Except that this is reductionist science at its best. There&#x27;s not enough evidence to conclude that omega-6 is considered bad for our health.<p>What may be important is <i>the balance</i> between omega-3 and omega-6 in one&#x27;s diet, with omega-6 ending up having negative consequences when one ingests too much simply because those same people aren&#x27;t ingesting enough foods with omega-3.<p>Basically when speaking of food, humans have a finite capacity to eat, so if you eat too much of something, then you eat less of something else.<p>This may be the case for vegetables versus meat. It&#x27;s generally accepted that too much meat is bad for our health, but the cause is completely unknown. And it&#x27;s certainly not the fats, as we&#x27;ve been led to believe. Eating too much meat may be unhealthy simply because those people aren&#x27;t eating enough vegetables.<p>Want to bet that in 4-5 years tops the current beliefs with those fatty acids will be turned on its head? There&#x27;s no science that has failed us more than nutritional science. Pick any cult, any religions, any of the superstitions that have survived for hundreds or thousands of years and you&#x27;ve got something healthier than nutritional science because people have survived those cults and superstitions, yet it&#x27;s becoming clear that nutritional science is responsible for the obesity epidemics ;-)