It's the author using vague language to try to establish that their research is what's called "generalizable." In science, if a study or result has applications outside the lab, then it's considered "generalizable" (aka, of practical value). Examples of science which aren't generalizable would be things like what's called "basic science," where you're determining fundamental laws of nature (which is still crucially important, it just doesn't have immediate practical significance), or maybe some behavioral study whose results don't apply except for absurdly specific conditions that will never occur outside a professor's lab. Frankly, I haven't read the study - can't access it, thanks Elsevier /s - so this may very well fall within the latter category. If, however, the study is generalizable, then you could use it to draw conclusions about fats in natural settings and circumstances, and whether or not they should be there. For instance, assuming that the study is correct and that you want just and less corrupt social systems, don't put fats in positions of power. Or trivial positions. Or associate with them at all, really.