Your stainless steel, high carbon steel, and cast iron pans require using a small amount of oil/butter to have nonstick cooking properties.
Non-stick was popular well before the early 2000s, its popularity is not due to any “war on natural fats” that occurred at that time. (And the early ’00s is late for that, anyway.)
Non-stick is (and has been for a long time) most popular for particular forms of cooking that use natural fats, whereas particular steel designs (sometimes referred to as “waterless” because of their properties in other applications) were specifically promoted (including in the early 2000s, though they were around before and remain on the market now) as eliminating the need to use fats as one would with conventional and non-stick cookware.
Saturated fats were and remain to be generally thought unhealthy (if we say things like 'all' or 'always', we're almost certainly spreading misinformation; the world doesn't work that way). Other fats (polyunsaturates and monounsaturates) are believed to be healthy or neutral. There is ongoing uncertainty and debate; the degrees and nuances change; we don't get sure, hyperbolic answers.
https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/well/fda-healthy-food.htm...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/well/good-fats-bad-fats.h...
I'm not a grammar and spelling critic, but I'm going to be a style critic here (sorry to the parent; lots of people write this way): Hyperbole commonly leads to misinformation. 'War', 'all fat', 'nutritionists declared', 'bad' etc. divert us to an emotional, adversarial contest with a strawperson enemy, rather than into the pursuit of truth, whose object is always nuanced and whose pursuit is difficult enough as it is.
No, it's pushing hyperbole. It tells the world your emotional position - you think it was a war. Let's try something more factual, that reveals the underlying issues - if we know the facts.
Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point. Look at the NYT article on the FDA's plans, for example.
The first paragraph of the introduction, in case you don't have access:
> Since medical research first established a potential link between dietary fat intake, obesity, and cardiovascular disease [1], multiple components of the public health continuum have waged war on dietary fat. That war has generally been successful, not necessarily at preventing obesity or heart disease but at convincing Americans that dietary fat is bad for us.
Don't you see the impact of the Internet and its dialog on our society? Let's do something better.
It doesn't read as if they're describing their own position, emotional or not. It's a characterization of the public messaging surrounding dietary fat.
Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point
Yes, that's mainly because of aforementioned public messaging.
> It's a characterization of the public messaging surrounding dietary fat.
Hyperbole is characterization, reflecting the author's emotional state.
If I had to have a single pan, I’d probably go high carbon steel.
Canola oil looks like a superfood when you swap butter for it in the literature.
We knew that in the early 2000s, too. And in the early 1990s, which is more when when the war on fats was actually happening; by the early ’00s, the diet trend had focused on low-carb diets, reversing the war on fats.
Perhaps it's only a reminder how much the zeitgeist may be divorced from science, or how little impact the latter actually has on the former unless it's convenient. Though that's for another discussion.