Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Chemistry => Topic started by: miriam0920 on 25/11/2008 00:15:55

Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 25/11/2008 00:15:55
When my husband started buying Canola oil I thought he was buying something safe for us.  Unfortunately, a few months later I found out he was feeding us with some rare kind of poison.  Canola oil is produce in Canada from rapeseed.  It is said to be poisonous to human consumption. I am very concern with trans fat and all other man-made ingredients.  Canola oil is the cheapest cooking oil in the market and unfortunately, available only to the poorest people.  Please don't buy this product.  Best choices is Olive Oil 100% pure, extra virgin. 
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Chemistry4me on 25/11/2008 00:19:49
That is correct
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2008 19:14:44
No it's not.
The food grade oil is made from plants that don't produce the toxic compounds that the wild types do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola

As for "Canola oil is the cheapest cooking oil in the market and unfortunately, available only to the poorest people. ",. What are yuou talking about? I can buy the stuff and I'm a long way from "the poorest people".

Please don't spread this sort of nonsense

What's the point of telling people (many of whom simply cant afford it) that olive oil is the best?
For a start it doesn't do a good job for deep fat frying.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 25/11/2008 21:14:24
In reply to your post Mr. Bored Chemist.  I have nothing to do with commercial oil supplies or anything like it.  I am sending a message out there that let's people be more aware of what they are digesting.  Reason for so many disease are what we eat, drink and breathe. 

Canola oil is a product that compare to other cooking oils is the cheapest, with that only let it ring a bell. Mostly all the cooking oil are partially hydrogenated soy.  I understand that "partially hydrogenated" stands out to "trans-fat."  Why you do think companies are now proclaiming "NO TRANS-FAT" in their commercial labels?  Because people are investigating, they know that trans-fat is a man-made fat that the body doesn't know how to dissolved. 

If you want to read about warning google it.  Go to "google.com" and write Canola Oil.  Read for yourself. 

I don't think that if I want to help somebody to eat healthier is nonsense.

Oh and also don't deep fry when you can steam.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2008 22:35:08
What is this "I have nothing to do with commercial oil supplies or anything like it." a reply to?
Nobody said anything else.

"Canola oil is a product that compare to other cooking oils is the cheapest"
Some sort of oil has to be cheapest.

"Mostly all the cooking oil are partially hydrogenated soy. "
Well, if that's true then since, as you say, hydrogenated oils are often high in trans fatty acids (which seems not to be a good thing) it would be better to use some other oil
Canola oil would fit the bill. It's used as-is rather than hydrogenated.

" Why you do think companies are now proclaiming "NO TRANS-FAT" in their commercial labels? "
Because there is evidence that trans fats are a bad thing.
So what?
Canola oil isn't a good sourse of trans fats.
"Because people are investigating, they know that trans-fat is a man-made fat that the body doesn't know how to dissolved."
Well, it's more complex than that but it's fair to say that trans fats are a by product of fat processing and there's evidence they are bad for you.


WTF does this have to do with canola? Wild type rapeseed oil has a relatively high trans fatty acid content. But Canola has been bred specifically not to. Did you read the wiki article? It explains the name "The word "canola" was derived from "Canadian oil, low acid""

"If you want to read about warning google it.  Go to "google.com" and write Canola Oil.  Read for yourself.  "

I did. That's how I found the wiki article I cited earlier. That wiki article in turn features a report saying canola is full of trans fatty acids.  The organisation that produced the report also says  (on their website)  that "It contains "the infamous chemical warfare agent mustard gas" which simply isn't true.
Now I obviously can't vouch for all the world's oil, but I have seen analyses of biodiesel made from rapeseed oil that had very low levels of erucic acid (the alledged source of the problems). So, even industrial oil hasn't got the stuff in it. Why would it be in the food chain?

Telling people about healthy food isn't nonsense but this is "Canola oil is the cheapest cooking oil in the market and unfortunately, available only to the poorest people."

Lots of people like fried food (I'm one of them) not all of them can afford olive oil and it would be dumb to use it for frying because it ruins the flavour.


Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 25/11/2008 23:18:31
"Lots of people like fried food (I'm one of them) not all of them can afford olive oil and it would be dumb to use it for frying because it ruins the flavour."  Ever wonder why Olive oil is so expensive?  What is the difference between expensive things and cheap things?  I have an answer:  quality.


Wiki is a website that anybody can add or delete information.  Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Just so you know. 



 

Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: rosy on 26/11/2008 09:21:08
Quote
What is the difference between expensive things and cheap things?  I have an answer:  quality.
Rubbish. The difference between expensive things and cheap things is a combination of the supply:demand ratio and the costs of production. Quality naturally affects how many people want to buy the stuff, and for similar products it may cost more to improve quality... but as a bald statement that's just ill thought-out nonsense.


Quote
Wiki is a website that anybody can add or delete information.  Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Just so you know.
True. But where it links to an external websites it is a helpful ready reference to
links posted by people on both sides of a given article (and the chat page can be extremely informative).
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 26/11/2008 10:34:12
What is the difference between expensive things and cheap things?  I have an answer:  quality.
Wiki is a website that anybody can add or delete information.  Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Just so you know. 

Two things:

The cost of products such as these is more likely to be related to yields and costs per hectare - rapeseed grows in fields, olives in orchards. Quality is subjective and not a factor here.

Wiki is as you say, open to all, that does not make it intrinsically unreliable. In the fields of science and technology at least, responsible contributors make sure their input is accurate and quote citations. I have contributed myself to a biographical entry; it was only the publishing date of a rare book, by the subject, that I owned - but it was 100% accurate.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Chemistry4me on 26/11/2008 10:43:59
This is from the actual Wiki site, I'll let people decide for themselves whether its reliable or not.

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world; anyone can edit it. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites, attracting at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages. As of today, there are 2,636,350 articles in English; every day hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to enhance the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.

Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed (see Researching with Wikipedia for more details). However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 26/11/2008 12:27:51
This in no way detracts from its value - which will never be authoritative as the paper-based sources, but it makes up for this in its accessibility.

What better way to teach youngsters how to distinguish good from bad data?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Evie on 26/11/2008 18:13:52
Just to illustrate the potential misinformation regarding canola oil, it was a topic for a CHAIN EMAIL (which we all know are almost always misleading if not downright wrong).

It was addressed on Snopes.com which debunks hoax emails. Here is a link to the article:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp


Another site that has investigated the canola health issues is: http://web.archive.org/web/20010809065733/www.cansa.co.za/facts_myths_diet_canola.asp

"After analysing the statements of John Thomas and Prof Bruce MacDonald as well as consulting textbooks, Medline, The Merck Index and other sources of information, I am satisfied that this attack on Canola Oil is without substance and is a travesty of the truth."

And from the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00198.html

It is of course within anyone's rights to stop eating something they don't feel comfortable with and to pass along information to others. I just prefer to do a lot of research before perpetuating a claim such as this.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2008 20:14:23
I know Wiki isn't entirely reliable.
What we need is someone with personal experience of having analysed the stuff.

Sorry if this sounds like bragging, but I really feel that I fit the bill better than Miriam0920 does.

Does anyone else out there have any real observational data rather than just a link to a website that may, or may not, tell the thruth?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 26/11/2008 22:36:21
Whoever wants to consume  and cook with Canola oil and feed their family you can do so.  It's your choice and something that maybe you can even save a couple of bucks.  I won't never eat something that is made out of toxic plants even it they say they clean the plant and extracted the toxin in it. 
Maybe the correct way to research this is not by reading, but by actually interviewing people using one oil and the other.  Look for the percentage of sick versus healthy.  I don't come here to win or lose a posting.  I come here in honest faith to help people make the right choices.  I am studying to become a chemist because it's a passion burning inside of me.  How many millions or billions of women suffer from cellulite?  This is not because how much they eat its because what they eat.  All these trans-fat in the food and all those man-made ingredients has cause women's body to suffer this horrible disease that is Cellulite (cottage cheese thighs and buttocks).  You don't see African women with Cellulite.  They don't eat processed foods.  Everything is natural.  Men don't know what it is to store fat in this horrible way.   

Companies profit from what they sell.  If this large company with billions of dollars comes and read something bad about their product, believe me they will pay to publish three hundreds articles refuting and denying the existing articles, that's called marketing. 

Let those who have ears hear.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2008 07:10:45
"I won't never eat something that is made out of toxic plants even it they say they clean the plant and extracted the toxin in it.  "

So, no rhubard, potatos, peaches, apricots, almonds, tomatos, tappioca, or apple for you then.
"Maybe the correct way to research this is not by reading, but by actually interviewing people using one oil and the other.  Look for the percentage of sick versus healthy." Maybe, but there are a lot of confounding variables so it would be very difficult.
"Men don't know what it is to store fat in this horrible way.   "
The men with cellulite do.

It's not a matter of "winning the posting" It's a matter of saying things that are correct.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 27/11/2008 11:53:55
You don't see African women with Cellulite.  They don't eat processed foods.  Everything is natural.  Men don't know what it is to store fat in this horrible way.   

In the San bushmen the women are steatopygous - that is, they store fat on their thighs. I'm sure if anyone has a mind to, pictures of this can be found on the Net. The proportions can be quite massive.

In evolutionary terms, I wonder how this feature came to only one human group - and if it was more widespread, what caused its disappearance?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 27/11/2008 19:22:33
So BC thinks I am inventing this? 
Here are some websites and reports that I've read:

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/canola.htm

http://www.ithyroid.com/canola_oil.htm

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/canola.htm


If the reports are true or not just use your own judgment.

Happy thanksgiving to all!


Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 27/11/2008 19:26:39
Blake, I didn't find photos of these women can you send a link?  I would like to see it. 

thanks.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2008 20:07:20
Miriam,
I don't think you are inventing it; I think you are parroting it from people who are.

OK to help those who wish to look at those sites and make up their own minds here's some further information.

The first thing the first site says is this "Canola oil comes from the rape seed, which is part of the mustard family of plants. Rape is the most toxic of all food-oil plants"
Simply not true. Apricot kernels are used for oil production and have sky high cyanide levels. Now, I grant that castor oil isn't generally used as a foodstuff, but they do use it industrially.
Castor beans make ricin- just about the most toxic material known.

By the way, do you like cashew nuts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew_nutshell_liquid


It goes on to rehash the lie that "Rape oil is also the source of the infamous chemical-warfare agent , mustard gas, which was banned after blistering the lungs and skin of hundreds of thousands of solders and civilians during WW1."
The source of the mustard gas produced was a factory on Wigg island near Runcorn (there were other factories too). No plant, rape or otherwise produces it.

If these sites are legitimate why do they tell lies like this?

The second site says (after a few paragraphs "It was thought this was how "Mad Cow" began and started to infiltrate the human
chain. What is interesting is that when rape oil was removed from animal feed,
'scrapie' disappeared."

Scrapie, while it's becoming rarer has not disapeared, so the second site tells lies too.

Even if the assertion were true, it might not mean anything. The pound coin was introduced in 1983- roughly the same time. Is it responsible for the reduction of cases of scrapie? Of course not. Just because 2 things happen at the same time doesn't mean one causes the other.

The third site says this "The reason canola is particularly unsuited for consumption is because it contains a very–long–chain fatty acid called erucic acid,"
Erucic acid is a C20 acid- not that much longer than, for example the (C18) oleic acid that is the major fatty acid in olive oil. Rather shorter than the behenic(C22) acid found in some nut oils. Any takers for nervonic acid? A C24 acid and a vital component of the brain.


There are problems associated with the stuff but why trust a website that blames these on the length of the molecule (which isn't unusual) rather than on the fact that it's a trans fatty acid (which is unusual for a natural product)?

The talk of erucic acid is beside the point anyway.
It is not present (or barely present) in oils used for food.
Who cares if diesel oil is toxic?
I don't drink it.
If I did, the rapeseed oil version would still be less toxic than the petroleum based version.








Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 27/11/2008 21:13:10
Blake, I didn't find photos of these women can you send a link?  I would like to see it. 

thanks.

After some scratching about I found these. Most sites appear to have drawings from anthopology texts.

barclay1720.tripod.com/hist/paleo/buttocks.htm

There is one forum member who might have something to say if ever he sees this:
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 27/11/2008 21:17:43
miriam0920

Most sites had drawings from anthropolgy texts but I found these, though they aren't as large as some I've seen in the past. There are more if you do a Google advanced image search.

http://barclay1720.tripod.com/hist/paleo/buttocks.htm

There is one forum member who might have something to say if ever he sees this. [;D]
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 27/11/2008 23:06:11
Twa pygmies have large buttocks too. They live in the forests on the Uganda/Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) border. If I remember correctly, they are hunter/gatherers and only come into the towns to trade for cultivated products. I didn't get to that part of the country very often so I don't know a great deal more about them.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 28/11/2008 05:20:55
BC, its okay to contradict what I write, but lets keep name calling away from the discussion.  Just because you have a different opinion then I, doesn't mean you need to offend me.  I don't parrot thing because I am not a bird.  Saying I repeat nonsense is inappropriate.  Just because you studied chemistry doesn't mean you know all the meaning and can interpret all what's going around the world.  Probably you skip Behaviour Manners 101.  If what I wrote was not to your agreement a little "Miriam please make sure you know all the fact before coming to a conclusion," would sound better than what you initially wrote.  You're not only a bored chemist but a bitter one too.

Blake thank you for the information. 
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2008 07:01:08
Miriam, I don't think it's good manners to keep posting nonsense about canola on a scientific website after it has been made quite clear to you that it is nonsense. For what it's worth, would you have been as offended if I had used the word "copied" rather than "parrotted"?
What about "aped"?

Have you st opped eating potatoes and apples?

Do you think the men with cellulite don't understand what it's like?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 28/11/2008 08:00:48
Quote
You're not only a bored chemist but a bitter one too.

All he's done is critically analyse your claims, which is to be expected on a science forum. Unfortunately some people take being shown to be wrong as some sort of personal attack. So instead of replying with an Ad-hominem attack, why not retort on the actual points of argument?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 28/11/2008 09:28:25
The problem with communication like this is that in normal face-to-face conversation 70% of the message is non-verbal, so that in forum dialogue we only get 30% of the message - therein lies misunderstanding.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 28/11/2008 11:00:01
Body language and the tone of your voice etc. is indeed an important factor in communicating face-to-face, but I reckon this would apply more to general conversation/socializing rather than this kind of debate style of conversation wouldn't it? Face-to-face, you could perhaps get the same message across without thinking about your wording so much, but this format has the advantage that you have time to think about how to best articulate your message to get it across coherently.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 28/11/2008 11:54:29
Good point, I agree. But it's predicated on people taking the time to do that - I don't mean this pejoratively - but not all contributors read what they've put before they press the post button!
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 28/11/2008 13:17:14
Face-to-face you can whack them with a monkfish if they argue!  [:D]
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 28/11/2008 15:01:17
I do eat potatoes and apples because they grow naturally.  I use Olive oil because they come from the olive tree, I use corn oil because it comes from the corn, what I don't use is Canola oil that comes from rapeseeds.  Men gets cellulite but not as much as women, that what I meant when I wrote it.   
Have a nice day. 
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 29/11/2008 07:59:59
What do you mean by potatoes and apples grow naturally, how to they grow different from rapeseed?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2008 17:42:28
Do you realise that appple seeds contain cyanide and that potatoes contain solanine? These are poisonous plants.

The plants that canola is produced from are essentially free of the toxic components so why is it differeent from apples or spuds?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: lyner on 29/11/2008 18:18:58
[quote[The plants that canola is produced from[/quote]
Just been listening to Radio 4 on correct grammar.
 You should say "The plants from which canola is produced"  if you really want to dump on someone with a clincher argument.
That is behaviour up with which I do not put.
I fully support your argument, though.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 29/11/2008 19:11:02

Debating online through forums and websites you need to be careful not to put words that can be offensive.  I am very respectful regardless if you know me or not, if you can see my face or not.  I like to learn something new each day, and share with people what I've learn. At the end they will come to their own conclusions.  I like this website because I assume we are all professionals.  I am professional in my field and BC is professional in his field.  Maybe he knows more than me in the process of ions,cations, anions,chemical reactions, equations, and all of that. (I have a degree in Liberal Arts).  I'm trying to complete a degree in Chemistry cause science is my true passion.   





Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 29/11/2008 22:58:04
Do you realise that appple seeds contain cyanide? 

That is why I don't eat the seeds from the apple. I spit them out.  Or if I'm not that busy I plant them.
And I don't eat green potatoes.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2008 14:37:09
I don't understand the respect offered to a scientific website by putting forward an unevinced and inaccurate view of a technical subject by someone who knows that it's really not their field. Specifially, you said "Unfortunately, a few months later I found out he was feeding us with some rare kind of poison. " I find it offensive that someone posts rubbish like that on a scientific website.
I can also live without patronising comments like "Go to "google.com" and write Canola Oil."- particularly when it's clear that I did- that's how I found the wiki article.


How would it look if I were to make bold, yet ignorant statements on a website dedicated to the liberal arts? Would that be seen as polite?
Incidentally, if the wiki article about liberal arts is corrent in identifing them, then 4 aren't relevant to this post and you (directly or as a result of the pages you cited) got the other 3 (Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic) wrong.

I see that you have changed your standpoint from " I won't never eat something that is made out of toxic plants even it they say they clean the plant and extracted the toxin in it. 
" to " I don't eat the seeds from the apple. I spit them out.  Or if I'm not that busy I plant them. And I don't eat green potatoes."
That's a remarkabe volte face.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 30/11/2008 16:16:08
BC, you are wrong in saying I have had a "volte-face."  I said I don't eat apple seeds and according to you, you are saying apple seed contain cyanide.  I eat apples but not the seeds.  Also, you say potatoes contain solanine.  But it's said to be potatoes that have been extremely exposed to the sun which causes the potatoes to have a greenish color indicating higher doses of this toxin.  By the way, what makes you so sure that the information is rubbish?  Just because you read it in wiki? Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?  What makes you so sure that really happened? Because we learn by reading, we learn that things by listening to our teachers. You believe what they say, because don't tell me everybody in this planet living today were there when the Big Bag happened?  Scientists around the world have different point of views, they discuss this and that, and write articles about there findings.  I can come here and discuss whatever I want and read everybody's opinion.  I don't see nothing wrong with that.  This is I believe a forum?

BC, yes, you have made me change my mind about something, not the Canola oil, you haven't succeed in that.  But you have changed my mind about participating in a forum where certain people think they know it all.

Enjoy your day! :)

Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: iko on 30/11/2008 16:28:23
Hi Miriam0920,

I think you are right about respect and moderation.
Let me add that olive oil plus codliver oil is the magic formula! [;)]
Nice to read that you are not bored and that Science is your true passion.
Take care

ikod
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2008 20:41:44
Why am I wrong in saying that you have changed from "I won't never eat something that is made out of toxic plants" to "And I don't eat green potatoes."?
Since potatoes (green or otherwise) are from a toxic plant you have changed your mind.
The stuff you posted is still here for anyone to read.

"By the way, what makes you so sure that the information is rubbish? "
Because they say things like rapeseed oil contains mustard gas. Totally impossible, and you seem not to have noticed that I pointed out where mustad gas is made.

"Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?  What makes you so sure that really happened?"
Yes, I do, because there is evidence for it. That's the point of science.
By the way, did you not notice when I pointed out that I had actually seen the analysis (done by a colleague of mine) of rapeseed oil. Don't you think that counts for more than "I put a phrase into google"?
"Scientists around the world have different point of views, they discuss this and that, and write articles about there findings. "
There are not many scientists who don't believe in the big bang, but that hasn't got a lot to do with the point.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: lyner on 30/11/2008 21:54:16
Two alternative views are not necessarily equally valid. I would normally go for the one with more evidence behind it rather than the one with more 'emotion' behind it.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 01/12/2008 07:32:10
I like this website because I assume we are all professionals.  I am professional in my field and BC is professional in his field.  Maybe he knows more than me in the process of ions,cations, anions,chemical reactions, equations, and all of that. (I have a degree in Liberal Arts).  I'm trying to complete a degree in Chemistry cause science is my true passion.

If science is your true passion then the first thing you should learn about is the scientific method, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: paul.fr on 01/12/2008 07:49:47

Just been listening to Radio 4 on correct grammar.
 You should say "The plants from which canola is produced"  if you really want to dump on someone with a clincher argument.
That is behaviour up with which I do not put.
I fully support your argument, though.

Would that be Grammar Challenge?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 02/12/2008 23:27:43
I do know about the scientific method.  What do you mean?  That I need to use the scientific method to learn about Canola oil? Yeah, because if not, don't tell me you learned about the Big Bang by doing your own scientific method. I would like to see that!  But you know, even Albert Einstein had trouble convincing his peers about the Relativity theory.  It took him 15 years to convince people that he was right. 

Peace out! 
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2008 07:10:23
It took a while, but eventually they were convinced by the evidence.
Pleases provide us with some.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 03/12/2008 07:42:58
I mean don't be convinced of something yourself let alone start preaching to others, before you have evidence and have thought about it critically.

Yes I did learn about the big bang that way, through reading through all the evidence and reasoning behind it.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2008 19:56:44
People accepted Eintein's work because it explained a number of things and it also predicted one, the change in the apparent positions of stars and planets when they were "near" the sun.
A bloke called Eddington looked for the effect (during an eclipse of the sun which is that only time you can see stars that are near the sun).
It turned out that Einstein's theory was right.

People beleived Eddington because he was an established figure and, at least as important, he was able to explain how he made the measurements.

You have an idea that canola oil is toxic "some rare kind of poison".
That postulate should, if it is ever to be accepted as scientific, be able to make predictions- and the good news is that it does.
If canola oil is toxic then (from the deffinitiopn of toxic) people who eat it should get sick and die.
This experiment has been done many times. Plenty of people habve eaten the stuff.
They are all still with us.
Therefore the material is not toxic, and your postulate is false.

Also we can look at some of the notions behind the idea.
For example part of your reason for believing the postulate is that you have read that it contains mustard gas.
However, one of the known properties of mustard gas is that it's an organochlorine compound.
One of the known properties of organochlorine compounds is that they are extremely rare in nature.
This means that the basis for the postulate is extremely improbable.
Also a lot of studies have been don on rapeseed plants and their relatives. Part of the motivation is that people are just interested in why mustard (for example) tastes the way it does.
There is quite a lot of data about the stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allyl_isothiocyanate
But it doesn't mention mustard gas.

Most scientist would, by now, have ditched the postulate and moved on.



Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 06/12/2008 03:30:48
Wow, you forgot to click "spell check" on this one.  But thanks for the postulated theory.  Unfortunately, toxics chemicals can remain in the body for many years to come before somebody dies of it.  You're reasoning haven't convince me.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2008 18:13:58
I'm always pleased when someone complains about my spelling, it means they haven't found anything material to complain about.

Anyway, while it's true that "Unfortunately, toxics chemicals can remain in the body for many years to come before somebody dies of it." it doesn't matter. The toxins are not there in canola.
By the way, if you plan to comment on my spelling, perhaps you ought to sort out your grammar- after all, you are the liberal arts expert.

Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 06/12/2008 23:55:35
I've been using Canola for years and it hasn't done me any harm

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersontuners.com%2Foldweb%2Fimages%2Fbank%2FGurning2.jpg&hash=c9bcf47bd448865b9140f9256c3f091e)
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Chemistry4me on 07/12/2008 03:56:18
Really?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 07/12/2008 10:52:31
If science is your true passion then the first thing you should learn about is the scientific method, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

This is a good entry - I think that out of all the philosophers of science, Paul Feyerabend probably got it right the most.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 13/12/2008 21:40:58
Bored Chemist, hello my fried, my problem is that knowing three languages, grammar rules get in the way.  Sorry to say, but it's the truth.  What is your excuse?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 13/12/2008 21:49:39
Doctor Beaver you look healthy, ha, ha, ha, keep using it!

I guess I am weird because I don't eat in fast-food (McDonald, Burger King, Wendy's).  I eat only home made as much as possible.  I don't eat fried food.
My only hope is that people loved themselves better and eat healthier foods. I wish to erradicate diseases, Cancer, hyper tension, strokes, etc. That's my only goal in alerting people to use the right products.  I am sorry if I sin in this.  I want to make people aware that companies sometimes promote products bad to human consumption just to profit their pockets, not thinking about people's health.  So, please stop using Canola Oil, just in case.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 13/12/2008 21:57:56
This is a more resent article capture by Google.com:

Canola is not the name of a natural plant but a made-up word, from the words "Canada" and "oil". Canola is a genetically engineered plant developed in Canada from the Rapeseed Plant, which is part of the mustard family of plants. According to AgriAlternatives, The Online Innovation, and Technology Magazine for Farmers, "By nature, these rapeseed oils, which have long been used to produce oils for industrial purposes, are... toxic to humans and other animals".

Rapeseed oil is poisonous to living things and is an excellent insect repellent. I have been using it (in very diluted form, as per instructions) to kill the aphids on my roses for the last two years. It works very well; it suffocates them. Ask for it at your nursery. Rape is an oil that is used as a lubricant, fuel, soap and synthetic rubber base and as a illuminate for color pages in magazines. It is an industrial oil.

It is not a food.

Rape oil is strongly related to symptoms of emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability, and blindness in animals and humans. Rape oil was widely used in animal feeds in England and Europe between 1986 and 1991, when it was discontinued.

Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 13/12/2008 22:02:40
Here is some more posting please read previous posts.


According to John Thomas' book, Young Again, 12 years ago in England and Europe, rape seed was fed to cows, pigs and sheep who later went blind and began attacking people. There were no further attacks after the rape seed was eliminated from their diet.

Source: David Dancu, N.D.

Apparently peanut oil is being replaced with rape oil. You'll find it in an alarming number of processed foods. I read where  rape oil was the source of the chemical warfare agent mustard gas, which was banned after blistering the lungs and skins of hundred of thousands of soldiers and civilians during W.W.I. Recent French reports indicate that it was again in use during the Gulf War.

Check products for ingredients. If the label says, "may contain the following" and lists canola oil, you know it contains canola oil because it is the cheapest oil and the Canadian government subsidizes it to industries involved in food processing.

Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) is a rare fatal degenerative disease caused by in a build up long-chain fatty acids (c22 to c28) which destroys the  myelin (protective sheath) of the nerves. Canola oil is a very long chain fatty acid oil (c22). Those who will defend canola oil say that the Chinese and Indians have used it for centuries with no effect, however it was in an unrefined form.*

(* taken from FATS THAT HEAL AND FATS THAT KILL by Udo Erasmus.)


I read about a man who  bred birds, always checking labels to insure there was no rape seed in their food. He said, "The birds will eat it, but they do not live very long." A friend, who worked for only 9 mo. as a quality control taster at an apple-chip factory where Canola oil was used exclusively for frying, developed numerous health problems.

Rape seed oil used for stir-frying in China found to emit cancer-causing chemicals. (Rapeseed oil smoke causes lung cancer.) Amal Kumar Maj. The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 1995 pB6(W) pB6 (E) col 1(11 col in). Compiled by Darleen Bradley.

Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 14/12/2008 00:13:49

To test the industrial penetrating strength of canola oil, soak a towel in both canola oil and regular vegetable oil. Pre-treat and wash the towel in your clothes washer and compare the area the two oils occupied...you will notice an oil stain remains on the area soaked in canola oil. It is so durable, it could take several washings to completely remove. Now if this is how canola oil penetrates the fabric of a towel, what damage can it do in your body?

Because canola oil is so cheap, it is now widely used in the food industry. If you are curious, just read a few food labels the next time you are in the grocery store. A good example can be found with commercially prepared peanut butter. In order to give peanut butter it's spreadability, Jiffy, Peter Pan and Skippy brands remove ALL of the natural peanut oil and replace it with canola oil. Natural peanut butter should only have peanuts and salt listed in the ingredients.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2008 10:13:41
Bored Chemist, hello my fried, my problem is that knowing three languages, grammar rules get in the way.  Sorry to say, but it's the truth.  What is your excuse?
Probably much the same as your excuse for not accepting the rule that bans multiple posting.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2008 10:20:11
Doctor Beaver you look healthy, ha, ha, ha, keep using it!

I guess I am weird because I don't eat in fast-food (McDonald, Burger King, Wendy's).  I eat only home made as much as possible.  I don't eat fried food.
My only hope is that people loved themselves better and eat healthier foods. I wish to erradicate diseases, Cancer, hyper tension, strokes, etc. That's my only goal in alerting people to use the right products.  I am sorry if I sin in this.  I want to make people aware that companies sometimes promote products bad to human consumption just to profit their pockets, not thinking about people's health.  So, please stop using Canola Oil, just in case.

If avoiding fast food joints is weird then that makes two of us weird.
The diseases you mentions are a terrible drain on society; eliminating them would be a great boon.
Distracting attention from the real problems by banging on about the toxicity of wild type rapeseed oil and then applying that to theh (as you have pointed out) genetically modified to be different canola, doesn't help.
Drop this argument- it's pointless, and divert your efforts to the real problems.
The trans fatty acids and high fructose corn syrup would be much better targets.

The bit about "stop using canola just in case" is a problem. It is, as you are so happy to point out, cheap.
Since it is not actually harmful, using it just means that those on low incomes have more cash left at the end of the week. If they spend that on fresh fruit then they are likely to benefit much more than they would from switching to whatever the next cheapest oil is.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2008 10:22:51
This is a more resent article capture by Google.com:

Canola is not the name of a natural plant but a made-up word, from the words "Canada" and "oil". Canola is a genetically engineered plant developed in Canada from the Rapeseed Plant, which is part of the mustard family of plants. According to AgriAlternatives, The Online Innovation, and Technology Magazine for Farmers, "By nature, these rapeseed oils, which have long been used to produce oils for industrial purposes, are... toxic to humans and other animals".

Rapeseed oil is poisonous to living things and is an excellent insect repellent. I have been using it (in very diluted form, as per instructions) to kill the aphids on my roses for the last two years. It works very well; it suffocates them. Ask for it at your nursery. Rape is an oil that is used as a lubricant, fuel, soap and synthetic rubber base and as a illuminate for color pages in magazines. It is an industrial oil.

It is not a food.

Rape oil is strongly related to symptoms of emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability, and blindness in animals and humans. Rape oil was widely used in animal feeds in England and Europe between 1986 and 1991, when it was discontinued.



Do you understand that the reason they genetically modified the stuff was to make it different?

Since it is no longer rapeseed oil (in the traditiional sense) the comparison is meaningles.

It doesn't matter how toxic wild rapeseed oil is, because canola is something else.
I know- I have seen the analysis.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 14/12/2008 10:36:24
Now if this is how canola oil penetrates the fabric of a towel, what damage can it do in your body?

This is the old observation that tea made the insides of metal teapots brown - what was it doing to our stomachs?

Well the answer is simple - we are lined neither with stainless steel nor towelling. This argument is therefore meaningless and has no place in scientific discourse.

Your wishing to target disease resulting from lifestyle choices is worthy - I believe that the removal from school curricula of domestic science is partly to blame.
There is a paradox though that is hard to explain - the rise in obesity and related conditions comes at a time when never before have we had so many TV programmes about food and cooking. Also, the local supermarket I use has loads of vegetables and frequently go short on some lines, notably greens - it just doesn't add up. [???]
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2008 10:39:24
Here is some more posting please read previous posts.


According to John Thomas' book, Young Again, 12 years ago in England and Europe, rape seed was fed to cows, pigs and sheep who later went blind and began attacking people. There were no further attacks after the rape seed was eliminated from their diet.

Source: David Dancu, N.D.

Apparently peanut oil is being replaced with rape oil. You'll find it in an alarming number of processed foods. I read where  rape oil was the source of the chemical warfare agent mustard gas, which was banned after blistering the lungs and skins of hundred of thousands of soldiers and civilians during W.W.I. Recent French reports indicate that it was again in use during the Gulf War.

Check products for ingredients. If the label says, "may contain the following" and lists canola oil, you know it contains canola oil because it is the cheapest oil and the Canadian government subsidizes it to industries involved in food processing.

Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) is a rare fatal degenerative disease caused by in a build up long-chain fatty acids (c22 to c28) which destroys the  myelin (protective sheath) of the nerves. Canola oil is a very long chain fatty acid oil (c22). Those who will defend canola oil say that the Chinese and Indians have used it for centuries with no effect, however it was in an unrefined form.*

(* taken from FATS THAT HEAL AND FATS THAT KILL by Udo Erasmus.)


I read about a man who  bred birds, always checking labels to insure there was no rape seed in their food. He said, "The birds will eat it, but they do not live very long." A friend, who worked for only 9 mo. as a quality control taster at an apple-chip factory where Canola oil was used exclusively for frying, developed numerous health problems.

Rape seed oil used for stir-frying in China found to emit cancer-causing chemicals. (Rapeseed oil smoke causes lung cancer.) Amal Kumar Maj. The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 1995 pB6(W) pB6 (E) col 1(11 col in). Compiled by Darleen Bradley.




A whole bunch of anecdotes.
The story about feeding rapeseed oil to sheep is a red herring. The two oils are not the same that's the whole point of the genetic modification of the plant.

The repetition of the claim about mustard gas means that you didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote before. Where does the organochlorine come from?
Mustard gas is made by the reaction of ethylene with sulphur chloride in the presence of a lewis acid catalyst.
It's entirely synthetic. The only link is that someone thought it smells a bit like mustard and that's how it got the name.

The Chinese and Indians have used the stuff for a long time. The stuff they use is unrefined.
So what?
The refining process doesn't produce the long chain acids. They are exactly the same in the refined and unrefined product.

This is a point in favour of the safety of canola; we know things like it have been used safely for years.

The stories that start "i heard of someone" can be written off as hearssay at best.
The person who became ill after working with the stuff proves nothing. What about all the other people working there? If this stuff was toxic it would harm all of them not just one.

"Rape seed oil used for stir-frying in China found to emit cancer-causing chemicals. (Rapeseed oil smoke causes lung cancer.) Amal Kumar Maj. The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 1995 pB6(W) pB6 (E) col 1(11 col in). Compiled by Darleen Bradley. "

All smoke contains cancer causing chemicals. This has nothing to do with canola. Didn't you realise that?

I don't have any canola oil so I can't do the experiment you ask about. But I can explain it. We already know that this stuff has a higher proportion of long chain fatty acids.
Perhaps you could repeat the experiment with a nut oil like nutmeg oil. It too should be more difficult to wash out. Suet should be difficult to remove as well.
I will have a look at the labels on things I buy when I'm out shopping today.


Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/12/2008 14:45:23
Quote
Perhaps you could repeat the experiment with a nut oil like nutmeg oil. It too should be more difficult to wash out

Have you tried washing out turmeric?

Turmeric may slow Alzheimer's disease (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1668932.stm)
Turmeric may combat diabetes (http://www.scientistlive.com/European-Food-Scientist/Ingredients/Turmeric_fights_diabetes/20610/)
Turmeric may prevent bowel cancer (http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5428)
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2008 16:10:44
As Blakestyger already pointed out, the "it's difficult to wash out" is a complete red herring anyway.
I usually treat curry stains with borax before washing them; it seems to help.
Of course, since borax is toxic I should presumably (according to the sort of logic shown  before) avoid all foreign food.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/12/2008 16:49:35
I know it was a red herring. I was adding to the shoal  [;D]

By the way, do you extract the Borax from your cocaine stash?  [:P]
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: blakestyger on 14/12/2008 17:11:07
...I should presumably (according to the sort of logic shown  before) avoid all foreign food.

Is foreign food toxic? [:0]
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2008 20:08:33
It must be, some of it difficult to wash out of clothes. Not only that but the people who made mustard gas wore clothes too!
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 14/12/2008 23:21:07
I will have a look at the labels on things I buy when I'm out shopping today.



[/quote]

At least you are more conscious of what you are digesting and feeding your system.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: miriam0920 on 14/12/2008 23:24:55
BC, so when I talked about trans-fat you didn't make any comments.  As a good "scientist" in this post, you should have promoted the good argument (accordingly to you) and ignore the wrong arguments.  Unfortunately, you didn't.  You stir the stinky one over and time again.
Peace out.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2008 06:56:49
Why say things like that which simply are not true?
Here's some of what I said about trans fats..
What is this ""Mostly all the cooking oil are partially hydrogenated soy. "
Well, if that's true then since, as you say, hydrogenated oils are often high in trans fatty acids (which seems not to be a good thing) it would be better to use some other oil
Canola oil would fit the bill. It's used as-is rather than hydrogenated.

" Why you do think companies are now proclaiming "NO TRANS-FAT" in their commercial labels? "
Because there is evidence that trans fats are a bad thing.
So what?
Canola oil isn't a good sourse of trans fats.
"Because people are investigating, they know that trans-fat is a man-made fat that the body doesn't know how to dissolved."
Well, it's more complex than that but it's fair to say that trans fats are a by product of fat processing and there's evidence they are bad for you.


WTF does this have to do with canola? Wild type rapeseed oil has a relatively high trans fatty acid content. But Canola has been bred specifically not to. Did you read the wiki article? It explains the name "The word "canola" was derived from "Canadian oil, low acid""

"If you want to read about warning google it.  Go to "google.com" and write Canola Oil.  Read for yourself.  "

I did. That's how I found the wiki article I cited earlier. That wiki article in turn features a report saying canola is full of trans fatty acids.  The organisation that produced the report also says  (on their website)  that "It contains "the infamous chemical warfare agent mustard gas" which simply isn't true.
Now I obviously can't vouch for all the world's oil, but I have seen analyses of biodiesel made from rapeseed oil that had very low levels of erucic acid (the alledged source of the problems). So, even industrial oil hasn't got the stuff in it. Why would it be in the food chain?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: lyner on 15/12/2008 09:10:42
BC
The newspaper headline "Everything OK today" is just not an attention grabber, I'm afraid.
Sexy News with an ill informed basis is much more successful.
This is another Moon Landing  thread. You won't win, despite the sense of your arguments.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2008 19:03:19
I might not win, but at least I'm entitled to ask why someone says things that are so obviously false.
Miriam,
what on earth did you think that your last post would achieve?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 16/12/2008 15:14:57
Quote
This is another Moon Landing  thread. You won't win, despite the sense of your arguments.

Keep at it though BC, your unwavering determination in fighting all that is irrational is both inspiring and amusing. Kudos!
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 16/12/2008 19:04:44
You stir the stinky one over and time again.

 [???]
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2008 20:56:25
I think I was being accused of S**tstiring, which I think is ironic.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Total-Amateur on 06/10/2009 06:53:19
Hi, this topic was so interesting, it inspired me to register, so that I could have my two cents worth :) I just want to point out a few things:

There were points on both sides of this argument that I found to have some validity. I was really torn on what to believe.

On the one hand, BC has a point -- anecdotes aren't proof of anything. Wikis aren't reliable sources of information. For that matter, neither is Google. Google doesn't test the validity of any claim, or the reliability of websites that it indexes. All Google does is say "here's what I found on the subject." Google assigns the same relevance to a website written by a 5th grader for a science project on potatoes as it does to a website written by a PhD doing a proper scientific study on potatoes. Both sites = potatoes, so Google spits them both out as relevant search results.

By the way, even though most Wikipedia entries provide links to relevant websites, very little of those links are actually "sources." By that, I mean peer-reviewed. So citing them doesn't increase the validity of one's claim.

HOWEVER, BC says something that makes me want to side with Miriam's point of view, insofar as not wanting to use canola oil. He says that raw rapeseed is the toxic stuff, and that canola oil is refined and genetically modified to remove the toxins. That's a red flag for me.

Every time I've heard of genetically modified anything, it always follows the same formula: At first, it's a miracle product, then some scientists do some studies on it, and later, it's proven to be bad for you in one way or another. I remember back in the early 80's when everyone was so hip on NutraSweet. And we all know how that turned out.

Now I'd like to make a small caveat here; I'm not a scientist. (Hence, the username.) In fact, I hold an MA in English, and I am currently in an MLIS program (Master of Library and Information Science.) I am in no way, shape, or form a chemist, nor do I fancy myself as one.

However, I do know how to think critically, and how to give weight to arguments, and to make an informed decision.

And the conclusion I have come to is this: Since it is a genetically modified product, I am going to avoid it, until I see a properly documented, peer-reviewed study on its long-term effects that says different.

I came to this website because I recieved the chain email that was mentioned earlier in this post. (The one that Snopes says is false.) I was looking for any sort of information for either side of the argument, so that I could research this for myself. I figured that this forum might be a good starting point, a catalyst to point me in a productive direction. But it's beginning to look as though the research won't be necessary. Everyone seems to agree that canola oil is a GMO. So for me, case closed, at least for the time being.

Having said this, I would like to point out that I am extremely skeptical about the scrapies (or whatever it's called) assertion and the link to the canola oil in the feed; there are many more factors that need to be considered. Simply feeding an animal the wrong food can throw their systems out of whack. That's why non-free range cows get sick, because they're being fed corn, instead of being allowed to graze. (Not to mention being injected with synthetic hormones!) A cow living on corn is akin to a human being living on potato chips or jelly beans. So the scrapies thing could be the result of any number of bad farming practices.

I am also skeptical of any article which cites personal anecdotes. "My Paw said that he once tried this so and so and it made him sick." Lawyers have a term for that: heresay.

But the GMO thing sealed it for me. There is too much evidence out there that modifying food on the genetic level is (at the very least) unpredictable, not to mention dangerous.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Feel free to reply. I apologize for resurrecting such an old thread, but I think that it's an issue which needs to be further addressed.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 06/10/2009 09:20:05
Quote
Every time I've heard of genetically modified anything, it always follows the same formula: At first, it's a miracle product, then some scientists do some studies on it, and later, it's proven to be bad for you in one way or another. I remember back in the early 80's when everyone was so hip on NutraSweet. And we all know how that turned out.

Can you list some examples?
Isn't nutrasweet just aspartame? So.. it turned out great? What are you talking about?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Total-Amateur on 06/10/2009 16:03:28
Well, if it were so great, there wouldn't be a whirlwind of controversy over its safety. Again, it's one of these issues where the evidence for both sides is unclear. Check out this blog: http://www.thatdanny.com/2008/06/25/is-aspartame-safe-an-unbiased-review-of-aspartame-information/

I couldn't have said it better myself, I simply don't know what to believe anymore. Ha ha.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2009 18:46:07

"I do know how to think critically, and how to give weight to arguments, and to make an informed decision."

OK, you say you can think critically and come to an informed decision yet you accept that , at this time, you are uninformed "I'm not a scientist. (Hence, the username.) " yet you voice an opinion.
Unfortiunately, that opinion doesn't tally with reallity.

""Every time I've heard of genetically modified anything, it always follows the same formula: At first, it's a miracle product, then some scientists do some studies on it, and later, it's proven to be bad for you in one way or another. I remember back in the early 80's when everyone was so hip on NutraSweet. And we all know how that turned out."
Two points strike me as important here.
Firstly there simply isn't any real evidence for harm from GM materials (I'm not saying they are witout risk- just that so far we seem to have controlled that risk)
Secondly you muddle up GM with neutrasweet.
That makes as much sense as saying "GM is bad because theu used to put lead in petrol".


You say that "And the conclusion I have come to is this: Since it is a genetically modified product, I am going to avoid it, until I see a properly documented, peer-reviewed study on its long-term effects that says different."

Well you are going to wait a long time. On the other hand you can look at one of the world's biggest experiments.
In the real world people have been eating GM crops for years. There has yet to be any real problem of safety (there have been some serious cockups about other aspects of it).

The "peers" reviewing this are American ambulance-chasing lawyers. Now, it's fair to say that my opinion of the morallity of this group isn't generally high, but that's not the point. They are good at their job. If there had been a single case of anyone proven to have been harmed by these materials they would have sued for punitive damages and bankrupted the GM organisations.

Those organisations are still in business.

What more proof could a bunch of lab experiments offer?
(Incidentally- the lab experiments were done first, of course, and they didn't offer any evidence of a problem)

Lets sum that up; you say
"I do know how to think critically,"
and
"But the GMO thing sealed it for me. There is too much evidence out there that modifying food on the genetic level is (at the very least) unpredictable, not to mention dangerous."

OK, cite the evidence.

Sorry to have to tell you this (and I know it's partonising) but, unless you actually understand the science, you are not in a position to think critically about the issues.
If you don't understand that I have seen someone assay canola oil and I know it doesn't contain the toxic chemicals that industrial rapeseed does so it doesn't constitute a toxicity hazard then you are missing the point.
Also  most technology works just fine yet you say "Every time I've heard of genetically modified anything, it always follows the same formula: At first, it's a miracle product, then some scientists do some studies on it, and later, it's proven to be bad for you in one way or another. I remember back in the early 80's when everyone was so hip on NutraSweet. And we all know how that turned out." once again, you just haven't noticed what's really happening.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: raptorguy on 11/11/2009 02:29:19
Our family is health conscious.

Canola oil is our first choice of cooking oils.

 We use olive oil sometimes as a sprinkle on salads. Olive oil has quite a bit more saturated fat than canola and becomes unstable in light and under moderate heating temperatures.

 Sunflower and Corn oils are also better choices (at least for our family) than olive oil for cooking.

 
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: elementaljoe on 06/01/2010 22:05:37
We live in an astonishingly informed age, with data available as it has never been before in recorded history. The challenge is in determining which is pertinent to the situation, and then which is actually correct.

I'd already studied most of the sites that have been referred months ago. Clearly, like Miriam's grammar, lexicon, and style, different sources are less attractive than others, and have fewer references to support their statements. But does that mean they are wrong? With enough "support," OJ and Rodney King's abusers both got off, and Bush Jr. won two elections.

To the point... I no longer eat canola oil. It may be perfectly harmless. When it can be purchased in a relatively unrefined form, I suppose it may be the most economical high heat oil, though that hasn't been my observation, and without the refinement, it no longer has so high a smoking temperature. The problem I have with it is that the public awareness program that the Canadian government crafted to sell the oil was exceptionally well-funded, with a capital E. Billions of dollars, many billions of dollars were at stake, perhaps trillions in time, and we're all sitting here thinking that with a few clicks of our mouses we'll get the truth.

Under these circumstances, with such vast profits at stake, the information available to me is utterly insufficient. The references presented throughout this chain simply cannot be trusted. The whole truth is very easy carve into pieces and obfuscate with other data and rhetorical methods, and that's only if the research was ever done honestly, or allowed to be done. Even if some of you are very serious chemists, the research you would have to do to determine falsification of data surely demands too much of your life, and still might be impossible. Science is more about skepticism than agreement. And you'd be making a serious enemy of the Canola industry.

What you can trust is traditional cuisine, produced and processed as hundreds, even thousands of years of trial, effort, and actual human nutrition determined. The further away from that you go, the more risk you take. The more profit there is in presenting a new product, or processing method, the less you can trust so much as a single word. You may be rewarded, but in the case of canola oil, modified rapeseed oil, the money will do the talking, not some ethical consideration about the peon consumer's health. Eat unrefined oils, traditional ones, and don't make'em smoke. Ignore the mountains of hype.

Or support agribusiness -- Monsanto et al. Your choice.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/01/2010 19:37:20
"and we're all sitting here thinking that with a few clicks of our mouses we'll get the truth."
No, I think that my mate putting some through a GC/MS got the truth.
Do you have any scientific evidence to gainsay this?
When you say "The references presented throughout this chain simply cannot be trusted."
is it me you are calling a liar, or my colleague?

Re "Even if some of you are very serious chemists, the research you would have to do to determine falsification of data surely demands too much of your life, and still might be impossible."
I think it was about half an hour of machine time. The point is that it showed that the manufacturers were telling the truth. Why don't you accept that?

Incidenatlly, please make up your mind. Plenty of traditional food is fried in oil so hot it smokes yet you say we shouldn't heat oil that hot, but we should eat traditional food.

Anyway, unless you happen to have the time on your hands, the idea of spending "traditional" amounts of time cooking is a non-starter.
Oh, and while I'm at it, do you plan to recompense people for the expense of following your sugestion?
Canola is a lot cheaper than olive oil.
Personally I use olive oil (or groundnut or sunflower or hempseed depending on what I'm cooking) because I like the taste. I'm lucky- I can afford to do that. Not everyone can, so why tell them they are harming themselves by using canola when there's no basis for that assertion?

Oh, btw, you seem to have missed something. It was lawyers who got OJ off and re-elected Bush, not scientists.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 08/01/2010 16:54:50
Well, if it were so great, there wouldn't be a whirlwind of controversy over its safety. Again, it's one of these issues where the evidence for both sides is unclear. Check out this blog: http://www.thatdanny.com/2008/06/25/is-aspartame-safe-an-unbiased-review-of-aspartame-information/

I couldn't have said it better myself, I simply don't know what to believe anymore. Ha ha.


The link you cite does not seem to look at any of the actual studies on aspartame at all, rather just the political controversy. When there is controversy over something it can give off the false impression that both sides of the argument have equal merit, however among scientists it is well accepted that aspartame is safe.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12180494
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

Yes i'm sorry for talking about aspartame and going off track from canola oil, but it seemed necessary to point out that to claim canola oil is poisonous is using the same flawed logic as claiming aspartame is poisonous. There's no actual scientific backing for either stance.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: elementaljoe on 10/01/2010 17:36:42
Replies to bored chemist:

What I said was clear. Not a single one of your responses is meaningful when viewed through any other lens than that of an overly simple chemist who interprets all things through a clever fourteen year old's interpretations of rationality, politics, and knowledge itself. Your responses in general reveal a  small ego  supporting itself with boorish, unkind, and selfishly slanted certainty bolstered with shallow  if sharp intellect.

Any more communication with you would be useless, because you aren't really about understanding. You are about aggrandizing yourself.

I stand by every word I wrote. When your spirit has become positive, I may waste another second engaged with you.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/01/2010 18:53:32
Replies to bored chemist:

What I said was clear. Not a single one of your responses is meaningful when viewed through any other lens than that of an overly simple chemist who interprets all things through a clever fourteen year old's interpretations of rationality, politics, and knowledge itself. Your responses in general reveal a  small ego  supporting itself with boorish, unkind, and selfishly slanted certainty bolstered with shallow  if sharp intellect.

Any more communication with you would be useless, because you aren't really about understanding. You are about aggrandizing yourself.

I stand by every word I wrote. When your spirit has become positive, I may waste another second engaged with you.
LOL
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 11/01/2010 08:42:35
lol

Why do some people take being shown the fallacies of their argument as a personal insult? I thank people when they show me how I am wrong.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: BenV on 11/01/2010 10:40:24
I'm glad that Bored Chemist can see the humour in such a blatant and uncalled for personal attack.

Elementaljoe - attacks like that are not acceptable on this forum.  Please be more civil in future.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/01/2010 12:11:39
After a while you get used to this sort of insult. Here's what I said about it before

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17926.msg203475#msg203475
or here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26019.msg280196#msg280196
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: elementaljoe on 11/01/2010 18:11:06
Reply to Bored Chemist:

Actually, I wasn't attacking ad hominem. I was describing precisely the niche that your arguments fill. We have been trying to speak to a question that exists in more than the chemist's realm, ie. "Is Canola oil actually a healthy oil." To answer such a question, one needs to be far more than a chemist, even were he poised at the cutting edge of the field.

As for my attitude, and your nobler than Thou self-righteousness, I might think it worth a second of my respect, except that you were unnecessarily snide to Miriam, from the get go. Rather than correct her gently, or stretch yourself even a little to understand the points she was trying to make, you took advantage of your greater expertise and experience with language to belittle her. Yes, you actually are a chemical technician -- I can't speak to the depth of your commitment to scientific method, especially with you so very certain of so many things you simply could not know, and could never prove. Yes, you write fairly well in English. So what. You are unkind, and your over-certainty is not to be trusted.

Again, I stand by my words. I wouldn't have answered, you seem too certain in your arrogance to hear anything, but others supported you, and I thought i'd respond to them.
 
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 11/01/2010 18:34:36
I think if miriam began the thread with some sensitivity of her own by asking the question "Is canola oil poisonous?" and then proceeded to stimulate discussion on the matter by asking if what she had been told was actually true or not, she would have been met with the sensitivity you spoke of.

But that's not what happened, she started with a blatant assault on the truth and refused to hear any different. This kind of attitude is not really conductive to pleasant conversation.

Quote
"Is Canola oil actually a healthy oil." To answer such a question, one needs to be far more than a chemist

Actually the original allegation is that it contained a certain poison. Is a chemist not qualified to tell us whether a liquid contains a chemical or not?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/01/2010 19:10:18


Again, I stand by my words.
 
This is a scientific website. It's not enough to say that you stand by your words.
You need to be able to answer criticism of your ideas, even if you don't like the way that the criticisms are raised.

There were two assertions of toxic chemicals in canola, mustard gas and erucic acid.
The presence of mustard gas is absurd- it's not stable in water and it's an organochlorine compound. They are essentially unheard of in natural products.
The second one is the erucic acid. Well, as I said, there used to be lots but the ran a selective breeding product and now there's practically none. This is not just "propaganda" from the manufacturer. I saw someone do the analysis.

So, once again...
do you have any evidence to gainsay this?


I note from your rant that you think I have a poor grasp of the scientific method.
If you ask 10 scientists what the "scientific method" is you will probably get a dozen answers but I'm pretty sure most would agree that it involves actually doing research (rather than just copying stuff from other websites) and being prepared to stop "standing by your words" if the research shows them to be wrong.
Well, I'm a research scientist (not as you blindly assert a chemical technician) and I have done some real research (I looked at the data my colleague had generated as part of some research into biodiesel).

What have you done?

How many people need to eat canola for how many years without any ill-effects before you change your dogmatic stance and accept that there's absolutely no valid evidence to say it does any harm.
That's the point at which you adopt the scientific method.

Oh, BTW, since I studied chemistry with pharmacology and I work in the field of industrial toxicology (for HMG) I think I might be adequately informed to answer the question "Is Canola oil actually a healthy oil." and the answer is that it's not clearly better or worse than other oils.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Geezer on 11/01/2010 22:17:02
Actually, I wasn't attacking ad hominem.
 

My goodness! In that case I'd prefer that you don't start. I suspect the vitriol (I don't think that's in canola either BTW) would burn a hole in my monitor.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/01/2010 19:50:26
My guess is that he's using some other definition of ad hom.
Of course, I can't rule out an explanation involving him being a liar, an idiot, or both.

Still, it seems that his idea of science is to refuse to talk to people so I guess we won't here from him again.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: CurLz on 13/01/2010 21:40:23
Oh my goodness,
you guys have been debating this since 2008!

Haha, it's slightly amusing to think that a discusion about oil could go on for so long.

Anyway, I read over most of what was said and I agree with Bored chemist on practically everything.
Way to stick it out Bored chemist!

In the name of Canola Oil,
Goodnight.  [:)]
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: NothaShrubry on 31/01/2010 15:34:14
Hi...

I just ran across this thread by accident, as of Total-Amateur. I was trying to find out where to buy canola oil, since I had never heard of it before, in order to homemake soy creamer (which appears not be available in the UK, certainly not in Oxford), in order to home make vegan ice cream. God knows why. I'm not even a vegan. I tell you this to make it clear that I am approaching the topic with no preconceived ideas about canola oil and entirely sifting the evidence put before me.

I just read the whole thread. It was fascinating. I'm very impressed with Bored Chemist's arguments, although occasionally very savage.

BC, what is your level of chemistry? I am a current 3rd year undergraduate at Oxford uni. I should now be reading about Advanced NMR, but do not want to.

Let me clarify a few things I have understood from the discussion board.

*Dangers of canola oil*
- It's an oil. Oil contains fats which can be bad for you if you consume disproportionate quantities.
- It is GM. Some people hold reservations about GM products either because of religious values or because they feel the background to the science is improperly understood. I would argue that we don't understand much about science at all in most areas, but continue to manufacture all kinds of things from what we do know/can do; providing that GM crops are sufficiently tested (which they have to be to be put on sale), they're no more dangerous than ordinary crops.
- Trans fats appear in canola oil in negligible amounts. Yes, trans fats are bad, but unless you intend to live off canola oil, they won't affect you (besides if you did do this, I think point 1 would tell).

*Myths*
- Mustard is the same as mustard gas. As made very clear, mustard gas is a manufactured product and mustard is a natural product of similar smell. That is their only similarity. Rape comes from the mustard plant family.
- Canola oil contains toxins. Rapeseed oil does, canola is a GM safe version.


Anyway, anyone who aspires to be a chemist needs to start by dismissing initial prejudices. Let us say, we discover something DOES contain poison. We next need to ask, will it harm me? Sounds like an obvious connection, yes it does because poison is harmful, but it is not always the case. Poisons are only harmful or toxic in large enough quantities. Whilst some poisons can build up over time, others do not.

Everything is chemicals and everything is toxic in large enough quantities. The research into dihydrogen monoxide is an example of exactly the sentiment and the way people respond to selectivity of information. Would you not drink from a ceramic mug because toilets are also sometimes made of ceramic materials? In my opinion, it is important to determine the dangers of the individual item, rather than allow it to become confused with social understandings of similar things - such is the mustard gas confusion.

Anyway, if I have said anything controversial feel free to correct me. At least my spelling and grammar is decent [:P]. I had a phone call half way through so I may have slightly lost my thread. I think I was going to say something vaguely scientific about the toxicology of potatoes, but it has alas departed.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2010 16:59:49
I'm not sure but I think if you buy cheap cooking oil described as "vegetable oil" without saying exactly what it is then it will be canola or something like it.
Not that it matters much but canola isn't GM; it was produced by conventional breeding.

Incidentally a long while ago I too was a 3rd year undergrad at Oxford doing chemistry. I spent a 4th tear doing some strange research about fluorescence half- lives. I was back in the city again last September to celebrate my college's 500th birthday.

It's a fairly common observation that if potatoes were discovered today they wouldn't be permitted as human food because they contain solanine which is toxic.
What's often overlooked is that if mankind had followed the much talked about "precautionary principle" form the beginning we would still be in the trees.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: NothaShrubry on 31/01/2010 18:03:59
Ah, the GM point was one someone made earlier which I naively assumed to be true since it was not directly challenged. Although I did skim a few sections, so perhaps I just missed it.

I think that sunflower oil is usually cheaper than vegetable oil...

Without doing extensive research, I'm not sure which college has just turned 500 - mine certainly hasn't; it's only started admitting men in the last 16 years! But why fluorescence half-lives? I really must question your wisdom as you have aroused terrible memories of first year compulsory PTCL labs. I'm going to do a solid state project.

How toxic is solanine? I mean, I always hear warnings about raw potatoes, but people also go completely nuts over eating dirt and raw eggs: both things I have consumed my whole life, and which the popularity of brown sugar and mousse rather contradict.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2010 19:04:32
I don't think my employer would altogether agree with some of my views. I tend not to give out too many details on websites (and that's why I use a pseudonym). If I say I was near Lincoln then that should help you work it out without putting anything here that would help any automated searching. (If you want to check you can always PM me)
My part II project, had it worked better, would have led to an undergrad practical measuring half lives; just think- you might have been expected to do it. It looked like an interesting challenge; it was, which is why it didn't really work.

I'm not sure how toxic solanine is; a bit of googling would probably get an answer but I heard that there's roughly enough in a coffin full of potatoes to kill you.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: BenV on 11/02/2010 10:20:02
How toxic is solanine? I mean, I always hear warnings about raw potatoes, but people also go completely nuts over eating dirt and raw eggs: both things I have consumed my whole life, and which the popularity of brown sugar and mousse rather contradict.

This has piqued my interest, and sorry to go off topic, but I always assumed that brown sugar was sugar without the molasses removed - what does it have to do with dirt?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: NothaShrubry on 11/02/2010 10:23:16
Molasses are a by-product. They're just a contaminate. Chemical "dirt".

If you have lots they can make it more syrupy, but then if you mix two random different chemicals you'll tend to change their physical properties by varying proportions.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: BenV on 11/02/2010 10:49:43
Okay - I think my brain had interpreted 'dirt' as 'soil' - not that I have any particular problem with soil, I'd just never thought of demerara as being muddy sugar!
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: NothaShrubry on 11/02/2010 13:01:39
Well, isn't soil just a lot of mixed up waste mineral products?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2010 07:14:30
Define "waste"
BTW, has anyone seen the topic lately?
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: NothaShrubry on 12/02/2010 15:58:14
I'm sure you're an intelligent enough person to work out what I meant without me linking you to the OED.

Btw, on the original topic and referring to a much earlier point about the toxicity of rhubarb:

"Researchers at Sheffield Hallam University found baking British garden rhubarb for 20 minutes dramatically increased its levels of anti-cancerous chemicals. The findings showed the chemicals, called polyphenols, could kill or prevent the growth of cancer cells."
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: jonathan111 on 16/02/2010 08:15:19
I'm pretty sure canola oil is ok.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2010 19:33:11
I know how the dictionary defines waste. I just wonder how you can define soil as waste when quite a lot of the world is short of it and it's quite expensive.
Title: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: NothaShrubry on 16/02/2010 19:38:19
I think you're talking about specific soils with precise mineral contents. If you go out onto the Yorkshire moors, that's soil, but it's so low useful mineral content that only the hardiest plants, heather and fine blade grasses, grow there. Much of it is swamp as well. And this low nutrient soil is everywhere, and flaking dust off the rocks all the time contributes. I'd still call it soil.
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Biomed student on 19/05/2012 00:38:03
Oh dear..
 been reading this post and and all I could think of is how oblivious Miriam0920 is (I'm sorry I'd really like to use kinder adjective but can't think of any). Of course, it's the media that's at fault for saying things that somewhat do have some base but not a proper one and misleading people. I'm not attacking you but just thought you should think about it more.
As has been pointed out, the canola oil is made out of genetically engineered. That means the very DNA sequence in the plant has been altered, and so the plant has different properties now. It's not the source of toxic mustard gas or whatever it is people make from the wild type. Also, to make the mustard gas most likely the chemicals in the plant was altered through some kind of chemical reactions. So to get the gas you'll need to react it with some kind of chemical, it doesn't just come out magically from the seed when scientists break it. Everything is toxic, basically, if humans want it to be and alter it chemically. Also the toxins you mentioned all sound like they're pretty fast in killing living things, so if those chemicals do exist in canola oil, shouldn't we have heard of someone dying of canola oil poisoning? especially since it's used widely. You may say that it accumulates but so far the way it's killed  is fast right? according to the sources you pointed out
So I really don't think the 'mustard gas is made from this seed' and 'the original plant (the wild type, completely different from the engineered one from which the oil is extracted) is toxic' arguments are valid for not having canola oil.
It's not bad, it's rich in monounsaturated fat, which is good for your body, and some polyunsaturated fat too. Anyway when you go shopping just read the food label. What country are you from? The food labelling in America should be pretty accurate right? Well I know in Australia it is, but anyway when you read the ingredients, if it's 100% canola oil then I'd say it can't be bad for you.
Also there's toxic side of everything, even naturally occurring things, and olive oil is healthy, yes, but it's expensive, and it's kind of similar to canola anyway..and some people can't afford olive oil at all... maybe it has some antioxidants canola doesn't but we can get antioxidants from fruit and vegetables. It's basically oil that is rich in unsaturated fat, the same as canola.

And I know you're just trying to help people make better choices, but i think your tone can be kinder, if you're trying to warn people about something, definitely could do better with your choice of words. And the bored chemist was just trying to tell you these things I've told you basically, so you know better about canola oil, and yes their tone and choice of words could have been kinder as well.

Just saying, I'm trying to make you understand and accept, but it wouldn't work if you're just going to attack me as well
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: CliffordK on 19/05/2012 07:56:07
You might as well just use Castor Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_oil), an edible oil made from one of the most toxic seeds known to man.

As far as Canola and Rapeseed, here is an interesting note from Wikipedia.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucosinolates#Effects_on_humans_and_other_mammals
Effects on humans and other mammals

Glucosinolates are well known for their toxic effects (mainly as goitrogens) in both humans and animals at high doses. In contrast, at subtoxic doses, their hydrolytic and metabolic products act as chemoprotective agents against chemically-induced carcinogens by blocking the initiation of tumors in a variety of rodent tissues, such as the liver, colon, mammary gland, pancreas, etc. They exhibit their effect by inducing Phase I and Phase II enzymes, inhibiting the enzyme activation, modifying the steroid hormone metabolism and protecting against oxidative damages.[5] In particular, the chemopreventive effects of the glucosinolates present in cruciferous vegetables are related to their activity as Histone deacetylase inhibitors.

So, low dose rapeseed toxins may actually have some chemo-protective benefits.  Rapeseed oil with toxic levels of Glucosinolates is supposed to have a most distasteful taste and odor, with mild, self-limiting GI symptoms.
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2012 14:23:42
Biomed student,
perhaps the first thing you should have read was the date.

Clifford
Castor oil is not really edible. As the wiki page you cite says.
"Medicinal use of castor oil
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has categorized castor oil as "generally recognized as safe and effective" (GRASE) for over-the-counter use as a laxative, with its major site of action the small intestine.[15] Although it may be used for constipation, it is not a preferred treatment, because it can produce painful cramps, fecal incontinence and explosive diarrhea. Its action can go on for hours, sometimes unpredictably and powerfully causing an involuntary bowel movement at inconvenient locations and during sleep.[16]"
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Geezer on 19/05/2012 16:55:07
That explains it! I thought it was the bean burrito.
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Layni on 27/06/2012 21:21:57
My mother sent me a text today asking if she could use rapeseed oil in the same way as sunflower and vegetable oil.  I googled it and found this thread.  Educational and massively entertaining.  I had to join, just to say thanks  ;D

Layni
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: james oliver on 30/06/2012 03:30:47
All things are poison - toxic. It is the degree tio which we consume them that is the issue - and only god knows at this point what is what anymore. keep it simple as regards to diet. Think nutrients and you will be better off. Find a few whole products that agree with your body, along  with spring water and stick with them - until further notice :)
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DB on 02/07/2012 12:19:04
Well, well!!!

What an interesting discussion.

Not, I am afraid, at all convincing as to the safety, or health-promoting properties of Canola Oil - even (or should that be especially?) the new, GM-produced variety(-ies). I'd like to contribute...

But first, I note a curious problem with the Search tool on this website. A search on "Canola" does not find this thread. I find that extremely interesting. Can anyone please explain why? Am I doing something wrong: clearing the box, typing in >canola< and pressing [Enter]?


Bored Chemist: at first skim through, you appear to have asserted yourself here as "The Authority" on the subject.

Unfortunately, I find your arguments less scientific, and far less convincing than I think they need to be.

IMHO, your arguments are certainly no better than those of other posters.

Indeed, if it is hypocritical to exhibit the same faults as you accuse others of, then perhaps the cap might fit.

I hope I can find some time soon to elaborate.

Until then, I accept Miriam's title!

Cheers!
DB
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/07/2012 19:53:17
" I find your arguments less scientific, and far less convincing than I think they need to be."
Feel free to point out any errors of logic or fact.
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DB on 03/07/2012 02:02:48
If I may:

Your post: 03/12/2008 19:56:44

"If canola oil is toxic then (from the deffinitiopn of toxic) people who eat it should get sick and die.
This experiment has been done many times. Plenty of people habve eaten the stuff.
They are all still with us.
Therefore the material is not toxic, and your postulate is false."

They are all still with us! Really?

People die, every day. A good percentage have eaten Canola. It's almost unavoidable these days. Therefore, they are certainly not still with us. Whether their consumption of Canola had anything to do with their death is the open question.

It depends on the definition of toxic, and over what period the toxic material acts. I think you would know this, but you do not allude to it. Asbestos is a great example. I think your argument is misleading.

We know that many pesticides, herbicides, fungicides etc are also toxic to humans. Many have since been banned. But how many people actually DIED through their minimal, cumulative exposure to them?  Sure people have died from drinking them undiluted, but how about you drink a couple of litres of pure, non-toxic Canola?

Surely, this is a debate in the same arena?
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2012 19:39:00
"People die, every day. A good percentage have eaten Canola. It's almost unavoidable these days. Therefore, they are certainly not still with us. Whether their consumption of Canola had anything to do with their death is the open question."
It is sufficient that lots of them are still here in a way that they wouldn't be if they had fried their chips in nicotine.

", but how about you drink a couple of litres of pure, non-toxic Canola?"
Over the years, I almost certainly have- many times.
You say "We know that many pesticides, herbicides, fungicides etc are also toxic to humans."
How do we know that?
Well, we sometimes know it from acute exposure- accidents or suicides etc.
But more often we know it from epidemiological studies.
Now, just as soon as you show me the study (a real one which stands up to scrutiny- not a rant from some pressure group) you will have a point.
Until then you need to be careful who you describe as "less scientific then they need to be"
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: DB on 09/07/2012 01:34:34
Haha! Very funny...

Disingenuous, to say the least.

It is sufficient that lots of them are still here in a way that they wouldn't be if they had fried their chips in nicotine.

"It is sufficient..."  Oh, really? For who, or for what?

It is certainly not sufficient to satisfy me that you know anything about this subject, or are able to argue it rationally. Your comparison is, quite frankly, absurd. You are obviously doing your utmost to try to derail this discussion, to draw red herrings across the path and to generally suppress any intelligent discussion on this subject.

I am left wondering WHY? Do you have a vested interest in the promotion of "Canola", or what is your motivation (since it apparently isn't establishing the truth)?

", but how about you drink a couple of litres of pure, non-toxic Canola?"
Over the years, I almost certainly have- many times.

Disingenuous, again? Either, your ability to comprehend written English is severely impaired, or you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand or misinterpret my suggestion. Or, something else - please enlighten us all.

Oh, I suppose, you may have no teeth, or some other inability to eat solid foods, and must therefore take all your food in liquid form. Can you confirm that?

Certainly, I can state that I have never knowingly drunk canola oil. Nor, I suspect, any other oil.  These, I only ever eat, as part of a solid food meal. (Or, in capsules.) Even soup, I would not regard as being consumed by drinking, unless it's relatively cool and drunk from a mug. But even then, would you drink it? Or would you sip it?

So, my challenge was to drink canola oil - and I mean (and meant) that in the ordinary, everyday sense of drinking. Take a litre of pure canola, and drink it.  All in one sitting.

So, you have done that many times?  In that case, tell us all: How did it go down?

Or, what is the reason you were unable to comprehend my meaning?

Oh, I see...

You say "We know that many pesticides, herbicides, fungicides etc are also toxic to humans."
How do we know that?
Well, we sometimes know it from acute exposure- accidents or suicides etc.
But more often we know it from epidemiological studies.

Oh! Really!? Are you SERIOUS??? 

REALLY!? I am flabbergasted. Do you know anything at all about what you are talking about?


Now, just as soon as you show me the study (a real one which stands up to scrutiny- not a rant from some pressure group) you will have a point.

How kind of you to allow me this.

Is there any other way, your Boredness, that I might have a point? Or is that the only possibility? (I realise that it's the only possibility you are offering me, of course...)

Until then you need to be careful who you describe as "less scientific then they need to be"

Dear Bored, this is obviously your "coup de grace"!

Too bad you have fallen on your own sword, my friend.

In fact, I have been very, very careful (in my previous posts) not to call anyone anything.  You have BLATANTLY misquoted me, and it's only 'a couple' of posts earlier in this thread.

I have never called you nor anyone else, in this thread "less scientific then they need to be" - though, now, clearly, you are obviously very much less scientific than, say, am I, or elementaljoe. You obviously cannot read and comprehend, and respond accurately to the points that are made.

Just for the record, here is what I said:

Unfortunately, I find your arguments less scientific, and far less convincing than I think they need to be.

If you are able to understand, you will see that I have very carefully directed my criticism to "your arguments" rather than to you (as in ad hominem), and I have also very clearly indicated that this was (is) my opinion - by the words "...I find..." and "...I think..."

I AM ENTITLED to my opinion. Or, maybe not, in your world, BC.

So, by telling me that "I need to be careful" (my emphases) I see what I perceive as some form of threat.  You, making a threat in my direction.

But because the threat has been made in precise contradiction of what I actually did, well, I can really only see that as indicating that you, yourself, feel threatened.  In psychoanalysis, this is often known as "projection".

There's a lot more I could add, but, as I said, I don't really have time.

But I would like to ask, where is YOUR evidence?

DB
Title: Re: Canola Oil? No thank you.
Post by: Geezer on 09/07/2012 01:53:28
DB,

No more ad hom. remarks.

THREAD LOCKED