Except that this is reductionist science at its best. There's not enough evidence to conclude that omega-6 is considered bad for our health. What may be import

Except that this is reductionist science at its best. There's not enough evidence to conclude that omega-6 is considered bad for our health. What may be important is the balance between omega-3 and omega-6 in one's diet, with omega-6 ending up having negative consequences when one ingests too much simply because those same people aren't ingesting enough foods with omega-3. 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. This may be the case for vegetables versus meat. It's generally accepted that too much meat is bad for our health, but the cause is completely unknown. And it's certainly not the fats, as we've been led to believe. Eating too much meat may be unhealthy simply because those people aren't eating enough vegetables. Want to bet that in 4-5 years tops the current beliefs with those fatty acids will be turned on its head? There'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've got something healthier than nutritional science because people have survived those cults and superstitions, yet it's becoming clear that nutritional science is responsible for the obesity epidemics ;-)