|  IP: Logged

Gracia, I think you may have the same sensitivity that I have. I think I've narrowed it down to the erucic acids (Lorenzo's oil) that are still present in small quantities in Canola.

This fellow has it about right. http://www.rogerkyoung.com/oil.html

FWIW, rapeseed oil was involved in a poisoning epidemic in Spain largely because a batch of it that had been denatured with aniline (for industrial use) got into the food supply. Common thought is that the byproducts of the denaturing were a cause of the over 500 deaths, and thousands of illnesses. Rapeseed oil is used as a food oil in India, and was in fact heavily used in Spain prior to the poisonings.

There are many issues with Canola and rapeseed. One of these may be that it is simply a "new" food that some people cannot tolerate. There has been some research that suggests the evolution of humans contained times when those who could not tolerate the changes in diet from fish and meat-eaters to a grain based diet simply died off, leaving only those who could at least partly tolerate the new diet to reproduce. Some people think this is somewhat reflected in the different blood types.

I have recently begun paying strict attention to what is actually in the foods that I consume. More and more I've been shocked at how much unnecessary crap is in so many things.
Almost makes me think that there is either one (very weird) conspiracy going on, else the general population is retarded!

I wouldn't want popcorn oil in the air at a museum either, and I don't think I'd be eager to allow dry popping, which adds moisture and some components of the corn to the air.

Gracia, I've had to pay more and more attention to food components as my sensitivities have increased. Your rant is on target. Companies are looking to increase their bottom line and consumers are looking to reduce theirs. Our attitude towards food in the U.S. is lousy.

Anyway, I prefer coconut oil for popping corn.

Steven Gorsky

The overall thrust of the site that I cited was that this oil was developed and heavily promoted by Canadian farmers and processors, and that Canola still has some euricic acid in it (admitted by the canola processors). It is apparent that the site author has strong reservations about that, and has provided guides on where to look in attempting to verify his statements. Many of his statements are obviously speculative, but not any more so than those of the canola producers.

I don't think I would be as strongly against the oil (canola) if it didn't affect me directly. I AM one of those "anecdotal people" that the Washington Post author casually dismisses. Reporters saying that there is no scientific evidence of harm from canola can repeat it until they are blue in the face, but they are talking through their (to be polite) hats. This stuff can literally make me sick, to the point that I can't work for a day or more. Sometimes the effect is greater than other times, and I suspect the euricic acid content and amount of rancidity are factors.

I'm well aware that people like Gracia and myself might be in a minority, but our mere presence proves that this oil is NOT a good thing for all people. From the research that I have done, I am of the further opinion that there are NO extraordinary health benefits to the commonly marketed canola shortening which has been hydrogenated to reduce rancidity and the fishy odor.

The WP author focused on an urban legend story that anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills could dismiss, then used that story to "prove" guilt by association, and infer that other comments about Canola were equally untrue. Frankly, such reporting is sophomoric lazy journalism unworthy of even a college newspaper, much less the Washington Post. Other compaints about canola are out there, and there is a real concern over the general suitability and even safety of the product, yet the reporter you cite wrote an article on the subject that has less depth than the frosting on a twinkie.
www.snopes2.com is generally considered to do reasonable research. They did a bit on canola, which a quick search of their site will find. (This article jumps to a number of conclusions - for instance rapeseed oil wasn't used in the US before 1974, it is true, but the reasons are probably less because of heart lesions in lab animals and more because of the stink of the rancid oil making it less popular than more easily obtained cottonseed, corn, and other oils.)

Even the organization that pushed the whole canola craze onto the backs of theatres doesn't like the way it is used in theatres. This quote is directly from their own website:
"Up to a quarter of all theaters use "healthier" canola oil. Canola may be lower in saturated fat, but we gagged when we saw how much cholesterol-raising trans fat it had. Why so much?

Because the multiplex banner is wrong. Theaters are popping in partially hydrogenated canola shortening, not canola oil. Oils have no trans. Shortenings -- even liquid ones -- are usually full of it. "
http://www.cspinet.org/nah/popcorn.html

I've ripped their "science" on this subject totally apart before, and I'm not going to repeat myself. Other people are catching on that the center for (cough) science in the public interest is often less than truthful. For another opnion on their tactics, see: http://www.cspinot.com/

I can't think of any good reason for theatres to still be using canola "oil." I also would be willing to bet good money that much of the "heart healthy" canola oil sold in stores not only still contains trace amount of euricic acid, which can cause heart lesions in lab animals, but is hydrogenated as well, increasing the amount of trans-fatty acids that are the current "bad guys" to the cardiovascular crowd. In short,... we've been had.

Steven Gorsky

I was talking with a nurse recently, who said that the wife of a microbiologist co-worker had been ill for months with intestinal problems, until her husband began using his skills to investigate the bacteria in her gut. He found the problem that doctors had missed, presented a doctor with the proof and told him point blank to start the proper treatment. If the woman had not had a microbiologist for a husband, she might still be looking for answers (or dead).

Email me if you want to discuss things in more detail.

 |  IP: Logged

CBC news story

From the story:

WINNIPEG - There is confirmation of something canola farmers have been saying for years: that genetically modified canola is popping up where it wasn't planted and where it isn't wanted.

An Agriculture Canada study suggests the problem is in the seeds. More than half of the seed samples tested showed some level of genetically modified presence. The study's authors conclude that means almost every canola field planted with conventional seed will contain some genetically modified plants.