https://www.amazon.com/Death-Food-Pyramid-Politics-Interests...
With this kind of "science" in our history it isn't surprising that many don't believe today's climate scientists.
The usual pattern of research is for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be performed to confirm or deny trends identified in observational studies. In the case of SFAs however, there have already been a number of RCTs performed; and even a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses pooling their outcomes (e.g. 6-11). This raises the immediate question, why are observational studies still being produced on the subject? It is notable that the evidence from these RCT’s and meta-analyses does not support the conclusions of the Harvard Group’s observational data. For example, a recent Cochrane review (the gold-standard of evidence) found that there was no statistical difference in all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality in participants with higher SFA intake (12).
Dietary fat has been shown to be healthy over and over again. There's nothing controversial about saying dietary fat is good for you; it is established science at this point.
I believe what the quote was trying to say about saturated fat is that they feel it is less dangerous than carbohydrates and sugars, and while the UK food industry has been busy trying to reduce the amount of saturated fat, they've sometimes been replacing them with sugar/carbohydrate ingredients which could be even worse for your health.
It is frankly disappointing that even thirty years later, many people still believe that dietary fat is unhealthy.