω-6 and ω-3, and so this column might be expected to be the one divided by the other, and for those oils with the ":1" in the ratio column, it is. But for the other nine, it clearly isn't, so possibly two editors are editing this data with two different ideas in mind, but I am not a food scientist and I've no idea how to correct this. Nick Barnett (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In the Antiquity subsection of the History there's a mention of "Pagnol, p. 19". That's presumably Pagnol + Rey-Billeton: L'huile d'olive. Does anyone have a copy, to check if the page reference is right?

In the original edit, this mention was a comment associated with a reference (#7) to an archaeology paper by Galili et al. 2A04:B2C2:1000:D000:6190:DDED:FB55:DC37 (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The text on the article you are referring to is "Pagnol, p. 19, says the 6th millennium in Jericho, but cites no source". This is actually a mistake, p. 19 includes no text and only a photograph. I have read the book, here is a translation:

"Almost everywhere, archaeological discoveries have brought to light remains of mills, jar stores, etc., which show us the importance and development, from ancient times, of olive growing techniques in olive civilizations. In Jericho, 6,000 years BC. B.C., the wild olive tree already produced fruits and very fine oil. From the 3rd millennium, it was cultivated throughout the Fertile Crescent, a vast curve encompassing Egypt from the Nile to the Tigris, Palestine and Syria".

The above is from page 17 of the book. Olive oil is technically not a vegetable oil. I think the section needs an update with historical content on vegetable oils, I will have a look round for other sourcing. Veg Historian (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of the citations come from a unselective journal called Nutrients. A google will confirm this. This section needs a wider variety of citations and it needs to clarify whether the research was done on humans or animals. 131.191.32.105 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The reliability of Nutrients has been challenged here, but since two of the four citations in the section are to sources other than Nutrients, I do not think that, without other evidence, the removal of the section is justified. The content sourced to Nutrients is subject to removal or modification, particularly if reliable sources are available that support different content. I will mark the content sourced to Nutrients as needing better sources, but I don't have time right now for a deep dive into the subject. Donald Albury 14:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The other "sources" aren't any better, being if the same ilk. The whole section is poorly written, POV-pushing woo fest. It fails in tone and in content. I'm removing it. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've given the section a heavy trim; it had some dreadful, unreliable sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I just cut it out entirely. The entire section was inappropriate in tone and obviously POV of a FRINGE variety. The fact that it was full of style errors also indicates that it was added not to improve the encyclopedia but to make a point, one part of the seed oil misinformation industry. I appreciate and applaud your efforts to salvage the section, but the whole thing was fruit of the poisoned vine, essentially. oknazevad (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted this edit , poorly sourced misinformation. Veg Historian (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A type of ghee made with oil. Does it need a separate article or does this section just need shortened Sharnadd (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Vanaspati – a type of palm oil – has an article. For the general article on vegetable oil, including it is WP:UNDUE. Zefr (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe just a line about it on the page with link them or a see also Sharnadd (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. That article on Vanaspati is technically on the Sanskrit term with many uses and meanings. And, since Vanaspati is used as vegetable derived cooking oil, it deserves a short mention here on vegetable oil article. It cannot be added to Margarine article since both are very different. Yellowish solid/semi-solid margarine imitates butter while Vanaspati is often liquid like oil (or ghee), particularly at room temperatures in areas where it is used. Burhan.nameer (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should have a paragraph here, since it is used as cooking oil, and is different from margarine in everything discernable. The mention at Vanaspati (word) page should be ideally directional. Burhan.nameer (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Vanaspati is a substitute for Ghee in South Asia like Margarine is a substitute for Butter in The West. Also, Vanaspati is technically hydrogenated vegetable oil. So, I would say the section would be justified. Burhan.nameer (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

maybe a line or two rather than an entire section Sharnadd (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I propose adding a short, neutrally worded section or paragraph to the "Health effects" section of the Seed Oil page, addressing concerns raised by researchers and commentators about bias and methodological issues in the scientific literature surrounding seed oils. This is a notable issue discussed in reputable secondary sources, and would improve the balance of the article.

Suggested Text: Some researchers have expressed concern about potential bias in the literature surrounding the health effects of seed oils. Critics argue that industry funding and methodological practices such as selective data reporting may influence study outcomes, particularly in observational nutrition research. These concerns parallel historical examples of industry influence in nutrition science, such as the sugar industry's role in shaping dietary guidelines in the mid-20th century.[1][2]

Supporting Sources: Teicholz, Nina. The scientific report guiding the US dietary guidelines: is it scientific? BMJ 2015;351:h4962. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4962

Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680–1685. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394

Ioannidis, J.P.A. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 2620:DF:8000:4782:0:2:819E:A479 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no mainstream scientific consensus or even doubt among reliable sources about the safety of seed oils. The sources you provide here have nothing to do with seed oil safety. See seed oil misinformation. Zefr (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Corn Oil Global Consumption at 3.38 million metric tons (https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/8-most-consumed-edible-oils-in-the-world-1182015/), it seems to me that corn should be on the list. (And not all that long ago, it had a much higher share, of course.) Drsruli (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)