How to Lie with Facts
In early 2025, a food industry group made an odd discovery: 28% of Americans avoid seed oils in their diets, more than twice the proportion who believe seed oils are unhealthy (13%).1 Given that the same set of respondents provided both answers, it seems that a substantial portion of the population has made a dietary choice based on a claim they don’t actually believe.
Anti–seed oil sentiment is common on social media. Fitness and health influencers warn of their supposed dangers, often going so far as to recommend viewers instead use tallow and lard, which have actually been linked to higher risks of heart disease.2 In reality, studies have consistently shown that seed-derived fats can have positive effects on heart health, cholesterol levels, and inflammation.3
Opponents of seed oils often cite facts that are true in isolation but do not prove their loaded point. They claim, for instance, that canola oil is often used in unhealthy processed snacks. This is correct, but those snacks are generally considered unhealthy because of their high fat and sugar content, not because of the type of fat they use.4 Another argument centers on the chemical processing required to produce canola products. Yes, canola oil is more heavily processed than olive oil, but food processing is not inherently harmful. Pasteurization, pressure cooking, and vitamin fortification are all forms of processing that improve foods rather than degrade them.
As we explored in the previous installment, true information deprived of context can lead us to false conclusions. “Malinformation,” as it’s called, is true information presented in a way that distorts understanding, distinct from misinformation (falsehoods shared unwittingly) and disinformation (falsehoods shared deliberately). Malinformation sits in a subtler, more treacherous space: it’s clothed in correctness, feels credible, and is difficult to refute without sounding pedantic. This is what makes it so dangerous and so effective.
If we are to understand our place in a world of decontextualized information, we need to figure out why malinformation is so persuasive and how we can resist it.
A Psychological Glitch
So if people aren’t steering clear of seed oils because they’ve been proven harmful, why do they avoid them? The answer lies in how we process information.
Humans cannot carefully dissect every claim we encounter; we simply do not have enough time or cognitive bandwidth. Instead, we rely on heuristics—mental shortcuts that save effort but introduce bias. If information comes from someone we trust, we’re more likely to believe it. Likewise, if we hear something repeatedly, we assume it’s socially accepted, which makes it seem more accurate.
A study on the persistence of misinformation illustrates this. Participants were shown a series of health claims labeled as true or false. Immediately afterwards, most recalled the accuracy of each claim correctly. But a day later, many remembered the false statements as true. Familiarity alone had made the lies feel real.5
A person who avoids seed oils despite having no strong opinions on them may have simply absorbed a steady drip of doubtful claims—half-truths repeated in videos, captions, and conversations. They might recall that “some oils are bad for you” without remembering which, or why. Faced with uncertainty, they take the seemingly cautious route and say no to seed oils altogether. It feels rational, even if it isn’t.
Reinforcement
All of these problems are amplified when individuals have reasons to want certain things to be true. As media theorist Joseph Klapper described in his 1960 dissertation, people reinforce their preexisting beliefs in multiple ways. We actively seek information that supports what we already think, ignore what challenges us, focus on agreeable details even within contradictory messages, and preferentially remember facts that validate our worldview.6
In this feedback loop, context is the first casualty. People opposed to processed foods, for example, will highlight the industrial methods used to make canola oil but disregard the health benefits supported by studies. Meanwhile, those favoring “natural” diets give extra weight to anecdotes that match their ideals, even when the underlying evidence is neutral or nonexistent.
Malinformation spreads so easily because it doesn’t have to invent facts—only rearrange them. By stripping away the framing that gives data meaning, bad actors can make the truth work against itself. Statistics, images, and quotes become raw materials for persuasion rather than illumination.
The Challenge of Resisting Distortion
Because malinformation is so easy to spread, organizations that want to communicate truth constructively must work harder. Facts alone rarely change minds; clarity, compassion, and repetition do.
That means putting accuracy in context and using the same behavioral insights that make malinformation sticky. Present facts in relatable language. Repeat them often. Source them from trusted messengers. And most of all, explain why they matter, because a truth without relevance is quickly forgotten, while a charismatically presented half-truth will linger.
In an information ecosystem that rewards virality over veracity, the truth must learn to play offense. It has to be not just right, but resonant.
