My problem with statements like this is that they attempt to reinforce the image some have of science as some sort of omniscience. We have been condition to believe whatever science tells us, that science is infallible, and it is just not true. Actually, practically everything we have know as fact through science has later been disproved by, you guessed it, science. In fact, most of the great scientists from antiquity are remembered precisely for going against the established science of the day.
Unfortunately, this has been made worse by the way science has been poisoned by politics and ideological crusaders. An example from the Wall Street Journal:
The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease
Are butter, cheese and steak really bad for you? The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade
“Saturated fat does not cause heart disease”—or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. How could this be? The very cornerstone of dietary advice for generations has been that the saturated fats in butter, cheese and red meat should be avoided because they clog our arteries. For many diet-conscious Americans, it is simply second nature to opt for chicken over sirloin, canola oil over butter.
The new study’s conclusion shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with modern nutritional science, however. The fact is, there has never been solid evidence for the idea that these fats cause disease. We only believe this to be the case because nutrition policy has been derailed over the past half-century by a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias.