Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?

Maybe you have read about this stuff, and maybe not, but try this test at
home - Then be sure and share the results with your friends.

For those of us purchasing "organic" for our families I want to share an
experience that I just noticed with Canola oil. This is taken from my
kitchen and any of one that would like to try this experiment can, and will
see the results for themselves.

I cook with (and purchase products with) multiple oils. (Olive, Peanut,
Sesame, (and previously Canola). Canola is now turning up in more and more
products in the "health" food arena -stores like Whole Foods. I'm not sure
what Trader Joe's thinks of this stuff as I actually use them as my source
for things, like cookies for my kids, that do not contain Canola. And of
course, outside of the US I am not sure what people think of this stuff
(except of course Canada, they have a vested interest in its success).

Anyway, take a select number of different vegetable oils and put a tiny bit
of each inside separate glass jars (just cover the bottom of the jar) (and
be sure that one is Canola). Be certain to make a bit of mess and get some
of the oil on the outside of the jar. Cover the jar and put in the cupboard.
Check on it occasionally (every few days) by taking it out, opening the lid,
swishing it around, getting a bit more on the outside, closing the lid and
returning. Don't get oil from one jar on another. (Don't refrigerate while
trying this.)

What will happen is the oils will oxidize. This is normal and each will take
on a bit of bad smell. This is rancidity and is ok. All of jars will be a
bit slippery of course because "it's oil", this you would expect. BUT, what
you will notice about Canola oil is that it will thicken and harden as it
oxidizes. This is bad news for a consumable food product.

Now if you like, feel free to do a bit of a search on Canola and see; Who
makes it? What does Canola mean? Can it really be labeled "organic"? Could
it contain poisonous properties? This is what I did after I noticed this
transformation in my cupboard, boy was I surprised.

Then be sure to tell your grocer why you no longer purchase their products
with Canola oil. Snack food bars, cookies, breads, grain-cereals, etc.. It's
showing up in so many foods because of its low cost.

It's not natural, it's not healthy and in the long run I don't think it will
prove good for your budget.

To good food, and good health.

Frank

P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
public?

Here you go, folks, another variation on a worthless urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm

Canola oil is made from rapeseed which is a member of the mustard family
and has been eaten for centuries. "Rapeseed" wasn't marketable so
"canola" was used instead. That's about as far as the conspiracy goes.

--Lia

Here you go, folks, another variation on a worthless urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm

Canola oil is made from rapeseed which is a member of the mustard family
and has been eaten for centuries. "Rapeseed" wasn't marketable so
"canola" was used instead. That's about as far as the conspiracy goes.

--Lia

What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
"what" rapeseed oil is used for?

Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors of
this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?

Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
-me

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
news:XfeOc.210771$Oq2.18469@attbi_s52...
>
> Here you go, folks, another variation on a worthless urban legend:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm
>
> Canola oil is made from rapeseed which is a member of the mustard family
> and has been eaten for centuries. "Rapeseed" wasn't marketable so
> "canola" was used instead. That's about as far as the conspiracy goes.
>
> --Lia
>

What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
"what" rapeseed oil is used for?

Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors of
this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?

Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
-me

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
news:XfeOc.210771$Oq2.18469@attbi_s52...
>
> Here you go, folks, another variation on a worthless urban legend:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm
>
> Canola oil is made from rapeseed which is a member of the mustard family
> and has been eaten for centuries. "Rapeseed" wasn't marketable so
> "canola" was used instead. That's about as far as the conspiracy goes.
>
> --Lia
>

LifeisGood wrote:
> What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
> "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
>
> Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
> Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors of
> this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?
>
> Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
> -me


The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't want to
repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not working at the
moment anywhere much less for an oil company in Canada, but I did apply
for a job the other day that I'm very excited about. I was going to put
the news in another post so thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and
cheese shop that's opening in my New England small town. There isn't
anything like this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter,
making dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help customers use
the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling fine cakes and
pastries too though buying them from commercial bakeries, not baking on
premises. I don't even know if I'm managing or working for an hourly
wage, but I'm excited all the same.


--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:
> What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
> "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
>
> Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
> Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors of
> this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?
>
> Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
> -me


The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't want to
repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not working at the
moment anywhere much less for an oil company in Canada, but I did apply
for a job the other day that I'm very excited about. I was going to put
the news in another post so thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and
cheese shop that's opening in my New England small town. There isn't
anything like this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter,
making dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help customers use
the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling fine cakes and
pastries too though buying them from commercial bakeries, not baking on
premises. I don't even know if I'm managing or working for an hourly
wage, but I'm excited all the same.


--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:
> What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
> "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
>
> Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
> Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors of
> this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?
>
> Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
> -me


The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't want to
repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not working at the
moment anywhere much less for an oil company in Canada, but I did apply
for a job the other day that I'm very excited about. I was going to put
the news in another post so thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and
cheese shop that's opening in my New England small town. There isn't
anything like this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter,
making dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help customers use
the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling fine cakes and
pastries too though buying them from commercial bakeries, not baking on
premises. I don't even know if I'm managing or working for an hourly
wage, but I'm excited all the same.


--Lia

Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
horticulturist. She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths
about Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.

Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time Canola Oil)
as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they are find out today is
so harmful to arterial health.

All I am saying, is this is not half truth or legend. I experienced this
phenomena and so can you. If it were not repeatable I would probably feel as
you do. (Natural oils do not get hard, never, period). The problem is that
"natural" is starting to become more and more a gray area.

P.S. First look at these quoting of Barbara Mikkelson:
By 1978, all Canadian rapeseed produced for food use contained less than 2%
erucic acid.
By 1990, erucic acid levels in canola oil ranged from 0.5% to 1.0%, in
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards.

Now, consider that the US Government also has paper work noting acceptable
levels of lead, arsenic, dioxin,,,,, etc that is allowed present in the very
sources we extract our drinking water.

PPS: Honestly - Good luck on the new job. It does sound very fun :-)

I actually come from New England - It's a wonderful place.


Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
news:VHeOc.193294$JR4.151639@attbi_s54...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> > What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
> > "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
> >
> > Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
> > Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors
of
> > this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?
> >
> > Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
> > -me
>
>
> The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't want to
> repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not working at the
> moment anywhere much less for an oil company in Canada, but I did apply
> for a job the other day that I'm very excited about. I was going to put
> the news in another post so thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and
> cheese shop that's opening in my New England small town. There isn't
> anything like this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter,
> making dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
> notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help customers use
> the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling fine cakes and
> pastries too though buying them from commercial bakeries, not baking on
> premises. I don't even know if I'm managing or working for an hourly
> wage, but I'm excited all the same.
>
>
> --Lia
>

Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
horticulturist. She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths
about Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.

Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time Canola Oil)
as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they are find out today is
so harmful to arterial health.

All I am saying, is this is not half truth or legend. I experienced this
phenomena and so can you. If it were not repeatable I would probably feel as
you do. (Natural oils do not get hard, never, period). The problem is that
"natural" is starting to become more and more a gray area.

P.S. First look at these quoting of Barbara Mikkelson:
By 1978, all Canadian rapeseed produced for food use contained less than 2%
erucic acid.
By 1990, erucic acid levels in canola oil ranged from 0.5% to 1.0%, in
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards.

Now, consider that the US Government also has paper work noting acceptable
levels of lead, arsenic, dioxin,,,,, etc that is allowed present in the very
sources we extract our drinking water.

PPS: Honestly - Good luck on the new job. It does sound very fun :-)

I actually come from New England - It's a wonderful place.


Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
news:VHeOc.193294$JR4.151639@attbi_s54...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> > What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
> > "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
> >
> > Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
> > Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors
of
> > this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?
> >
> > Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
> > -me
>
>
> The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't want to
> repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not working at the
> moment anywhere much less for an oil company in Canada, but I did apply
> for a job the other day that I'm very excited about. I was going to put
> the news in another post so thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and
> cheese shop that's opening in my New England small town. There isn't
> anything like this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter,
> making dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
> notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help customers use
> the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling fine cakes and
> pastries too though buying them from commercial bakeries, not baking on
> premises. I don't even know if I'm managing or working for an hourly
> wage, but I'm excited all the same.
>
>
> --Lia
>

"LifeisGood" > wrote:

>Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?

Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.

>To good food, and good health.

I'll drink to that.

>P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
>corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
>public?

In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
"The sky is falling".

Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.

Ross.

"LifeisGood" > wrote:

>Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?

Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.

>To good food, and good health.

I'll drink to that.

>P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
>corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
>public?

In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
"The sky is falling".

Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.

Ross.

LifeisGood wrote:
>
> Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?


Geez, another "I just got this in emai and TRUTH must be known" idiot.
Do a bit of basic research on your own instead of parroting this kind of
drivel.




Brian Rodenborn

LifeisGood wrote:
>
> Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?


Geez, another "I just got this in emai and TRUTH must be known" idiot.
Do a bit of basic research on your own instead of parroting this kind of
drivel.




Brian Rodenborn

It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you could
run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
results.

Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the light.

Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of exercise and
oxidize some body tissue.


Ross Reid > wrote in message
news
> "LifeisGood" > wrote:
>
> >Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
>
> Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.
>
> >To good food, and good health.
>
> I'll drink to that.
>
> >P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> >corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> >public?
>
> In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
> Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
> "The sky is falling".
>
> Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.
>
> Ross.

It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you could
run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
results.

Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the light.

Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of exercise and
oxidize some body tissue.


Ross Reid > wrote in message
news
> "LifeisGood" > wrote:
>
> >Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
>
> Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.
>
> >To good food, and good health.
>
> I'll drink to that.
>
> >P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> >corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> >public?
>
> In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
> Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
> "The sky is falling".
>
> Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.
>
> Ross.

LifeisGood wrote:

> Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
> Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
> horticulturist.

And you, anonymous person, are who and what? I confer no faith on
crusaders who speak from hiding. The things you post below say you
have no food science background and don't know why there are published
acceptable limits to contaminants in foods.

> She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths about
> Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.
>
> Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time
> Canola Oil) as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they
> are find out today is so harmful to arterial health.

This illiterate sentence shows that as time passes, we learn new
things. That's proper and exactly in keeping with how humanity has
progressed since time immemorial.

> All I am saying, is this is not half truth or legend.

The only problem with it is that your science is wrong and you fail to
show why it's bad for canola oil to solidify, as do so many others.

> I experienced this phenomena

Um, phenomenon. Singular. Phenomena is plural.

> and so can you. If it were not repeatable I would probably feel as
> you do. (Natural oils do not get hard, never, period). The problem
> is that "natural" is starting to become more and more a gray area.
>
Sorry. Your chemistry is wrong. Oils polymerize. That's what the hard
seasoning on cast iron skillets is. Get your facts right before
embarking on this sort of campaign.

> P.S. First look at these quoting of Barbara Mikkelson: By 1978, all
> Canadian rapeseed produced for food use contained less than 2%
> erucic acid. By 1990, erucic acid levels in canola oil ranged from
> 0.5% to 1.0%, in compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration
> (FDA) standards.

There's no discrepancy there. Both 0.5% and 1.0% are less than 2%.
Just like it says.

As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do they
not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that would be
a good name to try to sell stuff under?

> Now, consider that the US Government also has paper work noting
> acceptable levels of lead, arsenic, dioxin,,,,, etc that is allowed
> present in the very sources we extract our drinking water.
>
> PPS: Honestly - Good luck on the new job. It does sound very fun
> :-)
>
> I actually come from New England - It's a wonderful place.
>
>
> Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
> news:VHeOc.193294$JR4.151639@attbi_s54...
>
>> LifeisGood wrote:
>>
>>> What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not
>>> marketable? And "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
>>>
>>> Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting. Or,
>>> maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the
>>> inventors of this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?

The "test" proves nothing beyond your ignorance of science - chemistry
and physics. Oh, wait. It proves your willingness to rant with no
facts to support it. Almost forgot that. And, one more thing. It shows
your willingness to insult people who don't agree with your
unscientific, ignorant position. Almost forgot that, too.

You should save that pseudo-profound sig for others who can't see
through your fanaticism and shabby tactics.

Pastorio

>>> Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
>>> -me
>>
>>
>> The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't
>> want to repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not
>> working at the moment anywhere much less for an oil company in
>> Canada, but I did apply for a job the other day that I'm very
>> excited about. I was going to put the news in another post so
>> thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and cheese shop that's
>> opening in my New England small town. There isn't anything like
>> this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter, making
>> dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
>> notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help
>> customers use the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling
>> fine cakes and pastries too though buying them from commercial
>> bakeries, not baking on premises. I don't even know if I'm
>> managing or working for an hourly wage, but I'm excited all the
>> same.
>>
>>
>> --Lia

LifeisGood wrote:

> Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
> Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
> horticulturist.

And you, anonymous person, are who and what? I confer no faith on
crusaders who speak from hiding. The things you post below say you
have no food science background and don't know why there are published
acceptable limits to contaminants in foods.

> She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths about
> Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.
>
> Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time
> Canola Oil) as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they
> are find out today is so harmful to arterial health.

This illiterate sentence shows that as time passes, we learn new
things. That's proper and exactly in keeping with how humanity has
progressed since time immemorial.

> All I am saying, is this is not half truth or legend.

The only problem with it is that your science is wrong and you fail to
show why it's bad for canola oil to solidify, as do so many others.

> I experienced this phenomena

Um, phenomenon. Singular. Phenomena is plural.

> and so can you. If it were not repeatable I would probably feel as
> you do. (Natural oils do not get hard, never, period). The problem
> is that "natural" is starting to become more and more a gray area.
>
Sorry. Your chemistry is wrong. Oils polymerize. That's what the hard
seasoning on cast iron skillets is. Get your facts right before
embarking on this sort of campaign.

> P.S. First look at these quoting of Barbara Mikkelson: By 1978, all
> Canadian rapeseed produced for food use contained less than 2%
> erucic acid. By 1990, erucic acid levels in canola oil ranged from
> 0.5% to 1.0%, in compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration
> (FDA) standards.

There's no discrepancy there. Both 0.5% and 1.0% are less than 2%.
Just like it says.

As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do they
not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that would be
a good name to try to sell stuff under?

> Now, consider that the US Government also has paper work noting
> acceptable levels of lead, arsenic, dioxin,,,,, etc that is allowed
> present in the very sources we extract our drinking water.
>
> PPS: Honestly - Good luck on the new job. It does sound very fun
> :-)
>
> I actually come from New England - It's a wonderful place.
>
>
> Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
> news:VHeOc.193294$JR4.151639@attbi_s54...
>
>> LifeisGood wrote:
>>
>>> What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not
>>> marketable? And "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
>>>
>>> Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting. Or,
>>> maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the
>>> inventors of this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?

The "test" proves nothing beyond your ignorance of science - chemistry
and physics. Oh, wait. It proves your willingness to rant with no
facts to support it. Almost forgot that. And, one more thing. It shows
your willingness to insult people who don't agree with your
unscientific, ignorant position. Almost forgot that, too.

You should save that pseudo-profound sig for others who can't see
through your fanaticism and shabby tactics.

Pastorio

>>> Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
>>> -me
>>
>>
>> The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't
>> want to repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not
>> working at the moment anywhere much less for an oil company in
>> Canada, but I did apply for a job the other day that I'm very
>> excited about. I was going to put the news in another post so
>> thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and cheese shop that's
>> opening in my New England small town. There isn't anything like
>> this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter, making
>> dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
>> notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help
>> customers use the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling
>> fine cakes and pastries too though buying them from commercial
>> bakeries, not baking on premises. I don't even know if I'm
>> managing or working for an hourly wage, but I'm excited all the
>> same.
>>
>>
>> --Lia

Bob (this one) wrote:

> As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do they
> not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that would be
> a good name to try to sell stuff under?


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

--Lia

Bob (this one) wrote:

> As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do they
> not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that would be
> a good name to try to sell stuff under?


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

--Lia

Bob (this one) wrote:

> As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do they
> not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that would be
> a good name to try to sell stuff under?


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

--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:

> It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
> this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you could
> run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
> results.

Hey, shitskull. Here's a flash for you. This crap has come around a
zillion times before. The only thing new about it is that you're just
getting to it. Call the mothership. They have the full report for you.

And for the first few times, people did go look at sources of
information. Actual science rather than this "test" that proves
nothing. Good chemistry and good nutritional data. Unlike what you offer.

Here's a further flash. You're a skulking coward unwilling to stand
behind your own words. It's not clear why you're promoting this old
thing again. It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish. It's not
clear who you are. It's not clear why someone with so little
substantive information would venture into a venue like this where
there are knowledgeable people.

But I could offer a couple guesses and they'd be unflattering.

> Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the light.
>
> Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of exercise and
> oxidize some body tissue.

The kindness and generosity of your motivation is, unfortunately, too
obvious. Go away. We've all seen your uninformed, uninspired type
before and they were amusing and good target practice for a while, but
soon they become boring. Like you.

Pastorio



>
> Ross Reid > wrote in message
> news >
>>"LifeisGood" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
>>
>>Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.
>>
>>
>>>To good food, and good health.
>>
>>I'll drink to that.
>>
>>
>>>P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
>>>corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
>>>public?
>>
>>In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
>>Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
>>"The sky is falling".
>>
>>Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.
>>
>>Ross.
>
>
>

LifeisGood wrote:

> It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
> this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you could
> run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
> results.

Hey, shitskull. Here's a flash for you. This crap has come around a
zillion times before. The only thing new about it is that you're just
getting to it. Call the mothership. They have the full report for you.

And for the first few times, people did go look at sources of
information. Actual science rather than this "test" that proves
nothing. Good chemistry and good nutritional data. Unlike what you offer.

Here's a further flash. You're a skulking coward unwilling to stand
behind your own words. It's not clear why you're promoting this old
thing again. It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish. It's not
clear who you are. It's not clear why someone with so little
substantive information would venture into a venue like this where
there are knowledgeable people.

But I could offer a couple guesses and they'd be unflattering.

> Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the light.
>
> Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of exercise and
> oxidize some body tissue.

The kindness and generosity of your motivation is, unfortunately, too
obvious. Go away. We've all seen your uninformed, uninspired type
before and they were amusing and good target practice for a while, but
soon they become boring. Like you.

Pastorio



>
> Ross Reid > wrote in message
> news >
>>"LifeisGood" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
>>
>>Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.
>>
>>
>>>To good food, and good health.
>>
>>I'll drink to that.
>>
>>
>>>P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
>>>corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
>>>public?
>>
>>In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
>>Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
>>"The sky is falling".
>>
>>Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.
>>
>>Ross.
>
>
>

LifeisGood wrote:

> It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
> this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you could
> run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
> results.

Hey, shitskull. Here's a flash for you. This crap has come around a
zillion times before. The only thing new about it is that you're just
getting to it. Call the mothership. They have the full report for you.

And for the first few times, people did go look at sources of
information. Actual science rather than this "test" that proves
nothing. Good chemistry and good nutritional data. Unlike what you offer.

Here's a further flash. You're a skulking coward unwilling to stand
behind your own words. It's not clear why you're promoting this old
thing again. It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish. It's not
clear who you are. It's not clear why someone with so little
substantive information would venture into a venue like this where
there are knowledgeable people.

But I could offer a couple guesses and they'd be unflattering.

> Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the light.
>
> Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of exercise and
> oxidize some body tissue.

The kindness and generosity of your motivation is, unfortunately, too
obvious. Go away. We've all seen your uninformed, uninspired type
before and they were amusing and good target practice for a while, but
soon they become boring. Like you.

Pastorio



>
> Ross Reid > wrote in message
> news >
>>"LifeisGood" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
>>
>>Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.
>>
>>
>>>To good food, and good health.
>>
>>I'll drink to that.
>>
>>
>>>P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
>>>corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
>>>public?
>>
>>In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
>>Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
>>"The sky is falling".
>>
>>Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.
>>
>>Ross.
>
>
>

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

> As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do
> they not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that
> would be a good name to try to sell stuff under?

That really is a case of stupidity over common sense. One source
states that "rape" is the English form but that "the name is derived
through Old English from a term for turnip, rapum."

Back in the day (1971), former Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker
defended the use of the expression "Land of rape and honey" by the
town of Tisdale, Saskatchewan.

http://library.usask.ca/sni/stories/con18d.html

Let's not get carried away here. We're not talking about violation,
we're talking about a plant here that is *actually* called Brassica
napus. Apples...oranges...it's a no-brainer.

--

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
:

> As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do
> they not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that
> would be a good name to try to sell stuff under?

That really is a case of stupidity over common sense. One source
states that "rape" is the English form but that "the name is derived
through Old English from a term for turnip, rapum."

Back in the day (1971), former Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker
defended the use of the expression "Land of rape and honey" by the
town of Tisdale, Saskatchewan.

http://library.usask.ca/sni/stories/con18d.html

Let's not get carried away here. We're not talking about violation,
we're talking about a plant here that is *actually* called Brassica
napus. Apples...oranges...it's a no-brainer.

--

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 :-)

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :
>
>>As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do
>>they not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that
>>would be a good name to try to sell stuff under?
>
> That really is a case of stupidity over common sense.

Perhaps a case of denotation over connotation. Imagine a candy called
shitseed. Probably the consuming public would form opinions on other
than the flavor of the product.

I bet that's why "pets de nonne" is on all the boxes of little
pastries in Quebec. Yummy, huh...?

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.

Pet brand Evaporated Milk in cans didn't sell well in French Canada.
Neither did Cue toothpaste. Same thing works for everybody.

Pastorio

> One source
> states that "rape" is the English form but that "the name is derived
> through Old English from a term for turnip, rapum."
>
> Back in the day (1971), former Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker
> defended the use of the expression "Land of rape and honey" by the
> town of Tisdale, Saskatchewan.
>
> http://library.usask.ca/sni/stories/con18d.html
>
> Let's not get carried away here. We're not talking about violation,
> we're talking about a plant here that is *actually* called Brassica
> napus. Apples...oranges...it's a no-brainer.

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :
>
>>As for why "rapeseed" had its name changed, how dense are you? Do
>>they not use the word "rape" on your planet...? Do you think that
>>would be a good name to try to sell stuff under?
>
> That really is a case of stupidity over common sense.

Perhaps a case of denotation over connotation. Imagine a candy called
shitseed. Probably the consuming public would form opinions on other
than the flavor of the product.

I bet that's why "pets de nonne" is on all the boxes of little
pastries in Quebec. Yummy, huh...?

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.

Pet brand Evaporated Milk in cans didn't sell well in French Canada.
Neither did Cue toothpaste. Same thing works for everybody.

Pastorio

> One source
> states that "rape" is the English form but that "the name is derived
> through Old English from a term for turnip, rapum."
>
> Back in the day (1971), former Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker
> defended the use of the expression "Land of rape and honey" by the
> town of Tisdale, Saskatchewan.
>
> http://library.usask.ca/sni/stories/con18d.html
>
> Let's not get carried away here. We're not talking about violation,
> we're talking about a plant here that is *actually* called Brassica
> napus. Apples...oranges...it's a no-brainer.

There's more information on canola oil he

http://www.cyberparent.com/nutrition/canola.htm


I'm always interested in why alarmists will latch onto one product to be
scared of while ignoring another. I'm no closer to an absolute answer,
but I have some ideas.


One has to do with genetic modification. It conjures up images of Dr.
Frankenstein's monster, and I have to admit that I find something creepy
in that too. Problem is that none of the websites I looked at were
clear on the difference between genetic modification through gene
splicing and gene combining in the laboratory, a new technique possible
only after the discovery of DNA and how it relates to life on earth
(hats off and a moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick, 1916-2004), and
artificial selection which has been going on for centuries. I've never
heard anyone objecting to the practice of choosing seeds from the
healthiest most productive plants or putting the pollen from one plant
with qualities you want in the flower of another to make a hybrid. If
you think about it, that's genetic modification too though we call it
artificial selection or hybridization, words that sound more benign.


So I think part of alarmists' problem with canola oil is that they think
it has been genetically modified. I wonder why they're not afraid of
Saint Bernards which have been hybridized and artificially selected too,
but there's no understanding why one product is picked out as a target
for fear over another. Even the name "canola" has been put together
from various sources like Frankenstein's monster.


Then there's the problem with big corporations. The New Age alarmist
community has a fear of anything huge, anything advertised, anything
that comes from a company of a certain size. I find it most amusing
when a company like Spectrum Oils which has sold almost exclusively to
health food stores gets targeted, but there it is.


It has been pointed out over and over, but I'll do it once more for the
heck of it, something may be "natural" but toxic while something created
in a lab might be life supporting. In the original diatribe against
canola oil, we read: "What will happen is the oils will oxidize. This
is normal and each will take on a bit of bad smell. This is rancidity
and is ok." As anyone who has ever gotten sick to their stomach after
eating rancid oil will tell you, there is nothing ok about rancidity.
Sure it is a natural process of oxidation, but the symptoms of vomiting
and diarrhea are horrible. I'll spare you the details of the time it
happened to me, but trust me on this one, it wasn't pretty. That's the
reason I've never bought cold pressed unprocessed oils again. Whatever
they do to the stuff in the supermarket, they do something that means an
oil can be kept at room temperature without going rancid. That's good
enough for me. Give me the processed stuff any day.


I'm not sure why an oil thickening and hardening as it oxidizes is bad
news for a consumable product. What does that mean in terms of
chemistry? Nothing is said about the effect of consuming the product,
especially in its non-oxidized state. For that reason, I'm not
interested in reproducing the experiment. I wouldn't know what my
results meant.


Anyway, have you noticed that people with their eyes closed can't see in
the dark either?


--Lia

There's more information on canola oil he

http://www.cyberparent.com/nutrition/canola.htm


I'm always interested in why alarmists will latch onto one product to be
scared of while ignoring another. I'm no closer to an absolute answer,
but I have some ideas.


One has to do with genetic modification. It conjures up images of Dr.
Frankenstein's monster, and I have to admit that I find something creepy
in that too. Problem is that none of the websites I looked at were
clear on the difference between genetic modification through gene
splicing and gene combining in the laboratory, a new technique possible
only after the discovery of DNA and how it relates to life on earth
(hats off and a moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick, 1916-2004), and
artificial selection which has been going on for centuries. I've never
heard anyone objecting to the practice of choosing seeds from the
healthiest most productive plants or putting the pollen from one plant
with qualities you want in the flower of another to make a hybrid. If
you think about it, that's genetic modification too though we call it
artificial selection or hybridization, words that sound more benign.


So I think part of alarmists' problem with canola oil is that they think
it has been genetically modified. I wonder why they're not afraid of
Saint Bernards which have been hybridized and artificially selected too,
but there's no understanding why one product is picked out as a target
for fear over another. Even the name "canola" has been put together
from various sources like Frankenstein's monster.


Then there's the problem with big corporations. The New Age alarmist
community has a fear of anything huge, anything advertised, anything
that comes from a company of a certain size. I find it most amusing
when a company like Spectrum Oils which has sold almost exclusively to
health food stores gets targeted, but there it is.


It has been pointed out over and over, but I'll do it once more for the
heck of it, something may be "natural" but toxic while something created
in a lab might be life supporting. In the original diatribe against
canola oil, we read: "What will happen is the oils will oxidize. This
is normal and each will take on a bit of bad smell. This is rancidity
and is ok." As anyone who has ever gotten sick to their stomach after
eating rancid oil will tell you, there is nothing ok about rancidity.
Sure it is a natural process of oxidation, but the symptoms of vomiting
and diarrhea are horrible. I'll spare you the details of the time it
happened to me, but trust me on this one, it wasn't pretty. That's the
reason I've never bought cold pressed unprocessed oils again. Whatever
they do to the stuff in the supermarket, they do something that means an
oil can be kept at room temperature without going rancid. That's good
enough for me. Give me the processed stuff any day.


I'm not sure why an oil thickening and hardening as it oxidizes is bad
news for a consumable product. What does that mean in terms of
chemistry? Nothing is said about the effect of consuming the product,
especially in its non-oxidized state. For that reason, I'm not
interested in reproducing the experiment. I wouldn't know what my
results meant.


Anyway, have you noticed that people with their eyes closed can't see in
the dark either?


--Lia

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

> I bet that's why "pets de nonne" is on all the boxes of little
> pastries in Quebec. Yummy, huh...?

Actually, that would be silly...if you were to put pets de nonnes on
all the pastry boxes in Québec you would be definitely be pegged as
an anglo.

Pets de nonnes are only one thing. They are made from rolled dough
left over when baking pies. You don't make them to sell them. You
make them and eat them. And yes, they are called pets de nonnes and
people DO eat them nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not
flaming prudes, eh?

> 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.

--

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
:

> I bet that's why "pets de nonne" is on all the boxes of little
> pastries in Quebec. Yummy, huh...?

Actually, that would be silly...if you were to put pets de nonnes on
all the pastry boxes in Québec you would be definitely be pegged as
an anglo.

Pets de nonnes are only one thing. They are made from rolled dough
left over when baking pies. You don't make them to sell them. You
make them and eat them. And yes, they are called pets de nonnes and
people DO eat them nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not
flaming prudes, eh?

> 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.

--

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 :-)

LifeisGood wrote:
> It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
> this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you could
> run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
> results.
>


It's a repeatable test, but it doesn't really mean anything. Rapeseed
oil is a "semi-drying" oil. So it oxidizes and gets sticky and hardens.
Soybean oil is a "drying" oil. It polymerizes much faster than
rapeseed oil. Peanut oil is a non-drying oil. I suppose it gets rancid
eventually, but it does not polymerize. Flaxseed oil polymerizes so
easily it is used to make paints and linoleum. I don't hear anyone
railing against soybean oil or flaxseed oil (or fish oils, or...) in
fact, they are sold in health food stores.

The polymerization process creates free radicals (bad), and the varnish
that ultimately results can't be good for you (that's why you should not
reuse oil for frying too many times), but it has nothing to do with how
natural the oil is. If you are really concerned about your oils
thickening on you, mix in a little vitamin E to protect them from
oxidation, or use peanut oil.

Bob

LifeisGood wrote:
> It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
> this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you could
> run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
> results.
>


It's a repeatable test, but it doesn't really mean anything. Rapeseed
oil is a "semi-drying" oil. So it oxidizes and gets sticky and hardens.
Soybean oil is a "drying" oil. It polymerizes much faster than
rapeseed oil. Peanut oil is a non-drying oil. I suppose it gets rancid
eventually, but it does not polymerize. Flaxseed oil polymerizes so
easily it is used to make paints and linoleum. I don't hear anyone
railing against soybean oil or flaxseed oil (or fish oils, or...) in
fact, they are sold in health food stores.

The polymerization process creates free radicals (bad), and the varnish
that ultimately results can't be good for you (that's why you should not
reuse oil for frying too many times), but it has nothing to do with how
natural the oil is. If you are really concerned about your oils
thickening on you, mix in a little vitamin E to protect them from
oxidation, or use peanut oil.

Bob

Julia Altshuler > wrote in
news:MciOc.194603$JR4.49492@attbi_s54:

> Anyway, have you noticed that people with their eyes closed can't see in
> the dark either?
>

Are you saying because there is light, eyes are bad for you?

Thesis:
If I walked around with one eye open and one eye shut would the number of
things I stumbled over be because:

A-My depth perception was shot.

B-I just didn't see them.

C-Actively concentrating on keeping eyes in that state, I just couldn't
walk.

D-Worry over oil oxidating world wide, caused me to panic and run into the
wall severely injuring myself and causing me to sware off all future
experimenting.

--
Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food
and water.
--------
FIELDS, W. C.

Julia Altshuler > wrote in
news:MciOc.194603$JR4.49492@attbi_s54:

> Anyway, have you noticed that people with their eyes closed can't see in
> the dark either?
>

Are you saying because there is light, eyes are bad for you?

Thesis:
If I walked around with one eye open and one eye shut would the number of
things I stumbled over be because:

A-My depth perception was shot.

B-I just didn't see them.

C-Actively concentrating on keeping eyes in that state, I just couldn't
walk.

D-Worry over oil oxidating world wide, caused me to panic and run into the
wall severely injuring myself and causing me to sware off all future
experimenting.

--
Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food
and water.
--------
FIELDS, W. C.

On 2004-07-29, LifeisGood > wrote:


> be sure that one is Canola). Be certain to make a bit of mess and get some
> of the oil on the outside of the jar...

"A bit of a mess"!?!?

Yeah, real scientific methodology. Go peddle your paranoia elsewhere.

nb

On 2004-07-29, LifeisGood > wrote:


> be sure that one is Canola). Be certain to make a bit of mess and get some
> of the oil on the outside of the jar...

"A bit of a mess"!?!?

Yeah, real scientific methodology. Go peddle your paranoia elsewhere.

nb

"LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<vveOc.180202$%_6.80412@attbi_s01>...
> What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
> "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
>
> Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
> Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors of
> this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?
>

Um, no Dear. I worked as a molecular biologist genetically
engineering crops for over 15 years. Canola is the common name for
rapeseed which contains a specific composition (<2% erucic acid and
15umol glucosinolates). Rapeseed/Canola belongs to the genus Brassica
(which includes mustards, cabbage and broccoli) and is one of the
oldest cultivated plants known to man. While there are companies
which do genetically engineer rapeseed, those projects are mainly
directed toward industrial uses of modified oils, as canola is a
healthy oil, naturally.

-L.

"LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<vveOc.180202$%_6.80412@attbi_s01>...
> What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
> "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
>
> Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
> Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors of
> this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?
>

Um, no Dear. I worked as a molecular biologist genetically
engineering crops for over 15 years. Canola is the common name for
rapeseed which contains a specific composition (<2% erucic acid and
15umol glucosinolates). Rapeseed/Canola belongs to the genus Brassica
(which includes mustards, cabbage and broccoli) and is one of the
oldest cultivated plants known to man. While there are companies
which do genetically engineer rapeseed, those projects are mainly
directed toward industrial uses of modified oils, as canola is a
healthy oil, naturally.

-L.