[miriam0920 (OP)]

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. 

[Chemistry4me]

That is correct

[Bored chemist]

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.

[miriam0920 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[miriam0920 (OP)]

"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. 



 

[rosy]

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.

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).

[blakestyger]

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.

[Chemistry4me]

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

[blakestyger]

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?

[Evie]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[miriam0920 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[blakestyger]

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?

[miriam0920 (OP)]

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!

[miriam0920 (OP)]

Blake, I didn't find photos of these women can you send a link?  I would like to see it. 

thanks.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[blakestyger]

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:

[blakestyger]

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. []