Canola Again

[Guest guest]

In response to my posting:

 

<< Well, that's not exactly a complete picture of canola. Canola can in no

way compare to olive oil, which has been used in diet for thousands of

years. Canola is a hybridized version of rapeseed that was developed by

Canadian scientists. They specifically were trying to reduce naturally

occuring poisons in rapeseed oil, erucic oil being the worst. >>

 

Greg wrote:

 

<< And they succeeded. Commercial Canola has less than 0.5 % erucic acid. A

scan of the papers on PubMed show NO toxicity or problems at this level. The

latest version of the seed has reduced erucic even further. Many foods have

been modified by food scientists over the years to reduce undesirable

elements naturally occurring. You eat many of there foods every day, so why

give the original rapeseed a bad rap it is NOT what current Canola is made

from.

 

With respect, please try to compare apples to apples. >>

 

Greg,

 

You seem to have trouble understanding what is being said. Canola oil has

only been around for about fifteen years and does not have the ancient

history of olive oil. When people compare the two, focusing on the saturated

oil content while ignoring that canola oil contains a deadly toxin that olive

oil does not, they are comparing apples with oranges while specifically

hiding something.

 

Apparently you do not like to admit that rapeseed and canola are related.

Despite the fact that the erucic acid has been reduced in canola, it still

occurs. We are not comparing apples and oranges here. Scientifically,

canola is considered a type of rapeseed (brassica) and there are stern

warnings about growing the fields together because rapeseed can pollinate

canola and produce the higher levels of erucic acid.

 

The following excerpt shows the language that the scientific and agricultural

communities use when referring to rapeseed and canola (from

www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00110.html) .

 

<< New varieties of rapeseed, developed in Canada and Europe, are low in

erucic acid and glycosinolates. These varieties are the so-called " doublelow "

types and sometimes are marketed as canola. >>

 

They keep lowering the erucic acid profile because it is a poison. The fact

is that by law they can have up to 2% erucic acid. Even though some crops

may yield lower amounts, other crops yield higher levels and they are not

guaranteeing the level in the bottles people buy at stores. I think people

should be informed that there is a little extra ingredient in canola that is

a known poison. Let them decide whether they want to add that poison to

their diets.

 

Apparently your definition of " good science " is your opinion. When Lorenzo

wrote about the PUBMED article reporting that cows had died after consuming

large amounts of canola oil and asked if anyone believed they would have died

after eating olive oil, you wrote:

 

<< Or car oil or massage oil or any other form of oil? >>

 

Did you really not understand what was being said? He asked if consuming

large amounts of olive oil would kill the cattle. You responded with

nonedible oils. I believe you might really understand that there is a

possible problem with canola when you compare it to toxic oils. Then, you

wrapped up your response with:

 

<< How about comparing apples to apples and reporting the PubMed papers

which show benefit to humans from Canola oil? With respect, this is not good

science >>

 

I'm not sure how we once again get comparing fruits out of this, but

apparently it's your standard effort to pooh-pooh someone's point. And the

" this is not good science " is another obvious cop-out. First, you do not

address what is being said: do you truthfully think that olive oil would

have killed the cattle? If so, why? You just blow some smoke with the

apparent belief that if you disagree with someone, you don't have to address

their point, just mention comparing apples with apples and mention " not good

science. "

 

You state that PUBMED has articles showing that canola is good for one's

health. Why don't you bring them up? It is your contention that canola is

good for health, but offer no studies.

 

One of the most widely cited studies is the Lyon Study. Here's an excerpt

that appeared at the Canola Council's own website.

 

<< • Results from the long term and well-designed " Lyon

Heart Diet Study " study demonstrated that over the course

of close to four years, a Mediterranean-type diet reduced

the risk of a second heart attack and overall death rate by

as much as 70%. Canola oil based margarines were included

as a constituent in the dietary protocol. Even though

several antioxidant-rich foods, including vegetable and

fruits as well as omega-3 EFA rich fish were also consumed,

only the EFA alpha- linolenic acid from the canola oil

margarine was significantly related to a reduction in heart

attacks. The researchers concluded that dietary changes

such a reduction in the total intake of saturated fats and

an increase in intake of alpha-linolenic acid through the

consumption of canola oil can lead to significant

reductions in mortality from CHD9. >>

 

The conclusion is extemely unscientific: Change people's diet to one that is

known to be healthy, and tell them to include canola margarine (margarine is

known for having unhealthy trans fatty-acids). When their health improves,

credit the canola margarine. No. An honest test would to take two groups

and change only one element: their margarine/butter source.

 

Kathy

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

<ksheabrown

 

Friday, November 23, 2001 5:07 AM

Canola Again

 

 

Greg,

 

You seem to have trouble understanding what is being said. Canola oil has

only been around for about fifteen years and does not have the ancient

history of olive oil. When people compare the two, focusing on the saturated

oil content while ignoring that canola oil contains a deadly toxin that olive

oil does not, they are comparing apples with oranges while specifically

hiding something.

 

** ALL foods contain some toxins. Almonds contain arsenic. What is the

determinate factor is at what level the toxin

causes problems and at what level the toxin occurs in the food. This is what

science is medical / food about.

 

Apparently you do not like to admit that rapeseed and canola are related.

Despite the fact that the erucic acid has been reduced in canola, it still

occurs.

 

** Sure, just like arsenic occurs in almonds.

 

Apparently your definition of " good science " is your opinion. When Lorenzo

wrote about the PUBMED article reporting that cows had died after consuming

large amounts of canola oil and asked if anyone believed they would have died

after eating olive oil, you wrote:

 

** Good science would have gives other cows the same dose of other oils and

observed the effects. Bad science is taking

one example and applying it incorrectly.

 

Did you really not understand what was being said? He asked if consuming

large amounts of olive oil would kill the cattle. You responded with

nonedible oils. I believe you might really understand that there is a

possible problem with canola when you compare it to toxic oils.

 

** I understand the researchers found NO cause of death. You think they didn't

look for high erucic acid in the cow's

blood and tissues?. As they found NO cause, you can assume erucic acid was NOT

the cause.

 

With respect Lorenzo's and your reply is a example of how it is easy to take

data out of context and make it suite other

purposes. While is was good to see Lorenzo using PubMed, is was disappointing

he didn't list some of the papers showing

the health benefits from canola. Viweing data with only one eye will always

reveal exactly what you seek to find.

 

<< • Results from the long term and well-designed " Lyon

Heart Diet Study " study demonstrated that over the course

of close to four years, a Mediterranean-type diet reduced

the risk of a second heart attack and overall death rate by

as much as 70%. Canola oil based margarines were included

as a constituent in the dietary protocol. Even though

several antioxidant-rich foods, including vegetable and

fruits as well as omega-3 EFA rich fish were also consumed,

only the EFA alpha- linolenic acid from the canola oil

margarine was significantly related to a reduction in heart

attacks. The researchers concluded that dietary changes

such a reduction in the total intake of saturated fats and

an increase in intake of alpha-linolenic acid through the

consumption of canola oil can lead to significant

reductions in mortality from CHD9. >>

 

The conclusion is extemely unscientific: Change people's diet to one that is

known to be healthy, and tell them to include canola margarine (margarine is

known for having unhealthy trans fatty-acids). When their health improves,

credit the canola margarine. No. An honest test would to take two groups

and change only one element: their margarine/butter source.

 

Hi Kathy,

 

The Lyon Heart sudy was one of the most closely controlled studies in the world.

There was a control group which did

not use canola and experienced normal heart attack and death rates. In the

canola group there were NO cardio deaths and

in fact the study was stopped after about 2 years and both groups placed on the

canola diet due to the strong result.

 

The lack of deaths and the use of canola were the only two significant

variations between the two groups.

========================

Good Health & Long Life,

Greg Watson, gowatson

USDA database (food breakdown) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/

PubMed (research papers) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

DWIDP (nutrient analysis) http://www.walford.com/dwdemo/dw2b63demo.exe

KIM (omega analysis) http://ods.od.nih.gov/eicosanoids/KIM_Install.exe