Rapeseed Oil And Canola

[MissCurious]

Rapeseed oil was genetically modified by a couple of Canadians to remove the high levels of uric acid to make it fit for human consumption and they called it Canola. Then my question is, how are we producing rapeseed oil in the UK which is fit for human consumption but it's not classed as GM?

[EDDIE51]

The kitchen I work in most often is that of the MRC center on the Addenbrokes site. They always get me to make a batch of scones , 90 at a time.

[MissCurious]

Firstly, can I say I'm glad you two, Theprof and EDDIE51 have made a connection on the post.

Theprof, I appreciate and respect your knowledge and experience. I maybe nowhere near your intellect, however I have a BSc 2:1 honours degree, I do my research with science reviews and papers. I read and research more than Google. However, as much as I appreciate your knowledge, I'm sure our opinions are often opposites.

You have enticed me to do further research about rapeseed health benefits and claims. I may have been blindsided about Canola, seeing as that was what kept coming up in my searches, although I strongly believe my gut instincts. You mention another oil that's red (I can't quote as I'm having internet/laptop issues) that's used in manufacturing, do we eat it? I suspect and hope not by your description of it. You saying we have edible oils that are also used in manufacturing, I would also be inclined not to touch them with a barge pole too. Any oil that is highly processed to make it edible should not be made edible in the first place, just my opinion of course.

The programme I mentioned was Eat Healthy for Less or something. They stated rapeseed oil, for the money, was just as good as coconut oil. I'm sorry I cannot agree. It sparked an interest, how could a nutritionist advise that? Where was her information coming from? The industry that processed the oils? When I searched OSR grown and sold in the UK, all my searches kept throwing up Canola results. I wanted to know the difference between the two and you kindly answered me earlier.

EDDIE51 you're right, I do have a bee in my bonnet about Monsanto and many other multi-nationals. And as for Monsanto not being relevant in Europe, I think this may no longer be the case, seeing as Bayer have bought them out. With such economical power comes great political power, we all know it's the corporations that rule and not the politicians.

You say I have nothing to fear, I hope you're right. However, I disagree and I believe if we are not careful we will be like the States, before many realise it. Why have supermarkets started selling more GM products, albeit on a few, but it has started, at least it's labelled. So, why don't we get informed if the food we are eating has been fed on GMO's? We are finding glyphosate and chemicals in our food chain and our bodies. How is it getting there? Why do we feed our farm animals GMO feed if hardly any of us want to eat it directly? I'm not saying it's all bad, I'm just saying I want to know so I can make my mind up if I eat it or not, especially when there are not enough independent studies on these chemicals and their interactions.

I appreciate your scientific knowledge, I hope you appreciate that my conclusions may sometimes be different to yours.

[theprof]

OK MissCurious, we need to take a step back here to clarify some matters before we can proceed any further. Let's look at your last post and discuss the matters you raise seriatim.

EDDIE51 and I have had numerous discussions on the Answerbank over many years. The gentleman has a scientific background, is very knowledgeable and I greatly respect his opinion. Please don't think that we have made a connection as a consequence of your post. We've known one another for some considerable years.

Turning to the issue of your degree, I'm intrigued. You've not disclosed the precise discipline in which you've gained your degree and normally, the disclosure of this information would have allowed me to design answers around your subject knowledge. This is not for any motive on my part, but merely to refine my answers to suit your likely knowledge. I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that if I start discussing crop agronomics with someone who has a degree in particle physics, it would be pointless. So let's cut to the chase and tell us about your degree.

Its admirable that you are continuing your research via published papers and reviews. You've clearly maintained the talent you acquired in higher education. You've been correct in not confining your research to Google. However, you have one big problem ahead of you here. Extensive research as you propose is difficult and virtually impossible without access to recognised e-resources accessible only via University Libraries. You are not going to be able to access subscription only services without such resources. This is why I wanted to know more about your degree. If the degree is from an accredited UK university, you might still be able to access library services in your capacity as a former student. Give it a try. However without wishing to demean other institutions, The Open University and others prevent access from the date of attaining your degree.

In the event you can access university resources, you may find The Knovel Library, Web Of Science, EBSCO and others useful in your quest. Confine yourself to reputable resources preferably within the UK. This is probably the reason why your Canola research led you to USA and other country hosted resources rather than UK ones.

Yes, you seem to have been obsessed with Canola Oil in previous posts but I hope that's behind us now. Red Palm oil is indeed red and was what I discussed in an earlier post. Regretfully, I can confirm that yes, we do eat it. In fact for many, it's considered to be the "organic" version of refined palm oil as it is unbleached and untreated. You may well hope that we don't eat it, but take it from me, at some point in the last two to three years you've eaten it. That is a certainty whether you are prepared to admit it or not. The lesson here is that your research is very incomplete and whilst your stance over these issues may be regarded as admirable, you are lacking very fundamental knowledge of edible oils. You can't push this stuff away with a barge-pole unless you have far greater knowledge of edible oils.

(continued below)

[theprof]

Whilst I appreciate that the final sentence in your third paragraph is your opinion, you need to think carefully of the implications from a scientific, moral and commercial viewpoint. In the western world, we can all take a high moral stance on such issues but that hardly helps to feed the world. Try living with a starving African for a few weeks who will show you how to utilise such oil in ways you have not seen to feed his family.

You've repeated the line that the TV program was "just as good as coconut oil". Now it seems the matter under discussion was merely money according to your last post. Let's put this in context. You've objected to this line on absolutely nothing more than cost. Yes? Cost is clearly not an issue for you as you've not mentioned it before. Instead of providing credible, cogent scientific argument on the use of what you claim is a harmful oil, you've made a totally irrelevant economic argument instead. I will tell you that this is hardly the behaviour I'd expect from someone who has achieved a degree and consider yourself fortunate that you were never one of my students. Please confine yourself to the science.

A nutritionist can advise whatever she likes on a TV program in the same way that a street sweeper could do the same. In the light of what you said, they would both be talking of money or put another way, cost. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about that just like people are free to select any of the oils in a supermarket from the cheapest to the most expensive.

I doubt that you have a degree in a food science as you would know that nutritional information comes from a textbook commonly known as McCance and Widdowson and it's online equivalents. Pages care devoted to the composition of oils. You'll also find all the information you'll ever need about the composition of food. That's also the title of the book by the way. A good nutritionist would reel this stuff off by heart.

(continued)

[theprof]

The answers to the points you raise in the final sentences of your fourth paragraph have been answered elsewhere.

I'll now direct my attention to the points you've directed at EDDIE51. I can confirm that I also think that you a bee in your bonnet over Canola and Monsanto. However, I've looked into this matter of Monsanto and Bayer a few weeks ago following a discussion with a colleague and you provided me with the opportunity to bring myself up to date on the matter. There is no evidence to show that the association between Bayer and Monsanto will lead to the commercial GM Crops or Canola in Europe. The legislation is in place to stop this and I've seen the legislation concerned as GM Crops are relevant to my job.

The final sentence in your fifth paragraph confines itself to your personal prediction on what you think will happen. Consider this: You could be mistaken.

Your sixth sentence is simply an assortment of various questions that you don't understand with no real coherence between them. I'm startled that you don't seem to understand how glyphosate and other chemicals get into the human body. We feed farm animals on GMO purely on the basis of year round availability and cost. Animal feed will always be cheaper than human food. It's all down to cost which will always override theoretical harm. Don't forget that the desirability/undesirability of GM crops is an emotive, personal issue for most people. at the end of the day, it's their decision.

You need to make up your mind on the subject. However I wouldn't advise you delve too deep into the interactions of chemicals in farm animals and humans as it's clear you don't have the academic knowledge to evaluate these matters in an impartial manner. Such evaluation is essential to arrive at a sensible scientific conclusion.

Just like all of us, you are free to arrive at your own conclusions and I wouldn't expect you to have the same views as me. That's what makes us all individuals. However, right now society will label you a consumer and I the scientist. Rightly or wrongly, you don't need me to tell you whose opinion will prevail. That's society for you and twas ever thus. I wish you all the best with your research.

[Peter Pedant]

eddie what do you think of the food at Tit Hall ?

[MissCurious]

Oh dear, this is getting quite tiring.

I came on here for a scientific answer about OSR, which as I’ve already said, you have answered. I’ve even marked it as the best answer.

As for you and EDDIE51 knowing and having respect for each other on AB, it was obvious. I was rising above the fact that you two were working as a tag team per say, bigging each other up, showing publically you have an allegiance together. You may be a respected scientist in your field, but that behaviour was playground, especially as you already knew each other, it was pointless, other than to try and intimidate me. It is clear that not many of you on here will like my opinions, they doubt and question the very establishment you are part of. You cannot agree with me, for if you do, you throw doubt and insecurity over your incomes.

It was apparent before my last post, that we were not going to agree. That was the reason I mentioned my degree, so that you were aware I had science knowledge and an ability to learn and further develop my knowledge. If my degree had been in Agrochemicals or in Biochemistry I would have known the answer to my initial question. My zoology degree has no relevance to my knowledge in this matter.

I’m sorry you either have a desire and a drive for learning or you don’t, this is not a talent acquired at university! Thankfully I do have access to my university e-library. I can do research for myself, however, due to publication bias it is often difficult to find the papers on certain research. I’m sure you’ll try and tell there’s no such thing and the reason finding the papers is difficult is because there are none. I’ll agree to differ with you if that’s the case.

Theprof, you are the one who misunderstands. I’m not obsessed about Canola; I had a little interest about OSR. I think because Canola was mentioned in my first post, in order to explain why I had a question about OSR in the first place and people kept directing their answers about that. Only as a reply to someone did I ask if Canola was a hybrid. It was a mistake I should have asked if OSR is a hybrid. Something no one has answered to either confirm or correct me.

You bring up living with a starving African using the oil to feed his family. Really, you’re going to use that as an argument for these disgusting, unhealthy, damaging to the environment oils and say that in the Western world it is easy to stand the higher ground? What about the people that have lost their livelihood or worse their lives to the fires in Indonesia currently? Up to 100 000 thousand deaths all due to deliberate fires that were lit to clear land for agriculture and palm oil plantations. Tell their families the world needs these oils to survive. These oils that are nutrient hungry are not the best options for us to be using and growing, they are the best option for serious money to be made by a small few. That money pays for fantastic propaganda and spinning of information. Continued…

[EDDIE51]

^^PP The food is very good, all fresh made on the premises. They even bake their own bread daily. As I said when I am there they get me to make the scones which are something of a tradition.
MissCurious I am afraid you have met your match in ' theprof' he is recognized as a world leading authority on the subject of food science and of
edible oils in particular !

[MissCurious]

As for me bringing up the programme again, I merely did it to answer a previous question of yours. It beggars belief that the BBC would have a programme advising its viewers that something so highly processed could be as good as coconut oil because it is cheap. It only sparked my initial interest in finding the truth about OSR. Surely a nutritionist should be advising on a balanced diet of naturally occurring foods not processed foods. If the food companies didn’t want to make money on all their processed and refined products, they wouldn’t have gone out of their way to try and convince the population that good old fashioned solid fats are bad for you. I shouldn’t have been so shocked, for years we were told that margarine was the healthy option. Or, are you going to try and tell me it still is because of its unsaturated fats. Its high levels of trans fats are known to be more damaging to the heart and increases the chance of death, yet it is still being promoted as healthy. So yes, I stick by what I said that it’s the corporations that rule. There is an innate problem when it’s the food companies advising the Government on what is healthy, when it’s these companies, paying scientists like yourself to do the research. We all know that an experiment is designed around the results you want to find. I appreciate that people like me, who don’t just swallow every word we are told as gospel are pains in the backsides to people like you and these companies, otherwise they wouldn’t spend all the money they do trying to undermine anyone who may question them.

The questions in my sixth paragraph were rhetorical, they were there to highlight the importance of true and proper labelling of all food derived from GM feed or enzymes, not just the GM products that are already labelled. You are 100% correct in saying that this is an emotive and personal issue, and at the end of the day it’s our own decisions. I would like the choice to make the decision if I eat this food or not. Just like the fact I will have unwittingly eaten palm oil, I will have also unwittingly eaten GM fed meat and will have unwittingly consumed many pesticides. All I can do is try to take as much control and responsibility as I possibly can for what I eat, rather than just be told by someone that everything has been deemed to be safe. The legislation in place is insufficient and is in favour of the agrochemical companies not the consumer.

As for the Bayer/Monsanto merger, Canola production in the UK will be the least of our worries. It doesn’t take someone with a university education to realise that the devil just got married. Let me remind you of some of their respective atrocities.
BAYER
Produced haemophilia blood products contaminated with HIV and Hepatitis C. Once this information was realised, they were banned in the States. Bayer didn’t want to take the financial hit, and knowingly sold these products to Europe and GB infecting and murdering innocent people.
Bayer ask the bacteriologist and scientists that do testing for them to sign to say they will not publish their findings without written consent from Bayer. What happens to the scientific information that doesn’t suit their commercial needs?
They were responsible for bringing heroin to the open market and it was for children! When concerns were raised they ignored them all and continued to market and promote heroin for another 15 years.
I could continue with many of their war crimes.
MONSANTO
They are a profiteering poisonous chemical company; they were responsible for the manufacture of Agent Orange, just one of many poisonous gasses, or was this OK because many were for the military.
They are building a monopoly, putting farmers out of business. Farmers all over the world, often the poorest ones. They sell them this amazing seed that is the answer to their pest problem, low and behold, they have to keep buying the seed, these farmers are no longer self-sufficient, they are complete

[MissCurious]

they are completely (continued) dependent on Monsanto.

They are controlling the food and privatising water. Monsanto are purchasing the rights to groundwater and aquifers.
They run the FDA, ex-Monsanto executives run the United States Food and Drug Administration. Are you going to tell me there’s no conflict of interest here?
They continue with environmental nightmares; how many more bees are we going to continue to lose? Or are you going to tell me that glyphosate and neonicotinoids are not playing a massive role in killing our precious honey bee. The honey bee is my biggest concern; we are all aware of the implications of losing this amazing creature.

I would continue, but quite frankly I’m getting bored. There is no point me giving you endless examples of their atrocities and why I don’t trust them. You and anyone who may be interested can easily find this information. You may tell me that my information is flawed and these companies are not that bad but the evidence is out there for all to see.

I appreciate you cannot really agree with me, GM crops and these agrochemical companies are what pay your wages and fund many departments within many universities. Like you said, you are the scientist and I am merely the consumer. How do companies like Bayer and Monsanto get the public on their side? By paying credible scientists like you to back them up! The vast majority of the population will side with you, especially people of similar academic stature, or at least those ones that have got just as much as you to lose if you were all to stand out from the crowd and stand up against the bullying companies like Bayer and Monsanto. All we have to do is look around and you know as well as I do, it takes a courageous person to not conform to societal viewpoints. However, thankfully more people are standing up for what is right and not what is lining their pockets and more people are listening.

I don’t see the point in continuing this line of discussion any further, I have my opinions and you have yours. I did not come on this site for this purpose. I do thank you for your initial answer and post though. How your interest in one of my opinions has opened up Pandora’s Box!
I shall leave you with the words of Gandhi……
“Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind even if you are a minority of one. The truth is still the truth”

[EDDIE51]

MissCurious I do not know theprof personally, I have a shrewd suspicion as to his identity based on his scientific profile. But as he says he values his anonymity, which I will respect.

[EDDIE51]

MissCurious I just state this. Your last two posts contain so many misconceptions, fallacies ,urban myths and just plain bull****t that I am not even going to start listing them!

[EDDIE51]

The first point is that both I and 'theprof' have told you that your first statement ''Rapeseed oil was genetically modified by a couple of Canadians'' is totally wrong! The development of low erucic rapeseed was done by traditional selective breeding and was carried out MANY years before even the concept of 'genetic engineering' existed ! ( let alone the techniques to carry it out!)

[EDDIE51]

^^ I would say that the disproof of your basic premise renders your entire argument void !
Rapeseed oil was not, is not and never will be Genetically Modified! That is FACT !

[theprof]

Miss Curious, let’s be clear about this; we don’t play games on AB. Please don’t accuse us of playing as a tag team as nothing could be further from the truth. Nevertheless, given your limited experience of this forum, I’ll attribute your comment to ignorance for now. There was no playground behaviour. Perhaps you thought that EDDIE51 and I were masquerading as knowledgeable scientists but only you know the answer to that. Rest assured, there was no intention to intimidate you. Having looked through my previous posts, I cannot see a single example of how you might arrive at that conclusion. However, I do understand that as you are having difficulties appreciating the information posted on thread and we have not supported your opinions, it is feasible that you continue to feel you are being intimidated. The person that stands alone amongst those of contrary opinions often feels intimidated and I expect you are no different.

It was obvious to me from your very early posts that we were not going to agree. I wonder what took you so long. Your ability to learn and further develop your knowledge has been evident from the beginning. You don’t need a degree to do it, just common sense and don’t make the mistake that my replies were modified specifically for you. They were not.

It’s great that you can access your university library. Shame you didn’t tell us in the beginning though as it would have helped. As you say, zoology has indeed no relevance to your enquiry. Agrochemical knowledge would only have partially provided an answer.

I don’t need any moralistic viewpoints regarding desire or drive for learning or its absence. This is a science forum. Kindly confine yourself to asking questions and clarifying answers rather than jumping on a philosophical high horse. This is not the place to debate such a subject.

You seem convinced that we will tell you that you will not be able to find the research papers you need to investigate this matter. Why are you sure that we will tell you there’s no such thing? Are you really lacking self-confidence to consider that somehow you are being persecuted on this thread? If so, I’d suggest you back off now and seek appropriate counselling. Neither EDDIE51 nor I have told you or implied that you will fail in your quest. Your statement that you’d agree to differ is irrelevant as your allegations are unfounded. Consider yourself fortunate that I don’t easily take offence MissCurious.

Both EDDIE51 and I concluded you were obsessed with Canola. You admitted as much following the comments. It is puerile to try to deny it right now MissCurious. Re-examine your posts. People discussed Canola because that was what you were asking about – not Olive oil, Rapeseed oil or any of the myriad of others. I’m grateful that you accept you should have been more precise and you should not have asked if OSR was a hybrid. I would have thought that you would be aware of the importance of an unequivocal question given you education. Merely asking the question demonstrates that you have a very rudimentary knowledge of botany in general, so I’d recommend you consult a basic textbook for the answer. I won’t confirm or correct you here.

However much you dislike what I said about the African family, face facts MissCurious. That’s the way the world works and you can jump up and down as much as you like to no avail. Don’t tell me about it. Go and canvass your MP. Make a stand in Parliament. Parade with your placards outside uni and anywhere else you can think of. This is science forum not a place for moral ranting and raving and I do not comment on heated, angry remarks no matter how serious you consider the issue to be.

(continued)

[theprof]

Like it or not, as I said earlier, cost is a predominant feature of everyone’s life nowadays. I’d agree that a nutritionist should be advising on wholesome foods rather than processed ones but again it’s an issue of cost. Look at the title of the program again. The entire episode is geared towards reducing cost. It’s therefore biased and takes on board little else. Just accept that it’s skewed. You are clearly young, so you may be unaware that all edible fats were once saturated with little exception. There was an opening for manufactures to promote monounsaturates and the like on the basis that they did not clog arteries and that set the ball rolling. In fact, the earliest monounsaturated fats were developed from a yellow gooey substance in the base of fractionating columns in oil refineries.

I note once again that you speculate that I may try to tell you that margarine is a health option because it contains unsaturated fats. I’ll do nothing of the sort and you really must get rid of this idea that we are opposed to your views merely for the sake of it. You really can’t go through life considering that everyone will have an opposite opinion to you. Companies don’t pay me to do research – I’m above all that nonsense and have been for years. Currently, the UK, USA and Canadian governments pay me for my opinion and that’s it. You seem to desire to convey that I am in the pocket of commercial organisations. Be careful in your allegations as I might begin to change my mind about taking offence. Regretfully, you have once again demonstrated another rudimentary knowledge. The subject this time is University Research. Please don’t speculate on a subject you know nothing about as it will only make you look foolish.

Regarding your sixth paragraph, you have the choice on eating the food or not. No one is forcing it down your throat. As for palm oil, one would have thought that given your views, you would already be vigilant in not eating it. Clearly you have not been. Never mind, you can start again today. Once again, allegations on agrochemical companies take us off topic. Post elsewhere if you really are seeking answers on the subject.

I said earlier you were obsessed with Canola Oil. Now it’s evident your wrath is being directed at the Bayer/Monsant merger. There are appropriate places to raise your misgivings. The Answerbank is not here to fulfill a role as your mouthpiece for your allegations for war crimes. Your posts read like they originate from a disgruntled, malicious employee rather than someone who is used to logical thinking. I suggest you need to step back and take a break as such heated remarks are likely to affect your health.

I note that once again you are trying to predict what I think over the matters you posted. It’s futile. You have no idea and you’re wasting your time. This never was and is not a game of chess young lady. Don’t behave as if you’re playing the game. You seem convinced that our opinion will be contrary to yours no matter what you say. You are repeatedly accusing me of being in the pocket of Bayer and suchlike whilst at the same time you cannot substantiate it. I suggest you seek appropriate advice on these feelings of persecution and obsession before the situation becomes totally out of hand.

[theprof]

Your 2107 post says it all succinctly EDDIE51 and I couldn't agree more.

[theprof]

MissCurious if you're still around, I like the idea of conforming to the philosophy of Gandhi, a great man indeed.

If you consider yourself to be correct, please feel free to continue to believe the falsehoods contained within your posts as the great man advised. If you consider yourself to be years ahead of your time, please remember me when you attain a superior role on planet earth.

In the meantime, speak your mind and be prepared to be ridiculed for your illogical and unfounded beliefs. Your truth is not always THE truth.

[EDDIE51]

theprof, I am sure MissCurious is one of those people who see Genetic Modification only as producing 'Frankenstein Food' . An term that was coined by the newspapers to promote headline grabbing scare stories. Unfortunately the term seems to have struck a chord with the general public and makes any sensible discussion of the subject impossible.

[theprof]

I think you well be right EDDIE51. There seem to be a lot of these people around nowadays. We seem to be receiving more "hate mail" over the last few years at the uni from these profoundly misled fanatics accusing us of being in league with commercial organisations rather than providing unbiased research.

My Biochemistry Department has been accused over the years of all sorts of stuff but thankfully, the department secretaries are experts at binning this stuff before we see it. The secure uni email system also catches 99.9% of this junk as well. Years ago it was the anti-vivsectionists that directed their wrath at us. Nowadays, it is people like MissCurious who will go to any lengths to distribute their claptrap.

I must admit though that I would have thought that a zoology graduate would be capable of thinking these things through more logically given her brush with academia. It just shows you never can tell.