[Bored chemist]

Define "waste"
BTW, has anyone seen the topic lately?

[NothaShrubry]

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."

[jonathan111]

I'm pretty sure canola oil is ok.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[NothaShrubry]

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.

[Biomed student]

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

[CliffordK]

You might as well just use 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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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]"

[Geezer]

That explains it! I thought it was the bean burrito.

[Layni]

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 

Layni

[james oliver]

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

[DB]

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

[Bored chemist]

" 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.

[DB]

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?

[Bored chemist]

"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"

[DB]

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

[Geezer]

DB,

No more ad hom. remarks.

THREAD LOCKED