“…I continued my letter by explaining how analytical mistakes were responsible for this 'proof ' and concluded that the article should never have been published. -I do not mind articles being subjective because research itself is a subjective activity, but I object to articles being biased, or even misleading for commercial reasons and that is how I would characterise the comparison between the chemically catalysed and the enzymatically catalysed interesterification in an otherwise excellent article [63]. Moreover, when these biased statements are repeated often enough, they start to lead a life of their own and tend to be no longer questioned.…”