Canola Oil is a Classic Example of Food Fraud
- Thread starter Lurch
- Start date
- Status
We don't use canola oil in this house for a variety of reasons, but especially since the Percy Schmeiser court case.
I had no idea that Genetically Modified rapeseed oil is sold as Canola Oil to the consumers. I don't normally come across foods like that (being an organic or locally produced small farm food eater) but it is disconcerting to learn that we are fed GMO foods..
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Humans are the only mammal that continues to drink milk after it's weaned. And it's not even our own milk, it's from a different mammal!
Spoken like someone who has never watched a cat on a farm while a cow is being milked.
Humans are the only mammal that continues to drink milk after it's weaned. And it's not even our own milk, it's from a different mammal!
Spoken like someone who has never watched a cat on a farm while a cow is being milked.
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Humans are the only mammal that continues to drink milk after it's weaned. And it's not even our own milk, it's from a different mammal!
Spoken like someone who has never watched a cat on a farm while a cow is being milked.
Would a cat ever have the opportunity to drink cow milk if a human wasn't present?
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Humans are the only mammal that continues to drink milk after it's weaned. And it's not even our own milk, it's from a different mammal!
Spoken like someone who has never watched a cat on a farm while a cow is being milked.
Would a cat ever have the opportunity to drink cow milk if a human wasn't present?
Quote:
Would a cat ever have the opportunity to drink cow milk if a human wasn't present?
Is your argument that "Humans are the only mammal that continues to drink milk after it's weaned."
Or that: Humans are the only mammal that have the ability/opportunity to drink milk after it's weaned?
Would a cat ever have the opportunity to drink cow milk if a human wasn't present?
Is your argument that "Humans are the only mammal that continues to drink milk after it's weaned."
Or that: Humans are the only mammal that have the ability/opportunity to drink milk after it's weaned?
Is your argument that humans are hard wired to require dairy foods as an essential part of their diet ?
OR We like it and are going to eat it regardless.
Dairy industry argues (falsely) the first, but really wants the latter, like Quiklube wants an extra oil change per annum.
OR We like it and are going to eat it regardless.
Dairy industry argues (falsely) the first, but really wants the latter, like Quiklube wants an extra oil change per annum.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
I had no idea that Genetically Modified rapeseed oil is sold as Canola Oil to the consumers. I don't normally come across foods like that (being an organic or locally produced small farm food eater) but it is disconcerting to learn that we are fed GMO foods..
Per the Snopes article, Canola oil is not "genetically modified", but rather is just a result of careful cross breeding. Not unlike where we get different apples, grapes, etc.
jeff
I had no idea that Genetically Modified rapeseed oil is sold as Canola Oil to the consumers. I don't normally come across foods like that (being an organic or locally produced small farm food eater) but it is disconcerting to learn that we are fed GMO foods..
Per the Snopes article, Canola oil is not "genetically modified", but rather is just a result of careful cross breeding. Not unlike where we get different apples, grapes, etc.
jeff
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
I had no idea that Genetically Modified rapeseed oil is sold as Canola Oil to the consumers. I don't normally come across foods like that (being an organic or locally produced small farm food eater) but it is disconcerting to learn that we are fed GMO foods..
Per the Snopes article, Canola oil is not "genetically modified", but rather is just a result of careful cross breeding. Not unlike where we get different apples, grapes, etc.
jeff
Looks like 93% of canola in the US is GMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
I had no idea that Genetically Modified rapeseed oil is sold as Canola Oil to the consumers. I don't normally come across foods like that (being an organic or locally produced small farm food eater) but it is disconcerting to learn that we are fed GMO foods..
Per the Snopes article, Canola oil is not "genetically modified", but rather is just a result of careful cross breeding. Not unlike where we get different apples, grapes, etc.
jeff
Looks like 93% of canola in the US is GMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
[/quote]
Looks like 93% of canola in the US is GMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Per the Canola wiki page, "Canola was developed through conventional plant breeding from rapeseed, an oilseed plant already used in ancient civilization."
That page, as well as the one you link, then say that in the late 80s an herbicide resistant strain was GM'd, with plantings starting in the mid 90s.
So the basic "Canola" was developed using presumably more "benign" cross breeding methods. It has since been genetically modified as have other crops.
So while most of what's out there is GM it's not inherent in the plant. That's a distinction that may or may not matter to you depending on your feelings about these things.
jeff
[/quote]
Looks like 93% of canola in the US is GMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Per the Canola wiki page, "Canola was developed through conventional plant breeding from rapeseed, an oilseed plant already used in ancient civilization."
That page, as well as the one you link, then say that in the late 80s an herbicide resistant strain was GM'd, with plantings starting in the mid 90s.
So the basic "Canola" was developed using presumably more "benign" cross breeding methods. It has since been genetically modified as have other crops.
So while most of what's out there is GM it's not inherent in the plant. That's a distinction that may or may not matter to you depending on your feelings about these things.
jeff
Originally Posted By: greenjp
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Per the Canola wiki page, "Canola was developed through conventional plant breeding from rapeseed, an oilseed plant already used in ancient civilization."
That page, as well as the one you link, then say that in the late 80s an herbicide resistant strain was GM'd, with plantings starting in the mid 90s.
So the basic "Canola" was developed using presumably more "benign" cross breeding methods. It has since been genetically modified as have other crops.
So while most of what's out there is GM it's not inherent in the plant. That's a distinction that may or may not matter to you depending on your feelings about these things.
jeff
If 93% of the rapeseed plants in the US are GMO, it means only 7% are non-GMO plants (crossbred or other types) meaning that the chance of coming across a non-GMO rapeseed plant is infinitesimally small.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Per the Canola wiki page, "Canola was developed through conventional plant breeding from rapeseed, an oilseed plant already used in ancient civilization."
That page, as well as the one you link, then say that in the late 80s an herbicide resistant strain was GM'd, with plantings starting in the mid 90s.
So the basic "Canola" was developed using presumably more "benign" cross breeding methods. It has since been genetically modified as have other crops.
So while most of what's out there is GM it's not inherent in the plant. That's a distinction that may or may not matter to you depending on your feelings about these things.
jeff
If 93% of the rapeseed plants in the US are GMO, it means only 7% are non-GMO plants (crossbred or other types) meaning that the chance of coming across a non-GMO rapeseed plant is infinitesimally small.
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Humans are the only mammal that continues to drink milk after it's weaned. And it's not even our own milk, it's from a different mammal!
Spoken like someone who has never watched a cat on a farm while a cow is being milked.
There is a vast difference between what comes out of the teat and what you get in the plastic jug at he market. Cats can probably handle fresh cows milk that has not had all the enzymes destroyed, but you want to see a cat get sick, feed it supermarket milk, that will completely mess up it's digestive system.
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Humans are the only mammal that continues to drink milk after it's weaned. And it's not even our own milk, it's from a different mammal!
Spoken like someone who has never watched a cat on a farm while a cow is being milked.
There is a vast difference between what comes out of the teat and what you get in the plastic jug at he market. Cats can probably handle fresh cows milk that has not had all the enzymes destroyed, but you want to see a cat get sick, feed it supermarket milk, that will completely mess up it's digestive system.
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
I had no idea that Genetically Modified rapeseed oil is sold as Canola Oil to the consumers. I don't normally come across foods like that (being an organic or locally produced small farm food eater) but it is disconcerting to learn that we are fed GMO foods..
Per the Snopes article, Canola oil is not "genetically modified", but rather is just a result of careful cross breeding. Not unlike where we get different apples, grapes, etc.
jeff
Why I hate Snopes, frequently wrong, and in reality is just an old couple in CA that reads stuff on the internet (Google "Who is Snopes", all sources agree at least on who they are).
I think I can read and research just as well as they can. Now they are certainly very productive and get a lot of stuff correct, but they are not the end all and be all authority of everything everyone wants to make them out to be.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
I had no idea that Genetically Modified rapeseed oil is sold as Canola Oil to the consumers. I don't normally come across foods like that (being an organic or locally produced small farm food eater) but it is disconcerting to learn that we are fed GMO foods..
Per the Snopes article, Canola oil is not "genetically modified", but rather is just a result of careful cross breeding. Not unlike where we get different apples, grapes, etc.
jeff
Why I hate Snopes, frequently wrong, and in reality is just an old couple in CA that reads stuff on the internet (Google "Who is Snopes", all sources agree at least on who they are).
I think I can read and research just as well as they can. Now they are certainly very productive and get a lot of stuff correct, but they are not the end all and be all authority of everything everyone wants to make them out to be.
Originally Posted By: jmac
There is a vast difference between what comes out of the teat and what you get in the plastic jug at he market. Cats can probably handle fresh cows milk that has not had all the enzymes destroyed, but you want to see a cat get sick, feed it supermarket milk, that will completely mess up it's digestive system.
All true. Feeding milk to a cat is kind of like a tradition. Many don't seem to realize that in general, milk is not a good food for cats.
There is a vast difference between what comes out of the teat and what you get in the plastic jug at he market. Cats can probably handle fresh cows milk that has not had all the enzymes destroyed, but you want to see a cat get sick, feed it supermarket milk, that will completely mess up it's digestive system.
All true. Feeding milk to a cat is kind of like a tradition. Many don't seem to realize that in general, milk is not a good food for cats.
Originally Posted By: jmac
Why I hate Snopes, frequently wrong, and in reality is just an old couple in CA that reads stuff on the internet (Google "Who is Snopes", all sources agree at least on who they are).
I think I can read and research just as well as they can. Now they are certainly very productive and get a lot of stuff correct, but they are not the end all and be all authority of everything everyone wants to make them out to be.
I can't say that I'd disagree with any of this either. I guess they are OK if you're satisfied by the first search site you're taken to.
Why I hate Snopes, frequently wrong, and in reality is just an old couple in CA that reads stuff on the internet (Google "Who is Snopes", all sources agree at least on who they are).
I think I can read and research just as well as they can. Now they are certainly very productive and get a lot of stuff correct, but they are not the end all and be all authority of everything everyone wants to make them out to be.
I can't say that I'd disagree with any of this either. I guess they are OK if you're satisfied by the first search site you're taken to.
Originally Posted By: jmac
Why I hate Snopes, frequently wrong, and in reality is just an old couple in CA that reads stuff on the internet (Google "Who is Snopes", all sources agree at least on who they are).
I think I can read and research just as well as they can. Now they are certainly very productive and get a lot of stuff correct, but they are not the end all and be all authority of everything everyone wants to make them out to be.
Of course they're not. You can say the same for "Paul Fassa, citizen journalist" and the anonymous people who edit content on Wikipedia
The OP is written in a style very typical of hoaxes/urban legends/conspiracy theories/etc. Take a grain of truth and extrapolate with inferences, not-entirely-relevant comparisons, cherry picked data, and arrive at a highly questionable conclusion. Snopes generally does a good job of pointing these things out.
As to the OPs essential contention, that not only is Canola "not healthy" (note they only compare it to virgin olive oil, which as anyone who knows their way around a kitchen knows is not a suitable oil for all cooking), but that there is "growing evidence of toxic dangers". All they do is cite something involving piglets and the assertion that "Other tests have determined various imbalances with micronutrients that nature synergistically provides", whatever the heck that means. Mix in some "reported" (by whom? where?) conspiratorial behaviors by the Canadian government, add the boogeyman of GMO and you have a nice, tidy screed that upon careful review makes almost no sense.
Contrast that with the fact that the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the Preventative Cardiovascular Nurses Association, and the American Heart Association all include Canola oil among their choices of "good" oils. I'm sure the anti-Canola faction would quickly accuse all of those groups of being on the take though, so I don't expect it to matter much.
Here's the exact text of the FDA's authorized labeling for Canola oil, with my italics added for emphasis:
"Limited and not conclusive scientific evidence suggests that eating about 1 1/2 tablespoons (19 grams) of canola oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to the unsaturated fat content in canola oil. To achieve this possible benefit, canola oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a day. One serving of this product contains (x) grams of canola oil."
That caveat-laden text doesn't exactly smack of the unsavory influence of agribusiness over the government to me.
jeff
Why I hate Snopes, frequently wrong, and in reality is just an old couple in CA that reads stuff on the internet (Google "Who is Snopes", all sources agree at least on who they are).
I think I can read and research just as well as they can. Now they are certainly very productive and get a lot of stuff correct, but they are not the end all and be all authority of everything everyone wants to make them out to be.
Of course they're not. You can say the same for "Paul Fassa, citizen journalist" and the anonymous people who edit content on Wikipedia
The OP is written in a style very typical of hoaxes/urban legends/conspiracy theories/etc. Take a grain of truth and extrapolate with inferences, not-entirely-relevant comparisons, cherry picked data, and arrive at a highly questionable conclusion. Snopes generally does a good job of pointing these things out.
As to the OPs essential contention, that not only is Canola "not healthy" (note they only compare it to virgin olive oil, which as anyone who knows their way around a kitchen knows is not a suitable oil for all cooking), but that there is "growing evidence of toxic dangers". All they do is cite something involving piglets and the assertion that "Other tests have determined various imbalances with micronutrients that nature synergistically provides", whatever the heck that means. Mix in some "reported" (by whom? where?) conspiratorial behaviors by the Canadian government, add the boogeyman of GMO and you have a nice, tidy screed that upon careful review makes almost no sense.
Contrast that with the fact that the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the Preventative Cardiovascular Nurses Association, and the American Heart Association all include Canola oil among their choices of "good" oils. I'm sure the anti-Canola faction would quickly accuse all of those groups of being on the take though, so I don't expect it to matter much.
Here's the exact text of the FDA's authorized labeling for Canola oil, with my italics added for emphasis:
"Limited and not conclusive scientific evidence suggests that eating about 1 1/2 tablespoons (19 grams) of canola oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to the unsaturated fat content in canola oil. To achieve this possible benefit, canola oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a day. One serving of this product contains (x) grams of canola oil."
That caveat-laden text doesn't exactly smack of the unsavory influence of agribusiness over the government to me.
jeff
I have a healthy skepticism of the FDA, AMA and all the mainstream science commitees that support big agriculture but I agree with you. These stories about Canola oil and milk being bad are pretty baseless and frauds. There's all kinds of misinformation out there backed up by no solid science. They are probably written to benefit some sector of the food industry by starting rumors against their food competitiors. Humans have been drinking milk for 1000's of years and not having any health problems.
The more I learn about snopes.com, the more I think it's really a biased site and one I'd never take any advice at all from. I personally don't pay any mind to anything from the FDA, EPA, AMA, ADA, etc., etc. IMO, they're all biased in favor of MDs and big drug corporations, in favor of treating symptoms with pills, not prevention.
This article I came across today, really is hogwash, IMHO.
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/fruit.asp
There are devoted food perfectionists that deeply care about what they eat, like the article I posted, that care a lot about their health and their loved ones' health, and I've gotten to know and trust them for info. Then there are sites like snopes.com that don't prove anything by me. I compare snopes to quackwatch.com - both sites I'd personally never take with anything more than a grain of salt.
This article I came across today, really is hogwash, IMHO.
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/fruit.asp
There are devoted food perfectionists that deeply care about what they eat, like the article I posted, that care a lot about their health and their loved ones' health, and I've gotten to know and trust them for info. Then there are sites like snopes.com that don't prove anything by me. I compare snopes to quackwatch.com - both sites I'd personally never take with anything more than a grain of salt.
- Status
Similar threads
