The author should write a similar article about himself, because the whole article is filled with dubious claims and misguided evidence. The two main claims are "Since the GI is a measure of how much of a negative response your body has to certain sugars" and "research showing harms from canola oil". Neither can be ascertained. A big problem with nutritional science is that it's complex, therefore it is neigh impossible to discover the truth how specific foods really impact the body. I'm also of the opinion that the term "healthy" shouldn't be really used. Here I go with Paracelsus: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."
The author invites us to his newsletter "on getting healthy, wealthy, and wise." Yeah, it's all a baseless marketing ploy by, and for, the author.
I want to note, I'm making no argument that Oatly should be considered healthy though.
I want to note, I'm making no argument that Oatly should be considered healthy though.