[Madidus_Scientia]

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.

[elementaljoe]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[Madidus_Scientia]

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.

[BenV]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[elementaljoe]

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.
 

[Madidus_Scientia]

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.

"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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Geezer]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[CurLz]

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.  []

[NothaShrubry]

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 []. 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[NothaShrubry]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[BenV]

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?

[NothaShrubry]

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.

[BenV]

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!

[NothaShrubry]

Well, isn't soil just a lot of mixed up waste mineral products?