On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:39:42 GMT, "LifeisGood" >
wrote:

>Remark on your Q&A:
>
>First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
>Especially when motivated by money.
>
It is a given that they have a vested interest and so one should look
at the data. However, that interest also includes making a safe
product. So far in this exchange I have seen precisely no evidence
that it is not safe and a great deal of evidence of ignorance of basic
chemistry and experimental methods. I will leave the choice in
rancid oils to connoiseurs thereof. I prefer mine fresh.

[...]
>
>Rape seed oil = toxic

You really ought to get this little nugget out to the Europeans and
Asians who have been eating it for centuries. And, by the way, you
ought to spend a little time around the extraction of olive oil
sometime.

LifeisGood wrote:
>
> Default User > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Stop believing every scare story that hits your email. Start learning to
> > be a discerning, skeptical, rational person.
>
> I don't get it?

First thing you've said right so far.

> Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or read
> juornalism debuncing methods or technology curently believed safe or
> healthy?

I pay attention to qualified researchers when they have something to say
on the subject. Please produce some.

> Example: Are you still in belief that hydrogenated fat is
> healthly?

Who came out with that? Nutjobs on the internet or scientists? Have
scientists come out and produced studies that support these contentions?
No.


> The problem with medical science is that there are so many factors at work
> in the body it is easy to hide from (or bury) the long term effects.

That doesn't mean that every crackpot theory has a basis.



Brian Rodenborn

LifeisGood wrote:
>
> Default User > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Stop believing every scare story that hits your email. Start learning to
> > be a discerning, skeptical, rational person.
>
> I don't get it?

First thing you've said right so far.

> Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or read
> juornalism debuncing methods or technology curently believed safe or
> healthy?

I pay attention to qualified researchers when they have something to say
on the subject. Please produce some.

> Example: Are you still in belief that hydrogenated fat is
> healthly?

Who came out with that? Nutjobs on the internet or scientists? Have
scientists come out and produced studies that support these contentions?
No.


> The problem with medical science is that there are so many factors at work
> in the body it is easy to hide from (or bury) the long term effects.

That doesn't mean that every crackpot theory has a basis.



Brian Rodenborn

>"Rapeseed" wasn't marketable so
>"canola" was used instead.

Deer hunters don't mind the word "rapeseed." It grows some pretty good stuff
that the deer like (and helps those bucks grow BIG antlers).

Tamie

>"Rapeseed" wasn't marketable so
>"canola" was used instead.

Deer hunters don't mind the word "rapeseed." It grows some pretty good stuff
that the deer like (and helps those bucks grow BIG antlers).

Tamie

>I think they were worried about what all those rapeseeds would do to the
virgin olives.
>
>--Lia
>

ROTFLMFAO! Yer killin' me here! :-D

Tamie

>I think they were worried about what all those rapeseeds would do to the
virgin olives.
>
>--Lia
>

ROTFLMFAO! Yer killin' me here! :-D

Tamie

Ok, you guys are crushing me with your inability to believe that big
business does poses the power to control what "you" believe. I will only
share one example, and then I guess I throw in the towel.

Do a search for "The price of sweetness" AND "Technology Review".
http://www.google.com/search?num=100...he+price+of+sw
eetness%22+%22Technology+Review%22&btnG=Search

It will most likely turn up a site that most of you will quickly turn and
say "another Urban Myth" http://www.dorway.com/dontkno.html

Now, I don't mean to start a new thread, but this is how America was made to
believe Aspartame (trade name "NutraSweet" ) was safe. The author of the
above site states facts she pulled from the article "The Price of Sweetness"
by Steven A. Farber. Steven Farber (at the time of writing) is a master's
candidate in the Technology Policy Program and a PhD candidate in brain and
cognitive sciences at MIT. (Bob, facts start with someones notion that
something is just not right.) I have the original article in paper form in
my library. I searched it out back in 1994 investigating reasons why a close
friend of mine was being stricken with seizures (NutraSweet was the cause).
I have since met about 1/2 dozen people that have been diagnosed with vision
disorders due to Aspartame.

I have searched high and low on the WEB but have not been able to turn up
this article electronically, but if you are interested in the text you
should be able to find it at any good library. I located my copy at the
Public Library in Boston MA. The Price of Sweetness - MIT Technology
Review - January 1990.

At the time (and currently) my cousin is a food chemist and he was totally
unable to except anything Mr. Farber wrote regarding "Aspartame". Yes, he
did, and still does drink diet sodas with Aspartame. He says that radicals
do high concentration testing, and that moderation is key. As, by the rules
of "applied chemistry" Aspartame is made up of naturally occurring amino
acids that would have no ill effects on the human body. BUT, what scientist
failed to understand (or accept) is, what could be the adverse side effects
of creating this massive imbalance of these amino acids? (Note: My cousin
was diagnosed 5 years ago with some sort of retinal deterioration disorder.
The doctor said that in ten years he would be totally blind. Now, I have not
mentioned this the day I showed him the article back in the 90's, but he is
losing his vision and he still drinks diet soda?) Does this help Lia
understand why I look turn over the stone that so many assume are safe?

Now let Mr. Farber's paper help you see just how much it was worth to the
company "Monsanto", to get Aspartame "a patented substance" approved. WOW, I
just noticed that Monsanto is also one of the companies working on patented
forms of Canola. I know what your thinking; Does this make them bad guys?
Well, it sure hurts their credibility.

I think it should be a bit unsettling to know that the driving force behind
GMO, and all medication, is not to make a healthier product, but to claim
financial ownership (via patent protection) to the produce (and it's yield).
Ever notice, that as soon as a patent on a drug runs out it no longer seems
to be effective? So, what happens, they invent a new line! "It's a business
pipeline." This is what some call "false science", I call it "commercial
science"

I could say more but I am truly exhausted. I throw my hands up.

And for the rest of you that actually can see the forest through the trees.
One last note: I have a sister that is a pharmacist. Her store carries both
homeopathic and modern traditional western medicine. Do your self a favor,
find a pharmacy such as this. They are the only ones that will share with
you the vast number of people that come in a regular basis with side effects
caused by traditional medication. You can also get this information from a
retired pharmacist. Why are they special? It's about money. "It doesn't hurt
their business to share this data."

Have you even considered, why all of sudden, the medical community has
lowered the average "healthy" cholesterol level? I don't even want to start
to tell you about the side effects caused by that medication. (The name of
this stuff eludes me, which is a surprise, because everyone I know is on
it.)

I must say, I never thought that such a simple posting would be soo much
work. But, I must admit, news groups and email are sure wonderful, because
sharing this much data, being able to instantly view and re-engage with the
readers in incredible.

Good day...(Sorry for typos, this instant publishing thing is a bit
stressful)

Ok, you guys are crushing me with your inability to believe that big
business does poses the power to control what "you" believe. I will only
share one example, and then I guess I throw in the towel.

Do a search for "The price of sweetness" AND "Technology Review".
http://www.google.com/search?num=100...he+price+of+sw
eetness%22+%22Technology+Review%22&btnG=Search

It will most likely turn up a site that most of you will quickly turn and
say "another Urban Myth" http://www.dorway.com/dontkno.html

Now, I don't mean to start a new thread, but this is how America was made to
believe Aspartame (trade name "NutraSweet" ) was safe. The author of the
above site states facts she pulled from the article "The Price of Sweetness"
by Steven A. Farber. Steven Farber (at the time of writing) is a master's
candidate in the Technology Policy Program and a PhD candidate in brain and
cognitive sciences at MIT. (Bob, facts start with someones notion that
something is just not right.) I have the original article in paper form in
my library. I searched it out back in 1994 investigating reasons why a close
friend of mine was being stricken with seizures (NutraSweet was the cause).
I have since met about 1/2 dozen people that have been diagnosed with vision
disorders due to Aspartame.

I have searched high and low on the WEB but have not been able to turn up
this article electronically, but if you are interested in the text you
should be able to find it at any good library. I located my copy at the
Public Library in Boston MA. The Price of Sweetness - MIT Technology
Review - January 1990.

At the time (and currently) my cousin is a food chemist and he was totally
unable to except anything Mr. Farber wrote regarding "Aspartame". Yes, he
did, and still does drink diet sodas with Aspartame. He says that radicals
do high concentration testing, and that moderation is key. As, by the rules
of "applied chemistry" Aspartame is made up of naturally occurring amino
acids that would have no ill effects on the human body. BUT, what scientist
failed to understand (or accept) is, what could be the adverse side effects
of creating this massive imbalance of these amino acids? (Note: My cousin
was diagnosed 5 years ago with some sort of retinal deterioration disorder.
The doctor said that in ten years he would be totally blind. Now, I have not
mentioned this the day I showed him the article back in the 90's, but he is
losing his vision and he still drinks diet soda?) Does this help Lia
understand why I look turn over the stone that so many assume are safe?

Now let Mr. Farber's paper help you see just how much it was worth to the
company "Monsanto", to get Aspartame "a patented substance" approved. WOW, I
just noticed that Monsanto is also one of the companies working on patented
forms of Canola. I know what your thinking; Does this make them bad guys?
Well, it sure hurts their credibility.

I think it should be a bit unsettling to know that the driving force behind
GMO, and all medication, is not to make a healthier product, but to claim
financial ownership (via patent protection) to the produce (and it's yield).
Ever notice, that as soon as a patent on a drug runs out it no longer seems
to be effective? So, what happens, they invent a new line! "It's a business
pipeline." This is what some call "false science", I call it "commercial
science"

I could say more but I am truly exhausted. I throw my hands up.

And for the rest of you that actually can see the forest through the trees.
One last note: I have a sister that is a pharmacist. Her store carries both
homeopathic and modern traditional western medicine. Do your self a favor,
find a pharmacy such as this. They are the only ones that will share with
you the vast number of people that come in a regular basis with side effects
caused by traditional medication. You can also get this information from a
retired pharmacist. Why are they special? It's about money. "It doesn't hurt
their business to share this data."

Have you even considered, why all of sudden, the medical community has
lowered the average "healthy" cholesterol level? I don't even want to start
to tell you about the side effects caused by that medication. (The name of
this stuff eludes me, which is a surprise, because everyone I know is on
it.)

I must say, I never thought that such a simple posting would be soo much
work. But, I must admit, news groups and email are sure wonderful, because
sharing this much data, being able to instantly view and re-engage with the
readers in incredible.

Good day...(Sorry for typos, this instant publishing thing is a bit
stressful)

Ok, you guys are crushing me with your inability to believe that big
business does poses the power to control what "you" believe. I will only
share one example, and then I guess I throw in the towel.

Do a search for "The price of sweetness" AND "Technology Review".
http://www.google.com/search?num=100...he+price+of+sw
eetness%22+%22Technology+Review%22&btnG=Search

It will most likely turn up a site that most of you will quickly turn and
say "another Urban Myth" http://www.dorway.com/dontkno.html

Now, I don't mean to start a new thread, but this is how America was made to
believe Aspartame (trade name "NutraSweet" ) was safe. The author of the
above site states facts she pulled from the article "The Price of Sweetness"
by Steven A. Farber. Steven Farber (at the time of writing) is a master's
candidate in the Technology Policy Program and a PhD candidate in brain and
cognitive sciences at MIT. (Bob, facts start with someones notion that
something is just not right.) I have the original article in paper form in
my library. I searched it out back in 1994 investigating reasons why a close
friend of mine was being stricken with seizures (NutraSweet was the cause).
I have since met about 1/2 dozen people that have been diagnosed with vision
disorders due to Aspartame.

I have searched high and low on the WEB but have not been able to turn up
this article electronically, but if you are interested in the text you
should be able to find it at any good library. I located my copy at the
Public Library in Boston MA. The Price of Sweetness - MIT Technology
Review - January 1990.

At the time (and currently) my cousin is a food chemist and he was totally
unable to except anything Mr. Farber wrote regarding "Aspartame". Yes, he
did, and still does drink diet sodas with Aspartame. He says that radicals
do high concentration testing, and that moderation is key. As, by the rules
of "applied chemistry" Aspartame is made up of naturally occurring amino
acids that would have no ill effects on the human body. BUT, what scientist
failed to understand (or accept) is, what could be the adverse side effects
of creating this massive imbalance of these amino acids? (Note: My cousin
was diagnosed 5 years ago with some sort of retinal deterioration disorder.
The doctor said that in ten years he would be totally blind. Now, I have not
mentioned this the day I showed him the article back in the 90's, but he is
losing his vision and he still drinks diet soda?) Does this help Lia
understand why I look turn over the stone that so many assume are safe?

Now let Mr. Farber's paper help you see just how much it was worth to the
company "Monsanto", to get Aspartame "a patented substance" approved. WOW, I
just noticed that Monsanto is also one of the companies working on patented
forms of Canola. I know what your thinking; Does this make them bad guys?
Well, it sure hurts their credibility.

I think it should be a bit unsettling to know that the driving force behind
GMO, and all medication, is not to make a healthier product, but to claim
financial ownership (via patent protection) to the produce (and it's yield).
Ever notice, that as soon as a patent on a drug runs out it no longer seems
to be effective? So, what happens, they invent a new line! "It's a business
pipeline." This is what some call "false science", I call it "commercial
science"

I could say more but I am truly exhausted. I throw my hands up.

And for the rest of you that actually can see the forest through the trees.
One last note: I have a sister that is a pharmacist. Her store carries both
homeopathic and modern traditional western medicine. Do your self a favor,
find a pharmacy such as this. They are the only ones that will share with
you the vast number of people that come in a regular basis with side effects
caused by traditional medication. You can also get this information from a
retired pharmacist. Why are they special? It's about money. "It doesn't hurt
their business to share this data."

Have you even considered, why all of sudden, the medical community has
lowered the average "healthy" cholesterol level? I don't even want to start
to tell you about the side effects caused by that medication. (The name of
this stuff eludes me, which is a surprise, because everyone I know is on
it.)

I must say, I never thought that such a simple posting would be soo much
work. But, I must admit, news groups and email are sure wonderful, because
sharing this much data, being able to instantly view and re-engage with the
readers in incredible.

Good day...(Sorry for typos, this instant publishing thing is a bit
stressful)

In article <urBOc.60791$eM2.3061@attbi_s51>, LifeisGood > wrote:

> Aspartame is made up of naturally occurring amino
> acids that would have no ill effects on the human body. BUT, what scientist
> failed to understand (or accept) is, what could be the adverse side effects
> of creating this massive imbalance of these amino acids?

"Massive imbalance?" The only way I can see "massive imbalance" is if
you get a significant amount of your aminos as aspartame. Since you'd
probably have to consume a few thousand cans a day to do that, I conclude
this is not a concern.

I find it hard to explain why something like this jumps out at me, but once
it does, I usually dismiss the entire article as just an exercise in rhetoric.

Mike Beede

In article >, Michel Boucher > wrote:

> > C'mon, Michel. The word "rape" sounds just like the word "rape." A
> > good way not to sell stuff is to call it something offensive.
>
> On the contrary, it is not offensive, only you who sees in it an
> offensive sound because you ascribe a single meaning to a word with
> at least two meanings, each very different from the other. It sounds
> so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe" if you're from
> London, or parts of the sound of "crêpe"...I leave it to your
> over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like removed because
> you find them offensive, or think others might. Remind me to yawn
> when you report back.

I don't think anyone suggested censorship. The suggestion was that
AS A MARKETING TACTIC it made sense to avoid an unpleasant connotation.
If there are even ten percent of people that don't like the name, that
comes right out of your bottom line.

Personally, I don't care what they call it, though the "shitseed oil"
someone mentioned might get a pass from me.

Mike Beede

>
>>(hats off and a moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick, 1916-200
---------
wrote:

>A grad student who worked with old man on neuroscience in La Jolla informed
>me
>that he was actually a perfect asshole
-------------------------------
Sound like jealousy, don't you think? Ye gods! The man discovered DNA !!! Some
Asshole!
Nancree

>
>>(hats off and a moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick, 1916-200
---------
wrote:

>A grad student who worked with old man on neuroscience in La Jolla informed
>me
>that he was actually a perfect asshole
-------------------------------
Sound like jealousy, don't you think? Ye gods! The man discovered DNA !!! Some
Asshole!
Nancree

LifeisGood wrote:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
> Especially when motivated by money.


This might be the crux of the place where we disagree. While I can see
that there are examples of the seller of a product disguising its ill
effects (cigarette manufacturers), as a rule, the inventers and sellers
of a product have a great deal at stake in making sure the product they
sell is safe. When people are harmed by a product, they sue. That's
bad for business. Even with the cigarette example, tobacco had been
around for ages. The manufacturers may have suppressed internal
evidence (I believe they did) showing that smoking was harmful, but that
was after the fact. They didn't purposely invent tobacco in order to
hurt people. And that's the only product I can think of like that. I
can think of zillions more products that have been invented and marketed
that are wonderful and that do no harm. How about telephone answering
machines? (The first item my eye fell on when I looked around the desk
where I'm typing for an example.) Their manufacturers advertise good
things about them. Are we to assume they're wrong and that the machines
are deadly because the advertisers, inventers and marketers like them
and make money from them?


--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
> Especially when motivated by money.


This might be the crux of the place where we disagree. While I can see
that there are examples of the seller of a product disguising its ill
effects (cigarette manufacturers), as a rule, the inventers and sellers
of a product have a great deal at stake in making sure the product they
sell is safe. When people are harmed by a product, they sue. That's
bad for business. Even with the cigarette example, tobacco had been
around for ages. The manufacturers may have suppressed internal
evidence (I believe they did) showing that smoking was harmful, but that
was after the fact. They didn't purposely invent tobacco in order to
hurt people. And that's the only product I can think of like that. I
can think of zillions more products that have been invented and marketed
that are wonderful and that do no harm. How about telephone answering
machines? (The first item my eye fell on when I looked around the desk
where I'm typing for an example.) Their manufacturers advertise good
things about them. Are we to assume they're wrong and that the machines
are deadly because the advertisers, inventers and marketers like them
and make money from them?


--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:

> I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or read
> journalism debunking methods or technology curently believed safe or
> healthy?

Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too.
Why believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be
out to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
wear an aluminum hat.


--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:

> I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or read
> journalism debunking methods or technology curently believed safe or
> healthy?

Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too.
Why believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be
out to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
wear an aluminum hat.


--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:

> I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or read
> journalism debunking methods or technology curently believed safe or
> healthy?

Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too.
Why believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be
out to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
wear an aluminum hat.


--Lia

Thanks. I do try. Sometimes I get in a good one.
--Lia


Berg1985 wrote:
>>I think they were worried about what all those rapeseeds would do to the
>
> virgin olives.
>
>>--Lia
>>
>
>
> ROTFLMFAO! Yer killin' me here! :-D
>
> Tamie

LifeisGood wrote:

> It will most likely turn up a site that most of you will quickly turn and
> say "another Urban Myth" http://www.dorway.com/dontkno.html
>
> Now, I don't mean to start a new thread, but this is how America was made to
> believe Aspartame (trade name "NutraSweet" ) was safe.


Let's cut to the chase. What do you believe constitutes a healthy diet
for people? What should people eat, and where should they obtain this
food? I believe if we went about the question that way, we'd find quite
a lot that we agree on.

--Lia

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
>> I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or
>> read
>> journalism debunking methods or technology curently believed safe or
>> healthy?
>
>
> Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too. Why
> believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be out
> to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
> wear an aluminum hat.
>
>
> --Lia
>

Journalistic balance died with the 1968 Democratic Convention. It may
have been in demise prior to then, but that was its outright death.
Today, reporters are as much a part of the story, are the story, are the
instigators of the story as much as is anyone else.


jim

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
>> I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or
>> read
>> journalism debunking methods or technology curently believed safe or
>> healthy?
>
>
> Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too. Why
> believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be out
> to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
> wear an aluminum hat.
>
>
> --Lia
>

Journalistic balance died with the 1968 Democratic Convention. It may
have been in demise prior to then, but that was its outright death.
Today, reporters are as much a part of the story, are the story, are the
instigators of the story as much as is anyone else.


jim

LifeisGood wrote:

> (Bob, facts start with someones notion that something is just not
> right.)

Sweet Jesus, you're dim. You haven't the remotest notion how science
is done. Or why.

Give it up; you're way, way over your head.

Pastorio

LifeisGood wrote:

> (Bob, facts start with someones notion that something is just not
> right.)

Sweet Jesus, you're dim. You haven't the remotest notion how science
is done. Or why.

Give it up; you're way, way over your head.

Pastorio

Ah, ok. So the truth comes out. Shallow and close minded you are.

You asked for a specific example - I gave it.
You state that examples without supporting documents are worthless - So, I
point out a supporting document.
You note that documents published by novices untrained in the art, are
nothing more than words. - So I am sure to note a qualified MIT scientist
published by a world respected university.

You have proved your point. You are clearly not a forward thinking,
open-minded, intelligent life form.

Knock yourself out - Bob. (and Mike).

Life "truly" is good.

Bob (this one) > wrote in message
...
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
> > (Bob, facts start with someones notion that something is just not
> > right.)
>
> Sweet Jesus, you're dim. You haven't the remotest notion how science
> is done. Or why.
>
> Give it up; you're way, way over your head.
>
> Pastorio
>

Ah, ok. So the truth comes out. Shallow and close minded you are.

You asked for a specific example - I gave it.
You state that examples without supporting documents are worthless - So, I
point out a supporting document.
You note that documents published by novices untrained in the art, are
nothing more than words. - So I am sure to note a qualified MIT scientist
published by a world respected university.

You have proved your point. You are clearly not a forward thinking,
open-minded, intelligent life form.

Knock yourself out - Bob. (and Mike).

Life "truly" is good.

Bob (this one) > wrote in message
...
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
> > (Bob, facts start with someones notion that something is just not
> > right.)
>
> Sweet Jesus, you're dim. You haven't the remotest notion how science
> is done. Or why.
>
> Give it up; you're way, way over your head.
>
> Pastorio
>

Ah, ok. So the truth comes out. Shallow and close minded you are.

You asked for a specific example - I gave it.
You state that examples without supporting documents are worthless - So, I
point out a supporting document.
You note that documents published by novices untrained in the art, are
nothing more than words. - So I am sure to note a qualified MIT scientist
published by a world respected university.

You have proved your point. You are clearly not a forward thinking,
open-minded, intelligent life form.

Knock yourself out - Bob. (and Mike).

Life "truly" is good.

Bob (this one) > wrote in message
...
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
> > (Bob, facts start with someones notion that something is just not
> > right.)
>
> Sweet Jesus, you're dim. You haven't the remotest notion how science
> is done. Or why.
>
> Give it up; you're way, way over your head.
>
> Pastorio
>

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
news:trDOc.54534$8_6.40584@attbi_s04...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> This might be the crux of the place where we disagree. While I can see
> that there are examples of the seller of a product disguising its ill
> effects (cigarette manufacturers), as a rule, the inventers and sellers
> of a product have a great deal at stake in making sure the product they
> sell is safe.

I'm not saying that people invent "unsafe" products. What I am saying is
that large organizations treat safety in term of percentages as to how it
effects the bottomline. This is calculated as "colateral damage". If they
feel that the cost of doing such will substantially damage the company (or
profits) they have the legal and economic clout to pull the wool over your
eyes.

Another example: Chickpox. This is a not life threating event, and once
exposed (and constracted) it is "extreemly" rare that one ever gets it
again. In fact, many believe that it is a step toward building a healthy
amune system.
Well, it seems that medical science sees a profit potential here. Inro: The
Chicken Pox vaccine. It has now become manditory in most schools. But, what
the public is not made of is 1) It is not a one time vacine (every 7 years
you must retake the vacine). 2) It is not a 100% effective vaccine 3)
Chickpox are far more dangerous to get as an adult therefor, delaying the
onset could be more problematic than just getting illness as a child. So, if
the ineffectiveness, turns up as an adult (Well you get the point)
This all about profits.......

But don't think for a minute I am saying that inventors strive to create
unsafe products. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for inventors. They
are normally very open minded individual with the ability to look (and see)
between the lines.

When people are harmed by a product, they sue. That's
> bad for business.

There are many examples of products that invented and patented and sold to a
shell company. Reason: when the leagal complications arise the parent
company can not be held acountable.

I know (Bob), I know, I'll say it for you; "Sweet Jiminey Crickets"!

Even with the cigarette example, tobacco had been
> around for ages. The manufacturers may have suppressed internal
> evidence (I believe they did) showing that smoking was harmful, but that
> was after the fact. They didn't purposely invent tobacco in order to
> hurt people. And that's the only product I can think of like that. I
> can think of zillions more products that have been invented and marketed
> that are wonderful and that do no harm. How about telephone answering
> machines? (The first item my eye fell on when I looked around the desk
> where I'm typing for an example.) Their manufacturers advertise good
> things about them. Are we to assume they're wrong and that the machines
> are deadly because the advertisers, inventers and marketers like them
> and make money from them?
>
>
> --Lia
>

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
news:trDOc.54534$8_6.40584@attbi_s04...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> This might be the crux of the place where we disagree. While I can see
> that there are examples of the seller of a product disguising its ill
> effects (cigarette manufacturers), as a rule, the inventers and sellers
> of a product have a great deal at stake in making sure the product they
> sell is safe.

I'm not saying that people invent "unsafe" products. What I am saying is
that large organizations treat safety in term of percentages as to how it
effects the bottomline. This is calculated as "colateral damage". If they
feel that the cost of doing such will substantially damage the company (or
profits) they have the legal and economic clout to pull the wool over your
eyes.

Another example: Chickpox. This is a not life threating event, and once
exposed (and constracted) it is "extreemly" rare that one ever gets it
again. In fact, many believe that it is a step toward building a healthy
amune system.
Well, it seems that medical science sees a profit potential here. Inro: The
Chicken Pox vaccine. It has now become manditory in most schools. But, what
the public is not made of is 1) It is not a one time vacine (every 7 years
you must retake the vacine). 2) It is not a 100% effective vaccine 3)
Chickpox are far more dangerous to get as an adult therefor, delaying the
onset could be more problematic than just getting illness as a child. So, if
the ineffectiveness, turns up as an adult (Well you get the point)
This all about profits.......

But don't think for a minute I am saying that inventors strive to create
unsafe products. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for inventors. They
are normally very open minded individual with the ability to look (and see)
between the lines.

When people are harmed by a product, they sue. That's
> bad for business.

There are many examples of products that invented and patented and sold to a
shell company. Reason: when the leagal complications arise the parent
company can not be held acountable.

I know (Bob), I know, I'll say it for you; "Sweet Jiminey Crickets"!

Even with the cigarette example, tobacco had been
> around for ages. The manufacturers may have suppressed internal
> evidence (I believe they did) showing that smoking was harmful, but that
> was after the fact. They didn't purposely invent tobacco in order to
> hurt people. And that's the only product I can think of like that. I
> can think of zillions more products that have been invented and marketed
> that are wonderful and that do no harm. How about telephone answering
> machines? (The first item my eye fell on when I looked around the desk
> where I'm typing for an example.) Their manufacturers advertise good
> things about them. Are we to assume they're wrong and that the machines
> are deadly because the advertisers, inventers and marketers like them
> and make money from them?
>
>
> --Lia
>

> Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too.
> Why believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be
> out to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
> wear an aluminum hat.

No, no aluminum hat required. Just live life by the basics. Don't be to
quick to believe "anything" - From someone like me, OR the so called "self
proclaimed" experts. Stick with things that have been around for many many
years. And don't, by any means promote this wheel of "so called" progress
because it is not always reversable.

If Americans don't real in this problem many will surely be illsuprised.
Only then will they start looking for answers, unfortunetly some too late.

>
>
> --Lia
>

> Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too.
> Why believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be
> out to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
> wear an aluminum hat.

No, no aluminum hat required. Just live life by the basics. Don't be to
quick to believe "anything" - From someone like me, OR the so called "self
proclaimed" experts. Stick with things that have been around for many many
years. And don't, by any means promote this wheel of "so called" progress
because it is not always reversable.

If Americans don't real in this problem many will surely be illsuprised.
Only then will they start looking for answers, unfortunetly some too late.

>
>
> --Lia
>

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

>>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.
>>
>> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I
>> am merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to
>> demands from certain groups
>
> There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
> advance to alter the name from rape to something else.

Yes there were. Did you miss that part?

> And this
> isn't the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers
> in English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to
> avoid the whole question of connotations.
>
> Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like
> calling it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations.

Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old English.
We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an exotic
fruit.

> People
> erroneously assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name.
> Seafood suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the
> difference for decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred
> million people, the relentless explanations get old. Change the
> name and it's done.

Farmers in the region of Saskatchewan where the plant was grown still
refer to it as rapeseed. They know what they're talking about.

> It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.
> Here's a quote from:
> <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html> Q: Olive oil
> comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil from
> sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil
> rapeseed oil?

Canola is Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Canola is rape.
What the **** you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

http://www.floridata.com/ref/b/bras_nap.cfm

> BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital
> letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word
> so they could register a name:
> <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>

You really should go to the source, Bobo. From the Canola Council of
Canada (please note 1978):

1954: Golden, the first Canadian Brassica napus rapeseed variety, was
licensed.

1974: Tower, the first canola, was released. This new B. napus variety
meant that Canada could now produce oil and meal which was
nutritionally superior to that produced from rapeseed in other parts of
the world.

1977: Candle, the first B. rapa canola variety, was released.

**** 1978: The term canola was trademarked****
by the Western Canadian Oilseed Crushers’ Association (now the Canadian
Oilseed Processors Association) to differentiate the superior low-
erucic acid and low-glucosinolate varieties and their products from the
older rapeseed varieties.

Canola is rapeseed. End of that discussion.

--

Please note that this post contains no overt anti-USAian statements of
any sort, nor is it designed to excite the political passions of the
morally bankrupt right-wing supporters of the emerging fascist
states...unfortunately :-)

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

>>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.
>>
>> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I
>> am merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to
>> demands from certain groups
>
> There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
> advance to alter the name from rape to something else.

Yes there were. Did you miss that part?

> And this
> isn't the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers
> in English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to
> avoid the whole question of connotations.
>
> Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like
> calling it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations.

Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old English.
We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an exotic
fruit.

> People
> erroneously assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name.
> Seafood suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the
> difference for decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred
> million people, the relentless explanations get old. Change the
> name and it's done.

Farmers in the region of Saskatchewan where the plant was grown still
refer to it as rapeseed. They know what they're talking about.

> It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.
> Here's a quote from:
> <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html> Q: Olive oil
> comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil from
> sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil
> rapeseed oil?

Canola is Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Canola is rape.
What the **** you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

http://www.floridata.com/ref/b/bras_nap.cfm

> BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital
> letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word
> so they could register a name:
> <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>

You really should go to the source, Bobo. From the Canola Council of
Canada (please note 1978):

1954: Golden, the first Canadian Brassica napus rapeseed variety, was
licensed.

1974: Tower, the first canola, was released. This new B. napus variety
meant that Canada could now produce oil and meal which was
nutritionally superior to that produced from rapeseed in other parts of
the world.

1977: Candle, the first B. rapa canola variety, was released.

**** 1978: The term canola was trademarked****
by the Western Canadian Oilseed Crushers’ Association (now the Canadian
Oilseed Processors Association) to differentiate the superior low-
erucic acid and low-glucosinolate varieties and their products from the
older rapeseed varieties.

Canola is rapeseed. End of that discussion.

--

Please note that this post contains no overt anti-USAian statements of
any sort, nor is it designed to excite the political passions of the
morally bankrupt right-wing supporters of the emerging fascist
states...unfortunately :-)

Mike Beede > wrote in
:

> I don't think anyone suggested censorship.

This is where you fail to understand. There *was* an outcry from
certain quarters (in Canada of course, because that's where the
debate was) about the use of the word "rape" when referring to
Brassica napus. Specifically the discussion occurred over the use of
the slogan of the town of Tisdale Saskatchewan to be added to the
local postal cancellations as "Tisdale, the Land of rape and honey".
Canada Post refused and suddenly, references to Brassica napus as
"rape" became "offensive to women". Trust me. I remember this
vividly as one of the low points in the fight to win the hearts and
minds, right behind Madelle as a French equivalent to Ms. Remember
the old chestnut about "personhole"? It was 1971 and there were a
few good decisions and a lot of stupid decisions being made about
what could and could not be said. There was no marketing ploy. You
obviously have the wrong impression of how this came about but I
suppose you can be forgiven for such a monumental faux-pas :-)

However, the use of the name canola in the trademark application for
Canadian oil, light acid, was because one could not trademark common
names such as "rape", "rapeseed" and "Brassica napus". Another name
had to be found. I believe that the transferrence of the term used
to describe the oleaginous product (canola) to the plant which is the
source of the product (Brassica napus, Brassica rapa, or "rape") is
where the "censorship" occured.

--

Please note that this post contains no overt anti-USAian statements
of any sort, nor is it designed to excite the political passions of
the morally bankrupt right-wing supporters of the emerging fascist
states...unfortunately :-)

Mike Beede > wrote in
:

> I don't think anyone suggested censorship.

This is where you fail to understand. There *was* an outcry from
certain quarters (in Canada of course, because that's where the
debate was) about the use of the word "rape" when referring to
Brassica napus. Specifically the discussion occurred over the use of
the slogan of the town of Tisdale Saskatchewan to be added to the
local postal cancellations as "Tisdale, the Land of rape and honey".
Canada Post refused and suddenly, references to Brassica napus as
"rape" became "offensive to women". Trust me. I remember this
vividly as one of the low points in the fight to win the hearts and
minds, right behind Madelle as a French equivalent to Ms. Remember
the old chestnut about "personhole"? It was 1971 and there were a
few good decisions and a lot of stupid decisions being made about
what could and could not be said. There was no marketing ploy. You
obviously have the wrong impression of how this came about but I
suppose you can be forgiven for such a monumental faux-pas :-)

However, the use of the name canola in the trademark application for
Canadian oil, light acid, was because one could not trademark common
names such as "rape", "rapeseed" and "Brassica napus". Another name
had to be found. I believe that the transferrence of the term used
to describe the oleaginous product (canola) to the plant which is the
source of the product (Brassica napus, Brassica rapa, or "rape") is
where the "censorship" occured.

--

Please note that this post contains no overt anti-USAian statements
of any sort, nor is it designed to excite the political passions of
the morally bankrupt right-wing supporters of the emerging fascist
states...unfortunately :-)

JimLane > wrote in message
...

> Journalistic balance died with the 1968 Democratic Convention. It may
> have been in demise prior to then, but that was its outright death.
> Today, reporters are as much a part of the story, are the story, are the
> instigators of the story as much as is anyone else.

While I do aggree, I would be interested in why you feel that the 1968
Democratic Convention was the turning point. Could you point to some
references?

JimLane > wrote in message
...

> Journalistic balance died with the 1968 Democratic Convention. It may
> have been in demise prior to then, but that was its outright death.
> Today, reporters are as much a part of the story, are the story, are the
> instigators of the story as much as is anyone else.

While I do aggree, I would be interested in why you feel that the 1968
Democratic Convention was the turning point. Could you point to some
references?

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :=20
>=20
>>>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.=20
>>>
>>>I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I
>>>am merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to
>>>demands from certain groups=20
>>
>>There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in=20
>>advance to alter the name from rape to something else.=20
>=20
> Yes there were. Did you miss that part?

I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US. Because=20
it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in the bigger=20
market.

>>And this
>>isn't the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers
>>in English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to
>>avoid the whole question of connotations.
>>
>>Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like
>>calling it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations.=20
>=20
> Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old English. =

> We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an exotic=20
> fruit.

No. We're talking about a word with profoundly unpleasant=20
connotations. As your Canadian brethren demonstrated in apparently=20
great detail. They didn't like how it felt to be saying it. They=20
didn't want to eat stuff called that. Simple.

You may take it up with them about their moral failings, weakness of=20
character or their stupidity or whatever you want to attribute it to,=20
but the fact is that people - all people - don't like saying words=20
with bad, bad connotations. An automobile called Foutu likely wouldn't=20
sell very well in Quebec. It makes a lot of sense not to try to buck=20
that taboo if you want to sell stuff. A resistant market makes for=20
early retirement of the sellers.

>>People
>>erroneously assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name.
>>Seafood suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the
>>difference for decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred
>>million people, the relentless explanations get old. Change the
>>name and it's done.=20
>=20
> Farmers in the region of Saskatchewan where the plant was grown still=20
> refer to it as rapeseed. They know what they're talking about.

The Japanese used rapeseed cakes to fertilize bonsai. Both of these=20
facts are irrelevant to the question about why the name was changed.

Those farmers have variously called it Polish rapeseed and Argentinean=20
rapeseed and other names. Farmers around here pronounce "teats" on=20
their dairy cows as "tits" and the city folks flinch when they do.=20
Both know what they're talking about.

I always go to farmers when I want correct taxonomic information. And=20
I go to bakers when I'm looking for astronomical data. Paleontologists=20
for metallurgy. They know what they're talking about.

>>It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.
>>Here's a quote from:
>><http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html> Q: Olive oil
>>comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil from
>>sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil=20
>>rapeseed oil?=20
>=20
> Canola is Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Canola is rape. =20
> What the **** you talkin' 'bout, Willis?
>=20
> http://www.floridata.com/ref/b/bras_nap.cfm

You ought to really read your own citations. This one says:
"Brassica napus is a variable species, divided into three groups or=20
subspecies: B. n. napobrassica includes the rutabagas (a.k.a. Swedes=20
in England), grown for their enlarged turniplike swollen stems; B. n.=20
pabularia includes Siberian kale and Hanover salad, grown for leafy=20
kalelike greens; and B. n. oleifera includes rape and canola, (colza=20
in India) grown for edible leaves, as forage crops for livestock, or=20
for the seeds from which vegetable oil is made."

Note the distinctions between turnips and rape even though they're=20
both B. napus. They have the same biological names but are obviously=20
very different. It's patently silly to say, "Rutabaga is Brassica=20
napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Rutabaga is rape." That's where your=20
statement leads. Do fix the spelling.

And note the distinction between rape and canola. Obviously, they=20
consider them different as the following says:
"Canola is grown commercially in Canada and some parts of the US.=20
Scientists at the University of Florida are currently field-testing=20
canola as a potential winter crop in the South."
See, from your own citation, a distinction.

>>BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital=20
>>letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word
>>so they could register a name:
>><http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>=20
>=20
>=20
> You really should go to the source, Bobo.

Yes. Let's, Mickey...

> From the Canola Council of=20
> Canada (please note 1978):
> 1954: Golden, the first Canadian Brassica napus rapeseed variety, was=20
> licensed.
> 1974: Tower, the first canola, was released. This new B. napus variety =

> meant that Canada could now produce oil and meal which was=20
> nutritionally superior to that produced from rapeseed in other parts of=
=20
> the world.
> 1977: Candle, the first B. rapa canola variety, was released.

Obviously you missed the part where they said that Golden, Tower and=20
Candle are different varieties of B. napus. And that B rapa is a=20
recognized *canola* variety.

> **** 1978: The term canola was trademarked****=20
> by the Western Canadian Oilseed Crushers=92 Association (now the Canadi=
an=20
> Oilseed Processors Association) to differentiate the superior low-
> erucic acid and low-glucosinolate varieties and their products from the=
=20
> older rapeseed varieties.

Here's what it says on the Canola Council of Canada site:=20
<http://www.canola-council.org/pubs/origin.html>
"In 1980, ownership of the canola trademark was transferred to the=20
Canola Council of Canada. Then on September 12, 1986, in response to a=20
request by the Canola Council, the trademark wording was amended by=20
the Trademarks Branch of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Canola is a Global Term

The statutory definition in Canada makes absolutely no mention of=20
Canada or Canadian. Canola has become a generic term =96 not just a=20
Canadian term =96 and is no longer an industry trademark."

See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now. Canola=20
is generic.

> Canola is rapeseed. End of that discussion.

As if...

Pastorio

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :=20
>=20
>>>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.=20
>>>
>>>I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I
>>>am merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to
>>>demands from certain groups=20
>>
>>There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in=20
>>advance to alter the name from rape to something else.=20
>=20
> Yes there were. Did you miss that part?

I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US. Because=20
it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in the bigger=20
market.

>>And this
>>isn't the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers
>>in English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to
>>avoid the whole question of connotations.
>>
>>Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like
>>calling it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations.=20
>=20
> Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old English. =

> We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an exotic=20
> fruit.

No. We're talking about a word with profoundly unpleasant=20
connotations. As your Canadian brethren demonstrated in apparently=20
great detail. They didn't like how it felt to be saying it. They=20
didn't want to eat stuff called that. Simple.

You may take it up with them about their moral failings, weakness of=20
character or their stupidity or whatever you want to attribute it to,=20
but the fact is that people - all people - don't like saying words=20
with bad, bad connotations. An automobile called Foutu likely wouldn't=20
sell very well in Quebec. It makes a lot of sense not to try to buck=20
that taboo if you want to sell stuff. A resistant market makes for=20
early retirement of the sellers.

>>People
>>erroneously assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name.
>>Seafood suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the
>>difference for decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred
>>million people, the relentless explanations get old. Change the
>>name and it's done.=20
>=20
> Farmers in the region of Saskatchewan where the plant was grown still=20
> refer to it as rapeseed. They know what they're talking about.

The Japanese used rapeseed cakes to fertilize bonsai. Both of these=20
facts are irrelevant to the question about why the name was changed.

Those farmers have variously called it Polish rapeseed and Argentinean=20
rapeseed and other names. Farmers around here pronounce "teats" on=20
their dairy cows as "tits" and the city folks flinch when they do.=20
Both know what they're talking about.

I always go to farmers when I want correct taxonomic information. And=20
I go to bakers when I'm looking for astronomical data. Paleontologists=20
for metallurgy. They know what they're talking about.

>>It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.
>>Here's a quote from:
>><http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html> Q: Olive oil
>>comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil from
>>sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil=20
>>rapeseed oil?=20
>=20
> Canola is Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Canola is rape. =20
> What the **** you talkin' 'bout, Willis?
>=20
> http://www.floridata.com/ref/b/bras_nap.cfm

You ought to really read your own citations. This one says:
"Brassica napus is a variable species, divided into three groups or=20
subspecies: B. n. napobrassica includes the rutabagas (a.k.a. Swedes=20
in England), grown for their enlarged turniplike swollen stems; B. n.=20
pabularia includes Siberian kale and Hanover salad, grown for leafy=20
kalelike greens; and B. n. oleifera includes rape and canola, (colza=20
in India) grown for edible leaves, as forage crops for livestock, or=20
for the seeds from which vegetable oil is made."

Note the distinctions between turnips and rape even though they're=20
both B. napus. They have the same biological names but are obviously=20
very different. It's patently silly to say, "Rutabaga is Brassica=20
napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Rutabaga is rape." That's where your=20
statement leads. Do fix the spelling.

And note the distinction between rape and canola. Obviously, they=20
consider them different as the following says:
"Canola is grown commercially in Canada and some parts of the US.=20
Scientists at the University of Florida are currently field-testing=20
canola as a potential winter crop in the South."
See, from your own citation, a distinction.

>>BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital=20
>>letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word
>>so they could register a name:
>><http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>=20
>=20
>=20
> You really should go to the source, Bobo.

Yes. Let's, Mickey...

> From the Canola Council of=20
> Canada (please note 1978):
> 1954: Golden, the first Canadian Brassica napus rapeseed variety, was=20
> licensed.
> 1974: Tower, the first canola, was released. This new B. napus variety =

> meant that Canada could now produce oil and meal which was=20
> nutritionally superior to that produced from rapeseed in other parts of=
=20
> the world.
> 1977: Candle, the first B. rapa canola variety, was released.

Obviously you missed the part where they said that Golden, Tower and=20
Candle are different varieties of B. napus. And that B rapa is a=20
recognized *canola* variety.

> **** 1978: The term canola was trademarked****=20
> by the Western Canadian Oilseed Crushers=92 Association (now the Canadi=
an=20
> Oilseed Processors Association) to differentiate the superior low-
> erucic acid and low-glucosinolate varieties and their products from the=
=20
> older rapeseed varieties.

Here's what it says on the Canola Council of Canada site:=20
<http://www.canola-council.org/pubs/origin.html>
"In 1980, ownership of the canola trademark was transferred to the=20
Canola Council of Canada. Then on September 12, 1986, in response to a=20
request by the Canola Council, the trademark wording was amended by=20
the Trademarks Branch of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Canola is a Global Term

The statutory definition in Canada makes absolutely no mention of=20
Canada or Canadian. Canola has become a generic term =96 not just a=20
Canadian term =96 and is no longer an industry trademark."

See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now. Canola=20
is generic.

> Canola is rapeseed. End of that discussion.

As if...

Pastorio