Talk:Canola oil/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Early comments on the article

In agriculture, Canola is also the name given to the cooking oil pressed from the seeds of the rape plant (Brassica napus), a member of the mustard family. Rape-seed oil is sometimes called "Canadian oil," whence the name "Canola" derives. Known in Britain as oilseed rape.

The article claims that the name "canola" originated in 1978. This is false. I was working in a restaurant using canola oil (clearly so labeled) before 1976. Altgeld (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The world wide traditional name is rape plant. Canola is a canadian name only. It was created in 1974 (or similar time), to differenciate it from oil of seedrape, some of which were proper for human use and some were not (low content in erucic acid). that is a new term. Besides, canola does not only correspond to Brassica napus, but also to Brassica campestris (which is slightly different from rape plant though of the same family).

Before being an oil, it is first a plant. And the use of canola is certainly not only as oil, but also as animal feed, or biofuel

Canola is not the Canadian name only. It is also the name in the U.S.A. Rmhermen 17:26 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

If you say so. However, rape and canola are quite different things.

I removed unedible, because I think it is too strong a term. Rape oil was used by poor people who were not rich enough to afford olive oil or butter in european countries. It was also used quite a bit during WWII. Nobody died from eating it. However, there is quite strong conviction it is dangerous, in particular for the heart muscle over time. Still, it is edible. Some even question nowadays the fact it is hurting the heart.

The correct term is "inedible" anyway. There is no such word as "unedible." Altgeld (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The strongest point imho, is that thanks to some (or one ?) canadian wild variety (with low erucic content), it was made possible to create a very good product (in particular after glucosinolates content was also lowered). If the diversity of rape varieties had been lost, this may not have happened.

Actually the Canola Council site sas that it was bred thru chemical and radiation induced mutagenic cross-breeding. Nothing about natural diversity. Rmhermen 18:27 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

that's very interesting as it is not at all what I learned about it.

I looked around a bit, and found a couple of links, among which this. Does not mention chemical and radiation use for mutagenic induction. I am interested by any link.

(this said, the techniques you mention are only accelerators of natural selection, there is nothing artificial here)

The website is [1] which is listed in the article. I do not agree that the above techniques are merely accelrators of natural selection. They are not trans-species GM but they only accelerate some of the change processes of natural selection and not others. Rmhermen 19:27 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

hum, I would not specifically cite this web site as a scientific reference of the means used to breed the erucic free canola...but well...They probably used some colchicin as a mutagen. Notice that they said This is the same breeding process as the selection of naturally occurring mutations which is a comment I very much agree with. But...right...that is perhaps a POV to refer to these processes as "non artificial" :-). These are naturally occuring mutations, not foreign genes inserted to create the metabolic change. So, I will stand on my initial opinion. I think it is important the notions of traditionnal biotech be not confused with modern biotech. Anyway, aside from the canola topic, if you know agri and gmo topic, I would be happy if you could edit and add to my pov on genetically modified food.

Canola is the least fatty oil?? I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean but 100g of canola contains 100g of fat - check this out. I know it isn't the best link but I have confirmed it on the USDA Nutrient Database here. It may have a low level of saturated fatty acids but apart from traces of tocopherol, it's essentially 100% pure fatty goodness.

I don't think that canola oil is the "least fatty", to the contrary, it is clearly quite "fatty". I do think that canola is claimed to be a healthy oil because of the fatty acid profile it has, (high in omega 3 fatty acid, when compared to other common oils) in combination with a low level of saturated fat and no trans fat, as shown by your link.

-- I always assumed that the name "canola" was meant to distance the product in North America from its unfortunate international name. "Rape Oil" sounds to many Americans like something sold in small bottles at tasteless adult novelty stores... -- Bouncey 19:05, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)


"In some areas, notably the United States, the cultivar name 'Canola' is (incorrectly) applied to all rapeseed plants, including the many other cultivars."

As far as I understand, Canola in the U.S. refers exclusively to the low erucic cultivars. Do you have a source for this? Dforest 16:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That statement should be deleted, unless it can be backed by a showing of significant use, and that is unlikely. I know people who grew rapeseed when Canola was not the overwhelmingly predominant rapeseed grown in the United States. Gene Nygaard 17:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
USDA:[2]
" Brassica napus Linnaeus; known as rapeseed, rape, oilseed rape, and in some cultivars, Canola; is a mustard crop grown primarily for its seed which yields about forty percent oil and a high-protein animal feed."
Gene Nygaard 17:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
See also the USDA loan rates ([www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/psd/2005CanCrambeFlaxRapeLR.pdf pdf file]), which provide a higher loan rate for Canola than for other rapeseed. Clearly they are distinguished in the United States. I'm removing that statement. Gene Nygaard 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Canola genetically modified?

It seems that the issue of whether canola is a sort of genetically modified plant is a controversial one. According to the Canola Council "Canola was developed using traditional plant breeding techniques, some of which involve irradiating seeds. In canola and other oilseeds such as soybeans and flax, plant scientists sometimes use low levels of irradiation to cause mutagenesis."

Landroo 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC) When Rapeseed became Canola, it was accomplished using traditional plant breeding techniques. The distinguishing features between Rapeseed and Canola were the removal of erucic acid and glucosinolates from the oil, which made it more palatible and eleviated health concerns about those two compounds. Since that time of course, there has been genetic modification of some varieties, chiefly for pest control, but certainly not all. It should be noted that the canola oil itself contains no DNA, therefore genetically-modified canola oil is chemically indistinguishable from non-GMO canola oil.


So, basically, exposure to radiation was used to accelerate the process of mutation selection that traditional plant breeding has always relied on. Note the following: 1.) This process is not the same as 'genetic engineering' as the term is popularly understood today 2.) The Wikipedia definition for 'genetically modified organism' includes irradiated wheat varieties in its definition, so probably canola fits, too. 3.) The process used to create Canola is not 'natural selection'; in fact, no selective breeding is natural selection.

I think that the best way to present the process that was used to make canola is as a bridge between modern genetic engineering techniques (altering genetic information relatively directly), and traditional plant breeding methods (waiting for natural mutations). I think that this information belongs in the canola article, since it is very significant to the history of the crop. Some information I don't have is the dates during which the experimentation went on, and the novelty of the process at the time. I think that canola was a pioneer in the area of genetic modification through irradiation, but I'll have to keep looking for information about that.

Alkali Jack

The modern canola plant was developed in Winnipeg Manitoba during the 1970s. It started with scientists screening different canola plants for those which showed low erucic acid and low glucosinolates. Thus, another name for Canola is Double-Low Rapeseed. The technique used is known as the half seed technique. Basically it involves cutting a seed in half, taking one half and running it through a GC, and if the acid and glucosinolate content is low, then planting the other half. By irradiating the plants, the researchers were able to speed up the natural cycle of mutation and evolution. Thus, this plant is not a GMO, since no new genes or DNA was added to the genome.

If you are interested in how Canola, rapeseed etc. fit into the Brassica family see the Triangle of U page. --Doucher 00:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


Why do the people have to eat engine oil...and can't have real food? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.223.58 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Acronym

This page says that Canola originally came from "Canadian oil low acid", as does the rapeseed page, but it's reported as a backronym on the canola page. It also mentions that in the UK canola oil is "still sold under the name of 'rapeseed oil'". Anyone know the credibility of that site? FireWorks 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition is correct. The term Canola is unknown outside North America. The British use the correct botanical term Rapeseed Oil as they aren't dim enough to think the name has something to do with sexual abuse. All European rapeseed production would conform to the Canola standard and the oil is perfectly safe and indeed nutritious. Why would anybody want to grow poisonous rapeseed? --80.176.142.11 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not unknown in Australia - I have a bottle of Australia grown canola oil right here...Xrchz (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Canola oil poisonous

Do we need to have a discussion here about the edits claiming canola oil to be poisonous? I invite the anonymous person who has been making these edits to register for an account and discuss the matter openly, rather than just getting his posts reverted all of the time. He or she will probably want to find a more authoritative sources, to help back up such an extraordinary claim. (By, the way, what kind of degree is "N.D."? Some kind of nursing degree?) Joshuardavis 14:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the idea that canola oil is poisonous is debunked at [3]. That treatment, which is arguably better than Wikipedia's, includes several important bits missing from most discussions: that the Wall Street Journal "article" was just a letter to the editor, and that canola oil smoke, not canola oil itself, causes lung cancer. (However, it does seem to smoke at lower temperatures than other oils.)
According to AgriAlternatives, The Online Innovation and Technology Magazine for Farmers, "By nature, these rapeseed oils, which have long been used to produce oils for industrial purposes, are toxic to humans and other animals". (This, by the way, is one of the websites singing the praises of the new canola industry.)

the biggest problem in finding creditable sources. are the lack of uninterested parties

you have the companies making billions funding research to prove it's healthiness. you have the health food industry critics (such as peanut oil industry) funding research into rapeseed oil negatives ("the plants unmodified origin"). but there are NO long term human effect studies, there are no uninterested parties doing research. yet 80%+ of Australian farms "break crops" are producing, food grade canola, for domestic and export. i believe figures are similar in the uk and usa today. there are unscientific claims (farmers and marketers) that rapeseed oil is linked to the "mad cow" in the uk and sheep industries "high death rate out breaks" citing dates of rapeseed/canola feeds available and subsequent removal from the market which co-incite with the out breaks dates dracoalexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.85.144 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put this information here to assist other editors, in case the poison edits return. Of course, this page is not a venue for debating the issue, but rather for debating whether a NPOV treatment of the issue should appear in the article. We might consider this, since people who hear the poison idea might come to Wikipedia for more info. Joshuardavis 14:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Rapeseed oil was widely consumed in Canada and other countries for decades and centuries before low-erussic acid varieties were developed and subsequently renamed "Canola." It was believed by some in the industry that the USDA exaggerated the health risks of rapeseed, blocking it's approval to help protect the powerful soybean oil industry in the US. When canola appeared (which is merely rapeseed with much lower levels of erussic acid and glucosinolate), it was only a matter of time before it was approved for human consumption because the health benefits as compared to other edible oils could no longer be denied.--Landroo 08:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Poisonous? Perhaps. However, there are those of us who are allergic to it, and now that it's easily in the majority of processed foods, as well as in the vast majority of commercial kitchens, the simple act of eating has become a very risky adventure. Bandy 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read most of the relevant papers in this area. There is some work that shows that erucic acid causes heard damage in animals. In India, this was met with some scepticism, as mustard oil has been used for millennia. So, Indian biochemists did some experiments which involved looking at the hearts of people with diets high in mustard oil, but found nothing significant. (A popular rendition of this is in "Lorenzo's Oil" where the father finds out that his son need an oil present in mustard seeds. The doctor refuses to go along, on the basis that mustard is high in erucic acid. The father responds that Indians have been using it for thousands of years, though the doctor has no interest in listening ... ) I know of nothing that indicates that cancer might be a problem. Therefore, I am changing "cancer" to "heart damage". I would add the references, but I am traveling and don't have my library with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.4.152 (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the reference you where thinking of, or do you know of others? As Indians get wealthier ( or emigrate to developed countries) they can afford 'healthier' diets like 'vegetable gee' and paradoxical suffer more Coronary Heart Disease. [1] Sounds like experts have got things back to front. It is not any particular 'fat' but a complimentary ratio that is important. --Aspro 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
would you drink a brand of beverage if it only had a little cyanide? I live in Sweden, and absolutely everything has canola oil in it. it starts to add up. if everything thats available on the shelves contains canola oil, doesnt it seem like there would be a cumulative effect? this is disregarded here and most other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.54.208 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people seriously believe canola oil to be unhealthy. To say they are false claims is absolutely not NPOV. -- Wuffyz (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the very fact that there is disagreement should be noted. One book, at least by an M.D. (N.D., by the way, in answer to the person above, means "Naturopathic Doctor," doctors who receive, typically, four years of medical education focussing on a particular tradition of natural thereapy. They are generally some of the most academically qualified people in the natural health field.), that questions it's health is "Vegan Nutrition, Pure and Simple," by Michael Klaper, M.D. Given that both people with some qualifications and a fair number of lay people have concerns, it seems to me they should be noted. Trike Runawaytrike (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
They should only be noted if they are reported in reliable sources by credible experts. Naturopathy is viewed as crank medicine and crank non-science, with many of their work published in unreliable sources and vanity press. Vegan nutrition is published by Book Publishing Company which according to their about us is primarily a cookbook publisher and not a scientific, peer-reviewed or expert press. The "canola oil is deadly" myth is scientifically nonsense ("when I it her arm with the fork, it split open like the sausage"? Bullshit, she wouldn't be able to move her arm if the skin and muscle were that degraded) and clearly marked as an unscientific urban legend promoted by nonsense health nuts. So there's no reason to mark this as anything but nonsense until there are actual medical sources that state canola oil is harmful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it would be NPOV to say that it is poisonous, but I still think it should be mentioned that people consider it poisonous. '''wuffyz''' (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


I believe there are enough medical studies (see below for a sample) indicating a potential issue with erucic acid and other chemicals found in canola oil that is indefensible not to mention these facts. No one disputes that erucic acid is toxic or that animal studies show various types of tissue damage from it- including heart, kidney, liver, adrenal glands and the brain. There are no long-term controlled longitudinal studies in humans to prove the safety of consumption of canola oil over a lifetime.

It seems to me some of these references deserve inclusion in the article if it is going to be fair and balanced.

United States Legislation on Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oil, Federal Department of Agriculture, 1985, article 184.1555:

section 4, specifies that canola oil cannot be used in infant formula. Section 3 limits the content of erucic acid in canola oil to 2%, to limit toxic exposure.

This study shows that in rats, erucic acid, the potentially toxic fatty acid found in canola oil, inhibited growth and caused myocardial lesions.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/12/1696

This study also found myocardial lesions in rats correlating to erucic acid intake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7200131

Vles and Cottenbos, 1989, p71, state that animal studies have shown that erucic acid in "large amounts retards growth and causes changes in various organs", although it has not been proven a hazard to human health. (Vles and Gottenbos, 1989 R.O. Vles and J.J. Gottenbos, Nutritional characteristics and food uses of vegetable oils. In: G. Robblen, R.K. Downey and A. Ashri, Editors, Oil crops of the world, McGraw Hill, New York, USA (1989), pp. 36-86. )

Excerpt from "ERUCIC ACID IN FOOD: A Toxicological Review and Risk Assessment", TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES NO. 21, FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND, June 2003:

"Conclusion The heart appears to be the principal target organ for toxic effects following short-term exposure to edible oils containing erucic acid. The most common observed effect, among rats, pigs and monkeys, is myocardial lipidosis. Studies in rats and young pigs demonstrate a dose relationship between the level of erucic acid in the diet and severity of myocardial lipidosis."

In addition, other studies find traces of other toxic substances not listed in the ingredients, but which are found in the oil as byproducts of the extensive processing it requires to be palatable. For example, a Florida study found up to 4.6% trans fats in commercial canola oil as a byproduct of the necessary deodorization processing of canola oil. (S O'Keefe and others. Levels of Trans Geometrical Isomers of Essential Fatty Acids in Some Unhydrogenated US Vegetable Oils. Journal of Food Lipids 1994;1:165-176.)

This study shows that, in rats, erucic acid crosses the blood brain barrier and enter the brain: (http://www.jlr.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/6/1289). Erucic acid can negatively affect cell membrane structure and function, which is critical in nerve cells. No one knows, and no one is finding out, the long term effects on the human brain of eating canola oil. The full article, which I have, also states that human autopsy studies show that erucic acid is esterified into the liver, adrenal glands, and fat tissue. (I know several scientists who think that long-term high levels of canola consumption are a potential cause of dementia. This is not suitable as a reference, but shows the importance of referencing these medical facts.)

While these citations do not prove conclusively that long term consumption of canola oil in humans will result in disease, they do prove that this concern is not "nonsense" originating in a "discredited book". Long term studies in humans do not exist to substantiate either the claim that canola oil is safe or dangerous. These studies do, however, prove beyond a doubt there is some degree of toxicity in the erucic acid found in canola oil, and that erucic acid is potentially harmful to humans in many ways. Until the USA FDA gets definitive proof of this, however, it will not take any action- and no one is paying for the long term studies that would provide such proof one way or the other.

-added by Ricemilk on 10/19/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMilk (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Further references showing this article is not presently NPOV. Also, shouldn't there be a link to erucic acid, the long chain fatty acid that is one of the toxic components of canola oil that is of concern?

The health section is really far from NPOV. It cites the canola oil council as a main reference (?) and has many references to an internet hoax, but ignores all the legitimate research and reasonable concerns detailed below. It appears to be a whitewash job focusing on a straw man.

I think it is fair to give more citations and points on the point of view there may be a risk in canola oil / erucic acid consumption. There is plenty of evidence and no definitive proof of safety in humans. What is the role of a long-term longitudinal study in humans in providing definitive evidence that canola oil is safe in terms of many potential health issues?

citations given below for all points. Some of these points may be belong here, some in the erucic acid article that should be linked, and others in both:

1) the FDA does require less than 2% erucic oil in food grade rapeseed oil, shouldn't this be mentioned, and why?

2) the defense against negative rat studies is that they have trouble processing vegetable oils. But some studies with negative results control for this, and in others specific changes in cellular chemistry specific to erucic acid are revealed.

3) again in terms of this defense against rat studies, there are studies with health effects in mice and gerbils, and also pigs and squirrel monkeys that don't have trouble processing vegetable oils.

4) there are a number of studies in humans showing large changes in cellular chemistry due to erucic acid.

5) the article does not say why erucic acid should not be taken by infants. It is not broken down in the infant liver, but why is that necessary?

6) what are the specific mechanisms known in which erucic acid changes the cell walls of animals? what are the effects of these changes? Shouldn't an article including health effects of erucic acid get into these specific issues? Isn't the toxicity of erucic acid well studied, and a separate topic from whether small doses are safe?

7) Health effects or chemical changes in animals and human postmortem studies are not just heart lesions, but also red blood cells, brain cells, liver, kidney, adrenal gland, etc. Shouldn't these papers be summarized and referenced?

8) There is a recent result correlating levels of erucic acid and autism in children. Doesn't this deserve mention?

9) There is the issue of unlabeled trans-fat content, up to 4.2%, due to the deordorization process for canola oil. The article is about erucic acid, but the major health concern is now canola oil. This might deserve mention here, and certainly deserves mention in the canola oil health section.

Citations for all of these points are given below. Many of the papers, and all the abstracts, have online links.

This part needs to be rewritten by an expert, but I think some explanation of this is appropriate here. [Erucic acid is toxic at least in part because it alters the chemistry of cell membranes; numerous studies show the changes in cell membranes. It is a very long chain fatty acid that when taken up into the cell membrane interferes in normal function. This in turn alters the normal functioning of the cell, and also the mitochondria (the source of energy for all our cells) which has its own membrane. Brain cells are particularly susceptible to this due to their large surface area and complex cell membrane function. Our livers do not break down all of the toxic erucic acid we eat; some is esterified into human tissues and organs as shown by postmortem studies cited below. How much will accumulate over 70 years of daily consumption? Aren't long-term human longitudinal studies of all the potential health effects listed below the only sure way to determine the safety of erucic acid at present consumer doses?]

Mustard oil, a relative of canola oil, is banned in the EU due to high levels of erucic acid. The FDA limits food grade rapeseed oil (canola oil) to 2% maximum erucic acid content (see below for the quote).

The following five studies document erucic-acid induced changes in humans from postmortem studies. In humans, regular intake of erucic acid cause low platelet counts, and this is one reason to avoid canola oil in infants and nursing mothers: Crowther MA, Barr RD, Kelton J, Whelan D, Greenwald M (February 1995). _Profound thrombocytopenia complicating dietary erucic acid therapy for adrenoleukodystrophy_. American Journal of Hematology 48 (2): 132-3. PMID 7847331. If canola oil did not have toxic effects, it would not matter that infants are less capable of breaking it down in their liver, the organ dedicated to processing toxins and poisons. Four more studies on humans showing erucic acid damage or changes are cited below, this is merely a sample:

These two papers both report erucic-acid building up in various human organs and tissues: _Postmortem analysis of tissue from these X-ALD patients treated with LO show that erucic acid (22:1n-9) was absorbed from the gut and found esterified into liver, adrenal glands, and adipose lipid pools,_ Quite a bit of erucic acid is staying in the tissues of these humans. Poulos,A.,R.Gibson,P.Sharp,K.Beckman,andP.Grattan-Smith.1994. Very long chain fatty acids in X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy brain after treatment with Lorenzo's oil. Ann.Neurol. 36: 741-746. and Boles,D.J.,and W.B.Rizzo.1992.Dietary fatty acids temporarily alter liver very long chain fatty acid composition in mice. J.Nutr.122: 1662-1671.

Here is the conclusion of yet another postmortem study of humans who ate rapeseed oil: _Every heart had many degenerative lesions within nerves, ganglia, and the coronary chemoreceptor. Both the arterial and neural abnormalities prominently involved the conduction system.. Based upon observations by others with experimental feeding of rapeseed oil containing either high or low erucic acid, we suggest that this oil must remain a major suspected cause of the toxic oil syndrome, particularly in conjunction with some as yet unexplained facilitative influence by oleoanilids. If this is so, it is important to reconsider the widely recommended use of any rapeseed oil product as a suitable food for man or other animals._ From _Histologic abnormalities of large and small coronary arteries, neural structures, and the conduction system of the heart found in postmortem studies of individuals dying from the toxic oil syndrome_, Hames, Thomas N. M.D. et. al., American Heart Journal, 121:3:1, March 1991, p.803-815.

Here we have the opinion of medical researchers published in a major journal, who worked at WHO, University of Texas, and Hospital 1 of Madrid. These doctors think erucic acid, in combination with another non-fatal chemical, killed hundreds of people. This is one of two papers cited here where in combination with second, non-fatal chemical, erucic acid becomes deadly.

A fifth, fairly recent, and alarming human study found high levels of erucic acid in autistic children compared to developmentally normal children, from _Fatty acid compositions of red blood cell phospholipids in children with autism._ Bu B, Ashwood P, Harvey D, King IB, Water JV, Jin LW. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2006 Apr;74(4):215-21. This is not proof erucic acid is a cause or contributing factor, but until this result is definitively explained, and the mysterious causes of the increasing rate of autism are explained, isn't this an important result to cite for NPOV?

There is controversy in the literature that erucic acid rat studies are not valid, because they cannot digest vegetable oil well. However, similar results are found in pigs and squirrel monkeys that don't share that problem; here are four citations:

_piglets fed formulas with 100% canola oil had lower platelet counts than piglets fed with formula soybean oil_, in _Dietary canola oil alters hematological indices and blood lipids in neonatal piglets fed formula._, Innis SM and Dyer RA, J. Nutr 1999; 129: 1261-8.

_Rapeseed oil mixtures with 7 to 42.9% 22:1n-9 showed definite myocardial lipidosis [heart lesions] in newborn piglets_ is one of the conclusions of the study you cite, ( Kramer JK, Farnworth ER, Johnston KM, Wolynetz MS, Modler HW, Sauer FD (November 1990). "Myocardial changes in newborn piglets fed sow milk or milk replacer diets containing different levels of erucic acid". Lipids 25 (11): 729-37.)

_Innis SM and Dyer RA. Dietary canola oil alters hematological indices and blood lipids in neonatal piglets fed formula. J. Nutr 1999; 129: 1261-8._Kramer, J.K.G. and Sauer, F.D. (1983b). Cardiac lipid changes in rats, pigs and monkeys fed high fat diets. In: High and Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oils. Production, Usage, Chemistry, and Toxicological Examination. (J. K. G. Kramer, F.D. Sauer and W.J. Pigden, eds). Academic Press, Toronto, Canada, pp 475-513.

The above citations and others are not proof of harm in humans, but do show that erucic acid in animals produces physiological changes that are of concern. These citations deserve mention to those seeking detailed information.

Also, there are rat studies that attempt to clarify this issue by using controls fed other vegetable oils, which still show different effects from erucic acid, and studies that elucidate mechanism of chemical change specific to erucic acid.

For example, _The occurrence of myocardial lipidosis is less consistent when diets containing <10% 22:ln-9 [erucic acid] in the oil portion are fed,_, Effects of dietary saturated fat on erucic acid induced myocardial lipidosis in rats, J. K. G. Kramer et al., Lipids 27:8, p619-623, 1992.

Also this well controlled study in 2009 showed that erucic acid was "profoundly toxic" to rats getting chemotherapy medicine, _Effects of erucic acid supplemented feeding on chronic doxorubucin toxicity in rats_, Bozcali, Evin et. al., Int J Clin Exp Med. 2009, 2(4) 337-347. This was true even with very low levels of erucic acid. _Surprisingly, survivals of the rats were affected negatively by low dose erucic acid._ The fact that low levels of erucic acid produced death in animals receiving a specific medicine does not mean it is just as toxic in animals not taking that medicine. It does mean that there are specific, poorly understood biochemical effects of erucic acid that profoundly alter cell chemistry. See the above citation for fatality in combination with alanine.

Also, _Low-erucic acid rapeseed oil resulted in elevation of cardiac mitochondrial cardiolipin content after dietary treatment for 12 days_ and _ Rats fed high-erucic acid rapeseed oil for 12 or 23 days had significantly higher mitochondrial phosphatidylcholine content than rats fed soya-bean oil._, Innis SM, Clandinin MT. Mitochondrial membrane polar-head-group composition is influenced by diet fat. Biochem J 1981; 198:231-4.

And, _Rapeseed oil feeding led to the changes in mitochondrial membrane phospholipid fatty acid composition. It is speculated that diet-induced changes in membrane lipid affect the activity of mitochondrial membrane associated enzymes, thus having potentially serious consequences to normal functioning of the myocardial cell_ in Innis SM, Clandinin MT. Effect of strain, sex and duration of feeding on plasma fatty acids of rats fed various dietary oils. J Nutr 1980;110: 1006-13.

Heart lesions are not the only damage caused by erucic acid in animal studies, although it has been a focus. Red blood cells, liver, kidney, adrenal and brain cells were also damaged in numerous studies.

In particular, a number of studies show that erucic acid crosses the blood brain barrier and is incorporated into the brain, where it affects the cell membranes. Some of the erucic acid in the brain remains in its original form, 22:ln-9, as well as 20:ln-9 and 18:ln-9, from Uptake and Metabolism of plasma-derived erucic acid by rat brain, Mikhail Y. Golovoko et al., Journal of Lipid Research 47, June 2006, 1289-1297. This is also known to happen in humans, see the Lorenzo's oil paper cited above; in fact erucic acid is an experimental brain medicine for severe illnesses.

There is also the unlabeled trans-fat content problem with canola oil. We are all aware that we should avoid trans fats. Canola oil not only requires bleaching but deodorizing, a chemical process that takes place at high temperatures. This creates trans fats, up to 4.2% according this paper: Levels of Trans Geometrical Isomers of Essential Fatty Acids in Some Unhydrogenated US Vegetable Oils. O'Keefe Sean et. al.,Journal of Food Lipids 1994;1:165-176. This is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, and an article that is totally relevant and important to this article and section. There is no reason not to cite the article here, along with any later peer reviewed research that conflicts with it if there is any.

The FDA limits erucic acid to 2% in foodgrade rapeseed oil. Doesn't that indicate they believe there is a health risk from erucic acid, and doesn't this deserve discussion or mention here? Here is an excerpt from Title #21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 184.1555 (C) Low erucic acid rapeseed oil (3) In addition to limiting the content of erucic acid to a level not exceeding 2 per cent of the component fatty acids, F.D.A. is developing other foodgrade specifications for low erucic acid rapeseed oil ...

A link to the wikipedia "funding bias" article may also be appropriate here, since a similar consideration may apply to canola oil research.

RiceMilk (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no mention at all of the extensive literature on animal and human research indicating potential health issues with the erucic acid in canola oil, I am adding a not NPOV template to this section. It may be bulk of these details should be in the erucic acid article, with a summary and a link here.

RiceMilk (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The edible oil industry has been under pressure to improve its processing methods and in some countries it has. The trans fat content 'can' now be kept down to around its 'natural' occurrence in the raw seed. This point has already been raised somewhere on the talk pages. So I agree that it should be mentioned in the article, that although natural cold pressed Canola is very low in trans fats, the oil on the supermarket shelf might well be higher. So caveat emptor. There has indeed been a lot of funding bias against high erucic acid containing mustard oil. However, India has been cooking with mustard oil for millennia, and without problems but ironically heart disease is now taking off as more and more city dwellers can afford to buy 'healthier' oils instead. The article on eruric acid should be clear that the sales and marketing efforts of the oil industry has taken research studies out of context and as such they don't confer any scientific proof nor provide any reasonable concern; providing that is you don't give it to very young animals as a total substitution diet.Maybe that ought to be made clearer. I don't have time at the moment to really get down and make intelligible changes but I'd like to know any of your other views.--Aspro (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the 'health concerns' section, as it was entirely WP:OR and WP:Synth. I suggest we remove the pov tag on the 'health benefits' section. We have one user claiming that canola is dangerous, but the scientific consensus is that it is safe. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The POV tag should go. While the Canola Council of Canada has a vested interest in Canola being recognized as healthy, the American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, American Association of Family Physicians, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration do not have ties to the industry. Weetoddid (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
And all those organisations you mentioned are of course completely unbiased, above reproach and scientifically accurate in their findings and statements? Canola (is its current form) has simply not been around long enough to come to such a conclusion already. History is replete with foods and substances and materials that were considered safe for decades if not centuries. Point is, that are few absolutes, and I find it suspicious that Canola is being touted as completely safe and healthy. Vince (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Canola Enhancements

It is true that Canola was originally created in Winnipeg, MB, using scientific techniques. However, since that time, Canola has progressed quite far and is now being modified using some new methods. In nature, plants will mutate at a very low frequency and this is called natural mutation. New Canola varieties are being created through mutagenesis, or accelerated natural mutation. Currently, techniques are being used to increase the frequency of these mutations such as UV and chemical treatments. I think that these new developments as well as the types of Canola that are resultant of these techniques deserve mention in the article. I am unsure of the scientific details surrounding the techniques, and am unaware of all the techniques that are used but the two mentioned above are currently in practice. Andrewcmore 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed the worldview tag

I couldn't see what the {{worldview}} tag was supposed to indicate, so I removed it. Does anyone know why it was added? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Canola is not a cultivar

There is a huge misconception going on here and also on the rapeseed pages. Some of you are under the misaprehension that canola and rapeseed are two totally different things. They are not.

Canola designates rapeseed (or canola) and rapeseed oil (or canola oil) that meets the Canadian Canola Council targets for erucic acid and glucosinolates. The plant and its oil have always generally been known in North America as canola and not by the European name of oilseed rape, and so the two things became mixed up in the same nomenclature.

In Europe where canola is called oilseed rape or rapeseed, the new varieties (or cultivars if you prefer) became known as "double 0" or "00" (said as "double zero" or "double low")

Nearly all canola or rape grown worldwide is now low acid and glucosinolates, so although it is of interest to acknowledge the Canola Council's work and trademark, the world's canola or rapeseed is now generally all double 0.

I think the problem arose by the problem of understanding exactly what is meant by the word "cultivar" or "variety", as the articles on these subjects are not easy to fully understand.

All farm crops are patented "varieties", and farmers will strive every year to buy seed from the latest ones giving higher yields, oil contents etc. These varieties are bred by plant breeders from existing ones. For commercial canola, all available varieties are now double 0, and Europe is the same except that the crop there is known as oilseed rape.

There was never a time when a plant breeder bred two rapeseed varieties together and came up with "canola", a new low acid / glucosinolate variety. Rather the name "canola" was trademarked to give canola an edge on world markets as percieved from a North American viewpoint.

Wikipedia now has two pages, "canola" and "rapeseed", the one inhabited largely by North American writers, the other largely by Europeans, to whom the word "canola" is unfamiliar. The two should for accuracy's sake be combined as one.

http://research.bayer.com/edition_18/18_Canola_oil.pdfx http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/nexus/Brassica_rapeseed_nex.html http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/canola.html

Tomcrisp7 10:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope someone else can follow up on this; I don't have a lot of time. For background, see Talk:Rapeseed, particularly this section:
I believe you are saying that something like the following: "Europeans understand rapeseed to mean modern 00 varieties only, and given this understanding, all rapeseed is canola." Can you explain this part of your argument once more? You seem to be redefining the subset (canola) as a synonym for all varieties of the crop (rapeseed). Given that non-canola rapeseed is still grown (google the term "non-canola rapeseed"), this is the part of your argument that I honestly don't understand.
For the original development of canola, see:
http://www.canola-council.org/ind_overview.html
Turning Rapeseed into Canola
The canola we know today was developed in the early 1970s using traditional plant breeding techniques; as a result of Canadian plant breeders’ efforts to remove the anti-nutritional components, erucic acid and glucosinolates from rapeseed so that it would be absolutely safe for human and animal consumption. The plant also produced seeds with a very low level of saturated fat, seven per cent or below.
This new oilseed was christened “Canola” and there is a strict internationally regulated definition of canola that differentiates it from rapeseed, based upon it having less than two per cent erucic acid and less than 30 umoles glucosinolates. Therefore, oilseed products that do not meet this standard cannot use the trademarked term, canola. High erucic acid rapeseed acreage, although still present in Canada, is now confined to production under contract for specific industrial uses.
http://northerncanola.com/canolainfo/history.asp
Canola is a genetic variation of rapeseed developed by Canadian plant breeders specifically for its nutritional qualities, particularly its low level of saturated fat. In 1956 the nutritional aspects of rapeseed oil were questioned, especially concerning the high eicosenoic and erucic fatty acid contents.
In the early 1960's, Canadian plant breeders isolated rapeseed plants with low eicosenoic and erucic acid contents. The Health and Welfare Department recommended conversion to the production of low erucic acid varieties of rapeseed. Industry responded with a voluntary agreement to limit erucic acid content to five percent in food products, effective December 1, 1973.
In 1974, Dr. Baldur Stefansson, a University of Manitoba plant breeder, developed the first 'double low' variety, which reduced both erucic, and glucosinolate levels. This Brassica napus variety, Tower, was the first variety to meet the specific quality requirements used to identify a greatly improved crop known as Canola.
http://www.mts.net/~agrifame/stefanss.html
http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/canola/english/originhistory.pdf
Note that Encarta also has two separate articles, one for the plant in general and another for canola. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Put simply, canola is the North American word for rapeseed. It might well be a trademark for low acid / glucosinolate oil but the two ideas are not differentiated among oilseed professionals.

You could take canola varieties to Europe and grow them there, where they would be called rape, albeit "double 0"; you could take "double 0" (99% + of seedstock) European rape to grow in Canada, where it would (and should) be called Canola ; you could take high erucic acid rape from Canada (which the Canadian farmer would regardless call "canola" in violation of the trademark) to Europe where it could only be grown in special contracts for high acid oil, but still be called rape ; you could take high acid rape from Europe to Canada where the oil could not be sold as Canola, but the grower would still refer to it (wrongly?) as Canola.

The problem is that the word Canola should mean rapeseed; the Canola Council trademark is confusing the issue - they should have named it "Supercanola", "lowcanola" or somesuch. I think they probably would if it had crossed their minds that the word canola is not used outside North America. On the other hand, that commercial edge...?

It is possible to find many websites with far more pragmatic definitions of Canola / rape than most of the ones you have bombarded me with, Jim. No one is threatening the Canola Council definition or any other item in your argument:-)Tomcrisp7 16:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Put simply, canola is the North American word for rapeseed."
I'm sorry, Tom, but put simply, you're wrong. Canola is rapeseed, but rapeseed is not necessarily canola. If "rapeseed" and "canola" were the same thing, then the phrase "non-canola rapeseed" would be nonsense. As just one example, read this entire page:
http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/canola/.
And as I mentioned above, Encarta also maintains two separate articles, "Rape (botany)" and "Canola". -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well' I've said all I can. Farmers and oilseed professionals in North America do not talk about "non-canola rapeseed". The idea is laughable. Ask any oilseed farmer, Jim. You're splitting hairs and creating a technical problem that simply doesn't exist in the real world.

I would never say that "double 0" rapeseed" and "rapeseed" were two different things. Milling wheat has different characteristics than feed wheat but the two things are still wheat.

The Canola Council trademarked the Canadian word for rapeseed. This doesn't mean one has to stop calling rapeseed canola, as canola is the word in common usage.

You're probably right about keeping both pages, as North Americans will look for "canola" and English People "rapeseed". Perhaps, according to your logic, we should have a third page, called "non-canola rapeseed" ?

I work as an agronomist in the north central USA, and spend a lot of my time on oilseeds. As more grist for the discussion mill, here is my personal impression of the consensus terminology among my colleagues: (1) "canola" refers to those rapeseed cultivars or lines that the meet relevant oil and meal quality standards; (2) "rapeseed" technically includes canola, but usually only comes up in conversation when rapeseed other than canola is being discussed; and (3) the trademark status of the word canola doesn't affect usage in speech or writing. --Belgrano 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Varieties (or cultivars) of canola / oilseed rape

It struck me that some extra information should be available on this subject:

Rapeseed or canola is largely self-pollinating and so plant breeding in the classical sense was for many years less successful than selecting for modern varieties for (say) wheat.

Among traits aimed for in plant breeding are yield, content of exploitable substances e.g.oil %, levels of impurities e.g. erucic acid in rape, maturity speed (early harvest), resistance to diseases, even herbicide tolerance in GMO varieties, which is a simply plant breeding using a new tool).

As much as 30% yield benefit for example, is now obtainable from current varieties above the level of those existing in the 1970s.

In the 1990s a chemical sterilization method was developed which, when applied to rape plant breeding, meant that varieties used in breeding could be kept "female", and therefore all fertilizing pollen had to come from other varieties.

This was the start of hybrid canola / rape breeding, which led to the breakthrough variety "Synergy" in Europe in 1999, outyielding all other known varieties at the time.

Surprisingly, double 00, or trademark compatible canola, was bred earlier using prior classical plant breeding techniques.

Today in Europe, around 30% of varieties (of which there are around 45 available on the French accepted list) are hybrids, of which half again are composite hybrid varieties as opposed to restored hybrids. 7 new semi-dwarf restored hybrids are coming available, which have a greater standing power and therefore theoretically produce higher yields than others due to being able to absorb more nitrogen fertiliser. Seed rates are lower too, because of "hybrid vigour".

The most popular varieties are Pollen, Aviso, Grizzly and Expert, all capable of yielding up to 4 or 5 tonnes / hectare in intensive situations. All these varieties, without exception, are "double 0", compatible with the canola trademark. Anyone wishing to grow high erucic acid rape must find a specialist buyer with which to sign a contract for use of a specialist variety (ie not compatible with canola trademark).

I hope this is of some help.Tomcrisp7 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

  • DO NOT MERGE Canola Oil is NOT rapeseed oil. According to the Canola Council on truth and myths about Canola, a link at the bottom of the rapeseed page, canola oil is NOT rapeseed oil. Martha Stewart discussed this confusion on her show. She came to the same conclusion. Rapeseed is similar to canola, but they are NOT the same thing. http://www.canola-council.org/cooking_myths.html (this link 404's)
  • I disagree to a merger, I am all for the "unamercicanisation" of Wikipedia, but Canola is not just used in North America. I am a fourth generation Australian farmer and I've never once heard the it referred as rapeseed, I'm also concerned that merging these two articles would make it too long, and would lead to having a lot of valuable information cut from the article. My resolution would be to make a rapeseed a disambiguation and give the currant rapeseed a different title. Bnsbeaver 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rapeseed was used in Australia - for a little while in the 1980's. it isn't very PC so it's hard to market.... so the Canola Marketing Board formed and while few people had taken up Rapeseed cropping, Canola is quite a popular crop in Australia. I would support a merger with a redirect from one, to the chosen article.Garrie 05:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Rapeseed should be mered with conola.
  • Merge! As stated above, mention of Canola and Rapeseed could be formed into one cohesive article with explanations of the differnces in names as Aspro suggested and it would not be too long. I've never heard of Rapeseed but that doesn't dismiss it as a viable subject. With such a difference of opinion it makes sense for a merge so that one who searches for Canola will find its association with Rapeseed or vice-versa. Noles1984 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge seems justified. MGTom 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. David.Throop 15:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree, per extensive discussion on this page and on Talk:Rapeseed#Canola. Encarta also has two separate articles, one for the plant in general and another for canola.-- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Your missing the point. As 'canola' is a north American standard, it will invite a lot of repetitious articles as other countries add their equivalent descriptions of LEAR – not to mention the HEAR types. However, by merging, it then become practical to create a table showing the diff/similarities at a glance. Why not create an article that encarter can only hope to emulate instead of suggesting WP comes down to encarter's level? If encarter was good enough there would be no need for WP huh! --Aspro 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I think these contributions back up the comments I made previously above. The point of view that Jim Douglas exposes seems rather proprietal, in a North American sense. Everyone note that the introductory line to the article says "canola is a trademarked cultivar...". This is nothing short of a lie.Tomcrisp7 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge trueblood 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. There are important differences between the terms canola and rapeseed, but the overlap between the two concepts is overwhelming. One page -- with appropriate and succinct explanation of the differences right at the top -- would be much more effective than two. --Belgrano 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge 212.120.237.72 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

10 out of 13 makes a consensus to merge. Tom 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I notice there was a consensus to merge, but nothing got done? I'd add my opinion that it seems absurd having two articles for what are essentially different names for the same thing. The fact that oil may or may not be made from different cultivars which in various nations are called canola or rapeseed is just quibbling.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Canola is poison

I'm distressed by the amount of material in this article from the Mary Enig / Sally Fallon / Joseph Mercola echo chamber. One of her principle claims is that due to the processing involved, canola contains up to 4.5% trans-fat. This is referenced to a single paper, which unfortunately I can't read for less than $40.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-4522.1994.tb00244.x?journalCode=jfl

Without reading the paper, it is impossible to know how many samples showed trans-fat at this level, how the samples were obtained, what processing steps were used, and whether the processing steps in 1994 have any relationship to the processing steps now in use more than twenty years later.

Unfortunately, neither was I able to find a paper that directly states the levels of trans-fat in processed canola oils, as opposed to the original seed oil composition. The alarming similarity among all these articles is their uniform negativity, they seem to be differentiated primarily on whether they grind hardest on the axe of "poison" or "industrial" or "cancer" or "heart disease".

The claims and scare-words fly thick and fast in these screed-like articles, and I would want to check any references given thoroughly before believing any of it.

Does anyone have good information on the change (if any) in the nature of canola oil from the seed oil stage to the processed oil available to consumers? MaxEnt 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworked it a bit and removed a misleading claim about "trans-fat free versions of canola have been developed", since the seed oil has no trans-fat to begin with. The contributor was probably thinking about high stability Canola with reduced TFA levels to survive better in the fast-food industry. I would have prefered to delete the whole Enig paragraph, but I'm a confirmed non-deletist. MaxEnt 04:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
In answer to some of the above: Your asking how long is a piece of string?
Most oils and fats are naturally unstable; look at an oil painting. Their oils polymerize by parts of the molecules cross linking with others. The speed depends on heat and radiation (e.g.., short wave length light) light. Which is 'just part of why' fresh pressed oil tastes a lot better than supermarket bought. The older and more proceed it is, the more 'trans' (these are double carbon bonds) that the oil will have.
Your last entry on this page is confused.
It is low EFA w3 ( notice its 'E' FA not TFA as you had it ) verities that have been developed which are more stable and therefore have a longer shelf life and are less likely to form 'trans configurations' between molecules.The paragraph should have been better phrased and corrected but not deleted.
The reason why this article it is so poorly referenced and to a few sources is that there are only a few people (like Mercola) answering the sales and marketing information from the industry. Some editors find information from these protesters and the food industry PR easier to source, rather than dig out there own references, which of course requires them to have more knowledge and understanding than they probable have, which is why mistakes and falsehoods are creeping in by people who don't fully understand trying to improve the article. The result takes a long time to revert and correct, so food chemists just don't bother, but prefer to concern themselves with articles about their favorite hobbies and things.--Aspro 08:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


I can't help but notice the claim here that fast-food manufacturers switched to more stable varieties of canola oil in order to reduce the trans-fat content of their foods. However, this is not an entirely correct statement. What they actually did was switch to canola oil from other types of oil (notably, the infamous mix known simply as "vegetable oil") in order to reduce the trans-fat content of their foods. They did not typically make use of canola oil beforehand. If they had problems with the canola oil being unstable and forming trans-fat (this would be mainly from unsaturated fats as cis-fats turned into trans-fats, not from saturated fats) during its time on the shelf, this was a later problem than the major change people mainly think of when they talk about fast-food manufacturers reducing the trans-fat content of their foods (by using canola oil.) I really would like to see the research on more stable varieties of canola oil being developed though, as this seems to be a later issue that I had never heard of before. Works of Sweat (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted "Claims of safety are a bit questionable ... three weeks" added by 121.79.31.237 on 29 January 2008. I was drawn to look more closely at the sentence because it was poorly written, but am deleting it altogether because the reference cited concerned claimed health benefits, not product safety. Evaluist (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Health Effects

I am planning to remove the following from the Health Effects section: 

In [[Nexus Magazine]], Volume 9, Number 5 (Aug–Sept 2002), contrarian
<ref>http://www.thaifoodandtravel.com/features/cocgood.html</ref> dietitians Sally Fallon and Mary G.
 Enig, published an article, called "The Great Con-ola", questioning the industry's marketing claims, stating 
that Canola oil 'has a number of undesirable health effects when used as the main source of dietary fats'. 
 Their article cites independent studies done from the late 1970s to 1990s, which show animals fed on a pure 
Canola oil-based diet suffer from [[vitamin E deficiency]], a decrease in blood [[platelet]] count, an increase 
in platelet size, and shortened [[life-span]]s.  

The authors state "Furthermore, it seems to retard growth, which is why the FDA does not allow the use of 
canola oil in infant formula" with terse citation to ''Federal Register 1985''.  However, an article from The 
Journal of Nutrition explains this same citation differently: "The use of canola oil in infant formulas is not
 permitted because infants fed formula might consume higher amounts of 22:1(n-9) than would be provided in 
usual mixed diets and because of the lack of data about infants fed diets containing canola 
oil."<ref>http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/129/7/1261</ref> The "22:1(n-9)" mentioned by the FDA here 
is another name for euric acid. So although levels below the 2 percent limit set by the USDA in Canola are 
permitted in the diet of adults the FDA does not permit these amounts in an infants diet.

The authors state that omega-3s in canola oil are transformed into [[trans fat]]s during the [[deodorisation]] 
process, citing a single [[University of Florida]] study published in 1994 which found [[trans fat]] content to 
be as high as 4.6% in a sample of soy and canola oils purchased in the U.S. <ref>http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-4522.1994.tb00244.x?journalCode=jfl</ref>   
<!-- even the abstract makes it clear that it wasn't '''most''' omega-3s, but 37% in the worst case -->

The citations are very confusing and do not apparently support the article text. The article being referred to isn't linked. The claims hover to and from and I have no idea if Fallon and Enig are or are not a reliable source (per WP:RS and thus whether their arguments justify this much article space - if they are contrarian dietitions - I think we need to work out how we meet the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy - certainly WP:UNDUE should be considered - ie an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all..

Please discuss before reinserting the text into the article. --Golden Wattle talk 00:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, I suspect that Nexus (magazine) would not meet WP:RS (for example, the publisher is one of the Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers - at the very least it is not a magazine concerened with health, science or food technology)) - there are plenty of sources that would provide information on Canola's health benefits and other issues covered by science and food technology. If the claims are spurious, to meet Wikipedia standards the preference is for scholarly sources.--Golden Wattle talk 00:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Alpha-linolenate

Alpha-linolenate cite[4]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

scientific name?!

"Turnip, rutabaga, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, mustard and many other vegetables are related to the two canola species commonly grown: Brassica napus and Brassica rapa."

That makes no sense. B.n. and Br.r. are not canola species.

And what is Canola? According to the confusing intro that i tried to fix, (still missing scientific name) it's a rapeseed cultivar. --Espoo (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs more clarification of the trans fat content

I am a little confused that NOTHING is mentioned about the 4% trans-fat content found in this oil -- no mention is said of why it's there. But the really confusing thing is the un-questioned sentence "The Canola Council of Canada states that it is completely safe ...". I didn't know that small amounts of (hydrogenated? (ie. not the good animal kind)) trans fats were "completely safe". Please clarify :S Dennisne (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is whats concerning me too. The Canola Oil Council website says "Cholesterol and trans fat free: Trans fat raises bad LDL cholesterol and lowers good HDL cholesterol." Edit: this http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ says that the proprtion of trans-fat is 0.395%, which is about one tenth of the amount currently stated in the article. Edit2: I have edited the table and changed it to the 0.4% figure shown by the link above. 92.24.182.48 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20338284 "J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Apr;110(4):585-92. Trans fats in America: a review of their use, consumption, health implications, and regulation. "...exacerbated by the Food and Drug Administration labeling rules, which allow products containing <0.5 g trans fat per serving to claim 0 g trans fat." Government authorised lying? Bad, bad, bad. 92.15.14.201 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Some guy keeps deleting the Health Research section I wrote, which is totally full of information verifiable in reputable sources. If he hasn't deleted it, you will find some important, relevant and well documented information relevant to your question there. Two papers are cited on the subject and they cite other papers themselves if you want to delve deeper into it. It's in paragraph three of the section as it stands.

If you find that information good to be there, and verifiable, and about canola oil, and about health research, (which it is all of that), then please help me out with the discussion in the Health Research section to ask that this section not be deleted but rather improved!

Thanks RiceMilk (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The sum of percentages in the composition break down table add up to 104.4-106.4%. Even when rounding is taken into account, it is odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.151.87 (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi, the "4% trans fat" comes from this article: http://www.w[replace everything in the brackets with a "w" and copy/paste the url into the url bar]ale.to/a/fallon.html. However, the website is so close to blacklisted spame site, that Wikipedia auto blocks the reference.

The number shows up in a lot of places and in those places the authors frequently use almost identical wording. The article is from Nexus Magazine by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD. They reference a study by the University of Florida at Gainesville. The explanation is that Omega 3 fatty acids become trans fat during deodorization. I've seen a few vague references to new and improved deodorization techniques (the article is from 2002) that reduce the amount of trans fat. I haven't found anything concrete about them. If I find more, I'll post back.

Enjoy life until it ends,

-Robby

History

The article does not give specific dates for the earliest documented use or cultivation of rapeseed, important facts that are very likely documented.

This section also contains several claims that seem unlikely.

It says that Chinese and Indians used a form of natural canola, implying that was centuries ago. Shouldn't that say rapeseed oil? Shouldn't that be dated with the earliest time?

It says steam engines proliferated in WWII. Is that correct? It seems more likely to have been WWI or earlier. The various histories of steam engine on wikipedia all fail to give specific dates for their replacement with other types, but it looks like innovation peters out in the very early 20th cent. Surely in WWII most ships and all vehicles were not steam engine powered?

Was rapeseed ever used as lubricant in steam turbines (vs. steam engines), or internal combustion engines?

It does not mention glucosinolates in terms of human consumption of rapeseed- only at the end there is a reference in terms of animals. This was an important deterrent to human consumption as well.

It does not mention the need to deodorize the oil.

RiceMilk (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It says steam engines proliferated in WWII. Is that correct? . The original text has been corrupted. This is how the page read back in Nov 2008:[5]. Correct as you see fit.--Aspro (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Health Research

Someone deleted the whole Health Concerns section. I agree there may have been some issues with it, however what I wrote consisted 100% of statements from peer reviewed scientific journals and were all relevant to the topic. I did not draw any new conclusions or do any original research. I did not conclude that canola oil is unhealthy for humans to eat. I did cite specific studies on canola and erucic acid and human health.

I did rename the section Health Research to avoid the implication that there is a concern for health in eating canola, (although that was not what I meant by the original wording.) Since there is health research on canola oil, this section should be here, and the studies I have cited are major, often cited studies that should be included here for the article to be NPOV.

I also agree that there are studies showing that canola oil is safe for humans to eat and they should definitely be included in this section. If no one else has time to do that research, I will get to it when I have time. Meanwhile if someone wants to put up an NPOV warning on this section, I am ok with that.

If anyone wants to point out specific places in this section which they feel violate wikipedia policy, please point it out to me so we can discuss it.

The fact that canola oil contains erucic acid, and that erucic acid has been shown in research to harm animals, even in some cases at levels found in canola oil, (just speaking loosely for the purpose of this discussion), is certainly a) true b) important information about canola oil and c) something people will want to know about. I think the way to keep the article neutral is not to delete these articles- but to add research supporting the healthfulness of eating canola oil... it's just something I haven't had time to do.

RiceMilk (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. You can't string two things together ("rapeseed oil contains up to x% of x oil" and "x oil is dangerous") - that is WP:SYNTH. Also see WP:WEIGHT - you are giving excessive weight to these studies.
We certainly do not just include anything in wikipedia that is in a peer reviewed journal. It is an encyclopedia, so we have to carefully consider everything and follow the relevant policies.
You need to find reliable secondary source for these claims, and they must talk specifically about canola oil, and their inclusion in the article must be proportional to their WP:WEIGHT within the scientific community. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH I don't believe I ever state or conclude that the canola is dangerous to the human diet- quite the opposite. I don't think that the topic of erucic acid toxicity is irrelevant to canola oil- or it's content level would not be limited to 2% by the FDA. Research that shows that it is toxic in large amounts but harmless in those low amounts is completely appropriate. It's the harmless part of the research that needs to be added to this section.

To say that canola oil contains erucic acid, and that erucic acid has been shown to be toxic in both human and animal studies, but that the amount of it in canola oil is too small to be of any concern, is a statement that needs to be in this article on canola oil, and needs to be supported by peer reviewed research. I have not yet gotten to that last part, but if no one else does it I will get there.

Meanwhile you might want to put an NPOV warning on this section.

WP:WEIGHT I completely agree with you. What the manual says is: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. "

In fact, the consensus view as far as I can see is very clear: erucic acid is toxic in many ways, in animals and humans. This is a truly relevant and important fact about a component of Canola oil. What is needed is to cite research that the dosage of erucic acid in Canola oil is too low to produce any negative health effects, not to delete all references to the toxicity of erucic acid.

So that means that the viewpoint of these researchers must be included for the article to be NPOV. They are all articles from reliable sources, well regarded journals and scientiists. There are a large number of such studies.

What is needed is citations of research that show that canola oil is safe for humans to eat, _in spite_ of these animal studies. The article should certainly be balanced out, and I will be happy to do that as I get time.

The article already states repeatedly that canola is safe to eat, and I don't state otherwise. I am not representing the view that canola is shown to be unsafe to eat.

There are a number of studies that feed low erucic acid rapeseed oil to animals and find various effects that can be cited, as well.

I don't agree that the research must specifically be about canola oil. Canola oil contains erucic acid. People who eat canola oil eat erucic acid. Therefore studies on erucic acid are of interest with respect to a component of canola oil. But in any case, many of these studies are made with rapeseed oil.

Aside from that, a number of the studies I have cited do deal with rapeseed oil. Many of the cited animal studies use rapeseed oil food supplements.

As far as needing a secondary source, there are numerous, numerous studies giving similar results I could cite. In fact I am citing studies that review the literature and deliver a consensus, such as the 2007 textbook, which itself references many studies. I am working on adding further citations.

As I said before, the Health Research section needs to be balanced with positive studies, not removed. All points of view should be represented.

Rather than delete the section, though, I think you should really add an NPOV warning to it, and then work on adding positive research reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMilk (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than struggle with the dichotomies of healthy/unhealthy, safe/unsafe, etc., (which are value judgement terms, rather than encyclopaedic ones) why not included a paragraph pointing out that what is of overall importance is the ratio of the essential fatty acids in a well balanced diet. Together perhaps, with how Canola and other oils can help to achieve this. Also, the sensible amount of oil in a diet is dependant and the amount of physical activity the individual engages in. After all, Inuits did not get CHD on their high saturated diets because they burn it off. The healthy/unhealthy safe/unsafe, etc., debates is driven largely by sales and marketing departments and by the medical 'experts' that they pay to support their marketing promotions.--Aspro (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of medical research is aimed at determining what things are ok to eat and put in foods. Scientific results are obtained, and laws are passed. Certainly an important bit of information about a food is whether scientific research finds that in large amounts it is toxic to animals and humans, or that it improves heart health.

You do raise a good point about funding bias in scientific research, and there is a wikipedia entry for that. But I don't think it should be on this entry unless it can be cited in the literature as relevant.

Scientific research showing that canola oil increases heart health is a good idea, it is badly needed here. There are also research papers finding ways that erucic acid protects the heart too.

Subjects like the amount of oil in the diet may rather belong in another topic, but I certainly agree a link to dietary considerations of limiting fat intake would make sense.

I removed the NPOV warning from the Health Benefits section, and added one to the Health Research section, which badly needs to cite results about health benefits of canola oil and erucic acid in animals and humans.

I also added a citation specific to human consumption of low erucic acid rapeseed oil, representing the minority point of view of a very prominent medical researcher. Unlike the other facts and results I cite, I do not know if this is a widely accepted consensus view, but it has been published in several journals by more than one author.

RiceMilk (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How about finding reliable tertiary sources before adding info to the article? One can always start a section in the sandbox and invite others to comment on or edit it. Weetoddid (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From [{WP:SYNTH]]: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research". Ricemilk's edits are clearly in violation of this on many occasions. You simply cannot say "canola contains x. studies have shown that x is dangerous". Some other points:

- textbooks are not generally used as reliable sources. Systematic reviews are preferred. Please see WP:MEDRS.

- as for WEIGHT: "In fact, the consensus view as far as I can see is very clear: erucic acid is toxic in many ways". WRONG - that is synthesis (see above). You simply cannot put that in the article.

I would suggest you delete the entire 'health benefits' section and discuss proposed changes here before putting them into the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Textbooks are excellent sources. WP:MEDRS says in its nutshell, Ideal sources for biomedical material include ... widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field. It also says In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks (and the list goes on). There's no suggestion anywhere, in any policy or guideline I'm aware of, that textbooks are to be avoided. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


I don't think you can just delete stuff like that. If you feel that there is a non-neutral point of view problem, you are supposed to mark it and correct it if possible. I completely disagree with you on this and wikipedia is about consensus.

Some of your points are valid. I can replace the textbooks with a systematic review. I understand your argument canola contains x. x is dangerous. I am not sure that is not allowable, since I don't draw any conclusions about canola oil itself.

But more importantly there are many things in this section that don't fit your criticisms. First of all, there is material about presence of erucic acid. that is a true and significant aspect of canola oil, the topic of much research and legislation. That is discussed in the first paragraph.

Other research on canola oil is also presented. That it does not present the positive research is not a reason to delete it.

The article does without this section does not reflect minority views of published professionals and is not therefore NPOV.

Secondly there are quotes that represent a minority view of highly respected professionals published in reputable sources. This is supposed to be included for NPOV.

There are templates for marking text for cleanup that allow you to express your view of the text without deleting it. That's why they there are templates.

your basic criticism is NPOV.

The reasons for deletion of an article are given here, and don't apply to this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#REASON

Please don't delete it. Mark it up with templates, raise specific issues on specific points that can be addressed.

I am willing to work out with you questions of NPOV. I have already modified the section with more recent research etc. to indicate other views etc.

RiceMilk (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me where deletion is recommended because of NPOV issues? I recall it says to mark it, and if you have time fix it up. Even if the references do not contain what is claimed, you are just supposed to put a "doesn't check out" template. If the there is no reference, you are supposed to put a "reference needed" template. But you are deleting perfectly good, appropriate citations and facts because you don't agree with them. Not ok.

The section on trans-fats in deodorized oils is supported by a number of papers- I can give a few more if you like. There's no question about it, canola contains trans fats from processing. How can you forbid someone from documenting that in an article on canola? I clearly state there is no proof or evidence that the effect of these trans fats causes any health problems. But you cannot censor facts out of the article because you don't like them.

By your logic, if A contains X, and X is toxic, you cannot even put in the article that A contains X and X is toxic, out of fear you are doing synthesis. But if those are both facts, they are both pertinent to an article on A.

Finally, you say that my statement that there is consensus that erucic acid is harmful is a synthesis. That may be, but it's not in the section I wrote! It's in this talk discussion. You can't delete a section from an article because the talk on it doesn't meet wikipedia standards. It's just talk.

Do you really not accept that erucic acid in large doses causes negative health effects in animals and humans? I can find many, many references and review articles on that subject, aside from the one included here for brevity. I can replace the textbooks with the review articles it is citing quite easily. This is no reason to delete the whole section.

RiceMilk (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


IF you think the section merits a quick delete, this is what you should do: {{QD|reason}}

found in http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_fight_vandalism

I don't believe this section fits the quick deletion policy, but if it did,it should be marked for quick deletion with the reason.

Just deleting it is not part of wikipedia policy as far as I can tell, but please point me to the documentation you feel justifies just deleting the section without even marking it for deletion.

And please address each of the paragraphs separately, since you want to delete all of them. Some of them deal with canola, some with erucic, some with animals, some with humans, and all are verifiable in reliable sources- unless the textbook doesn't qualify, in which I case I can go to the review articles the textbook cites or newer ones.

23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)RiceMilk (talk)

RiceMilk, I remember mentioning on some other article you're editing about vegetable oils that you appear confused. Now you post here another example:”Scientific research showing that canola oil increases heart health is a good idea, it is badly needed here. “ No! Avoiding a bad diet is what avoids CHD not drinking Canola. Canola is not a medication! Salt is not a medication but it can avoid medical problems or too much can causes them, But you don't see proclamations along the lines: “Salt improves health”. This article should just make clear that cold pressed canola consumed in reasonable amounts (with the addition of other oils) is fine. Also, any text about the 'toxic oil syndrome' would be better off in an article about food adulteration. Example: Wine which has been adulterated, can have worse effects than adulterated non alcoholic beverages but is the wine article singled out for inclusion of all the adulterants that causes problems because of the alcohol content. No! Although WP is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, it is taken as read that one has developed an insight that gives one something useful to add. Just introducing text that one has read somewhere, creates no more a a body of knowledge, that a heaped up pile of bricks creates a palace.--Aspro (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Aspro- I understand what you are saying. I have done a lot of reading of papers on this subject. The point is that no one knows for sure the cause of TOS, and I have quoted a minority view that it is at least partly due to the low erucic acid rapeseed oil. That is why I think it merits inclusion here as a minority view for NPOV. It's the view of prominent researcher published in reputable journals. People deserve to hear all sides of the story on TOS, especially since there is still a lot of mystery around it. I do think it is useful to add.

Also, Canola has omega-3 oils and mono-unsaturated fats that actually have health benefits. Even erucic acid has studies showing it protects the heart from certain problems. Therefore, there is some health benefit to Canola oil documented in the research. People need certain types of oils, as I am sure you know, as a dietary requirement. Citation of review articles on this would give valuable information on Canola oil and health, it certainly seems to me!

Lest someone criticize me for making original research or synthesis, this is just my justification for including these results in the article- not proposed text for inclusion!

The FDA has approved a type of health benefit claim for Canola. The reasons why would make a good addition to the Health Research section.

RiceMilk (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Aspro

Also, if I am wrong and there is no research showing health benefits for Canola oil, then they won't be found and can't be included in this section. Be requiring verification from reputable sources, and multiple sources, we are assured any information, whether ultimately correct or not, at least represent the view of reliable professionals based on real data!

The things I write here are just topics to possibly be included if there is support for them.

RiceMilk (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for not deleting this section which I have myself marked with well deserved not NPOV marker. I am working to add more positive research results to balance this section out. I have no problem with a preponderance of "positive" research results if we are looking at this material as a judgement or consumer recomendation; however it should just be report of reliable facts.

I have changed some things that might come across as synth. Reading over the wikipedia definition of synth, it seems to me it is ok to list two independently sourced facts A and B one after the other as long as no new conclusion is implied or drawn by the wording. I am not intending to make the argument here one way or the other for "canola is safe" or not, just to report relevant research. I am trying to stick to things stated as conclusions by the authors of the research reports, without adding anything new.

However, I don't see that discussing erucic acid effects on animals and humans is forbidden by the synth policty in itself. A case might be made that only studies using canola oil can be cited here, not using erucic acid added to other foods even in amounts equivalent to those found in canola oil. If there is not corroborated research or "deep reviews of the literature" that tie erucic acid research to canola, then doing so here would certainly be synth. I will look for examples of this.

But I don't see how a case can be made for censoring any studies in which canola is fed to humans or animals, especially if there are many similar studies giving similar results. Why deny readers any such corroborated, widely reproduced information about canola, if such exists? The article is actually about canola oil, not necessarily limited to the context of human food as typically consumed in North America, etc. It seems to me that facts about canola oil are appropriate.

Thanks again for the effort to reach a consensus based on reasoned discussion of what should be included in this section.

64.134.238.135 (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is 64.134.238.135 RiceMilk or a different person? --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, 64.134.238.135 is me, RiceMilk. RiceMilk (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To Weetoddid: finding reliable tertiary sources will be possible here. But what about a review article in prominent journal? Would that need a secondary source, or as a review of the literature wouldn't it be a reliable source on its own? While finding three sources on the same or very similar subject might be possible, where is this required?

The article on undue weight has these bulleted points:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

This seems to imply that a reference text is an ok source.

and this:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. "

Remember in this case the points being made are not that canola oil is unhealthy to eat for humans, but in many paragraphs whether for example feeding canola oil to piglets causes certain health effects, or whether feeding rapeseed/canola oil to various animals causes various health effects. No one has yet argued or found citations to indicate that this is a minority viewpoint. What we think ourselves doesn't matter.

If a study is cited by review articles and and is verified by studies in other animals, or is backed by a second verifying bit of research, and is not contradicted by other research- Is there someplace in the wikipedia guidelines that says three different sources are needed?

To Sciencewatcher:

Also, The section indentifying reliable sources (medicine) says this:

"Ideal sources for these aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is also useful to reference seminal papers on a subject to document its history and provide context for the experts' conclusions."

Widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts are "ideal sources".

The article on undue weight also says that reference texts are good sources for majority viewpoints.

In the article on medical and health sources it says: "A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. General textbooks and encyclopedias are tertiary sources."

However it also later says: "Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources."

This seems to confirm that a textbook is an excellent source. This may be /seems to be making a distinction between a general textbook and a medical textbook, general ones having a broader scope more like an encyclopedia. A general textbooks is also described here as summarizing secondary sources, and medical textbook as reviewing primary sources. In this case, the reference (Hayes, 2007) is a medical textbook on toxicology, and it is referencing primary sources, so I think this reference falls under the category of 'excellent' and 'ideal' according the Wikipedia guidelines.

This particular textbook was reviewed in the second edition (1998) in "The Quarterly Review of Biology", published by the University of Chicago Press, in a highly favorable way, as a "major textbook" saying "especially valuable reference for the industrial or regulatory toxicologist", in other words, exactly what we are looking for here. Each chapter is written by an expert in that topic.

The review also says: "This major textbook of 929 pages is composed of thirty-one chapters authored by an impressive group of scientists."

The Doody's Review Services review states: "The authors are known experts in the fields they have reviewed." http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?EAN=9780849337789#TABS

According to amazon.com: "I would recommend this book to any working one aiming to study in the area of safety sciences and it is a necessity for all those working in this area. -The British Toxicology Newsletter, 2008 "

So these are three reviews of this, according to wikipedia guidelines for medical references, excellent and ideal genre of source, one calling it "especially valuable", another a "necessity", and a third saying it is written by "known experts".

This textbook also specifically cites rape seeds, specifically mentioning rape produced in Canada (which is called canola in North America), and mustard seeds, as the "predominant" source of dietary erucic acid, at the start of its discussion of erucic acid. That is, the section describing dietary effects of erucic acid in humans and animals is specifically concerned with canola / rapeseed and mustard seed oils. This indicates that I am not inventing as synthesis the relevance or importance of erucic acid studies to canola oil.

RiceMilk (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that WLU and Sciencewatcher both deleted the health research section again. Please stop edit warring. Wikipedia is a consensus based project. We have discussed the issues you complained about Sciencewatcher and you have not responded to my extensive refutals of your points except by deleting the material improperly. The latest deletion complained of animal studies. But humans studies are also mentioned. Also, canola is fed extensively to animals as well as humans. Also, toxicology studies on animals are basic parts of research on foods for humans, as documented in one of my references and as commonly known. Finally, articles on canola oil and its effects on humans and animals, cannot possibly be considered coat-racking in an article on canola oil. My references are very good, meeting the requirements for excellence. Finally, it is not proper procedure to just delete a section for the reasons you cite:

In a moment I will supply links to the proper Wikipedia manual. But you should look up when deleting material without first templating it and engaging in discussion is proper procedure.

Your actions in repeatedly deleting this section, sciencewatcher, are a violation of wikipedia procedures and policies.

RiceMilk (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. There is obvious, considerable disagreement with your new section. You have been reverted:
  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]
  5. [10]
  6. [11]
Six times, seven if you consider this set of edits, by three different editors. So far no-one has stated any agreement, but in addition to the active reverts, LeadSongDog makes four disagreeing editors. Five if you count Aspro. There is obvious disagreement with your edits, and you don't get to keep them because you really, really want them to stay. That's not how this works. Cease editing and start making a case for your edits based on policies and guidelines along with reliable sources (note, that would be secondary sources). And don't give undue weight to excessive claims and fringe theories, nor should you draw syntheses from multiple sources. These issues have been laid out to you before, yet you appear to be ignoring them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to get in an edit war, and there are several editors now deleting the health research section. Although I don't find the reasons valid, and have countered all of them in this talk section, I am not getting any response, just deletions. We really should be discussing these things and not just deleting stuff with brief comments. According to Wikipedia guidelines, any deletion that is likely to be controversial should have discussion in the talk page.

The animal research is valid here for many reasons, not least that canola is fed to animals. If adding citations about that are needed I can do it- it is used as animal feed in large amounts.

Another criticism was that the information was not relevant to humans. But I cited a major, highly regarded secondary source that discusses canola and rapeseed toxicology issues by citing animal studies. This particular citation meets every single criteria for a medical reference being excellent and ideal. I have supported the importance and regard for this textbook with academic review citations. This also meets another criticism that my references are not good enough.

Another criticism is coat-racking. But that means raising a different issue. The points are raise are specifically about canola health issues, therefore they belong in this article and not somewhere else.

Another criticism is synthesizing. Yet I follow all the Wikipedia guidelines for citations and keeping what I write to conclusions specifically found in my sources. I do not draw any conclusions that are original in any way.

People are not finding specific faults with specific citations or passages in the section, but considering it as a unit and deleting it. There was specific criticism of the textbook citation, which I have shown was incorrect and that this citation is ideal by Wikipedia standards. No one has quoted something from the Health Research section and shown how it violates synthesis rules. The deletion of this paragraph which contains this information, specifically on the toxicology of canola oil, from an ideal source,

As far as NPOV issues, that relates to my point of view in discussing the citations. If someone feels I am not being neutral enough in my discussion, they can show me where and I will fix it.

As far as the criticism of weight- I have agreed that more citations showing the safety of canola in low doses are needed to balance the section. However the article has a whole already has many references to the safety of canola.

It could be argued that health effects of high doses of erucic acid should not be in this section, because that is too technical for this article.In summarizing high quality secondary sources on canola oil safety, if they mention the results of high dose studies as relevant, and they do, then they merit inclusion, since the link is being made by a reputable source.

Also, Canola is restricted from infant food. This and research on canola in infants is well established and FDA regulations. Discussion of effects of canola on infants should certainly be relevant, and are included in my writing, and that research is presently included in the references here. I could elaborate more on the results for infants and the FDA decision not to allow canola in infant food, at present the discussion is very brief and not separated out.

One of the items in this section is not about erucic acid at all, but about the trans-fat content caused by deodorization. This content comes from two reputable citations, and others exist.

Another section represents the minority view of a highly respected, prominent researcher. Such minority views deserve inclusion.

By completely deleting all this varied material, leaving not one bit of it, it seems to me that your are ensuring the article is not NPOV and does not present all the established facts about canola oil. Once again, the point of the article is not to advise people about whether to eat it, but to present important information about it.

Also, I would suggest that you might want to read these references yourself and verify that they contain what I claim.

The latest deletion says there is obvious consensus.

"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. "

In this case, I have a multiple minority objections not getting resolved.

"The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise "

In this case, there is no compromise. All of the material, which is about different things and with different citations, has been deleted. The criticisms have not been discussed in any detail. No effort has been made to rework the content to be more NPOV or to resolve issues.

Weetoddid , WLU and Sciencewatcher, you are not engaging me in an effort to resolve our dispute or produce some material that is a consensus compromise. You are ignoring a significant minority view here (25% of the active editors). You are not making specific criticism of specific passages so they can be discussed.

By deleting the material completely, rather than templating it as needing better citations, being NPOV, etc., you also make it impossible for others to see any of this material and comment on it. RiceMilk (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher, I just saw your previous comment, which happened while I was working on my previous talk post.

Yes, I did look up the 3 reversions rule and you are right, I cannot make more than 3 reversions in 24 hours. Sorry, I was not aware of that before.

I don't think I have quoted any fringe theories at all here. I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. Please point out a single statement in the deleted section that represents a fringe theory.Everything has been published in reputable scientific journals, and at least in most cases with two different citations. The most extreme statement was quoted directly from a very prominent and highly regarded medical researcher, and so qualifies as a minority view that deserves some mention; I also maintained NPOV by pointing out that it is a minority view and not the consensus view.

Although people have made complaints of various policy violations, since I don't see specifically how I am doing those things, it would really help me to have them specifically pointed out in the text. You can get the text from the history section.

Counting up people who agree with you that all of that material should be deleted, but who haven't posted in this talk section, doesn't seem fair. Right now it stands at 75% to 25%, and I feel that there is a way to incorporate something of this material in a compromise fashion, which is what consensus means.

I have already done what you said before the last deletion- pointed out that the reference you criticized as being inadequate because it is a textbook, actually meets the Wikipedia guidelines for medical references with flying colors.

I have pointed out that one of the deletions was because it was animal studies, yet there is no reason to exclude animal studies from this article, for a number of reasons.

That same user, WLU, also said it was coat-racking, but I don't see how that applies remotely to the entire content that was deleted.

RiceMilk (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You're already in an edit war - as I pointed out above, three other editors have reverted your changes, and you've undone all of them. That's an edit war. It's not "not an edit war" because you want the material to remain. An edit war is when multiple editors are reverting each others' contributions, and that was happening.
Your posts are too long. I don't want to have to read that much content.
See WP:MEDRS, particularly the section on primary sources. Primary sources are individual research results that are not aggregated into a review article. We are expected to use review articles. Animal studies have limited to no applicability to humans, particularly since they are often fed levels of the substance that isn't possible in humans. The levels of erucic acid are deliberately kept low in Canola oil, so including studies about the consumption of high levels of erucic acid are inappropriate here. It should be noted that lots of erucic acid is bad, but canola was specifically bred and monitored to keep levels at a safe level. The fact that animals consuming these levels were harmed is irrelevant since in humans these harms haven't been found, and putting these facts together gives undue weight to animal studies that leads to an obvious synthetic conclusion that canola oil, even at a 2% erucic acid level, is still considered harmful. Also, a lengthy digression about erucic acid is unnecessary and part of the coatrack. This article is about canola, not erucic acid. Sciencwatcher made essentially these points November 4th. If, as you subsequently stated, you believe erucic acid is harmless in canola, then you agree the inclusion that it is dangerous is unnecessary. You also stated "What is needed is to cite research that the dosage of erucic acid in Canola oil is too low to produce any negative health effects, not to delete all references to the toxicity of erucic acid." Yeah, we do that with a short section noting a) that erucic acid is harmful in large doses and b) that canola is safe as levels of erucic acid are low. We do not have a very long section discussing all the possible harms associated with erucic acid in animals and humans in high doses. That information can be judiciously used in erucic acid but is nigh irrelevant here. We don't need lengthy citations showing canola is safe to eat for humans, as the agencies that monitor and determine this, the FDA, Health Canada and EurLex, have all stated it's safe. These agencies are secondary sources, and the authoritative bodies for determining the health effects of canola - and their decision is it's a healthy oil due to its ratios of types of fats. This is how you deal with these issues, not by cherry-picking primary sources. If there is genuinely a scientific body of research, summarized in secondary sources, that canola oil is toxic to humans, you need to cite those secondary sources. A search for "canola" and "toxic" on pubmed turns up a single, irrelevant article. If there are more, you need to find those secondary sources to include them. Primary source animal studies are not appropriate.
You state "I don't agree that the research must specifically be about canola oil. Canola oil contains erucic acid. People who eat canola oil eat erucic acid. Therefore studies on erucic acid are of interest with respect to a component of canola oil. But in any case, many of these studies are made with rapeseed oil." - We all know that you believe this. That's the problem. You see the "therefore" in the middle? That's your WP:SYNTH right there, and the source of your POV-push. You may not agree, but everyone else does. This is inappropriate, and the reason you keep getting reverted. So stop it. If you can't find secondary sources supporting the idea that canola has erucic acid which is dangerous and therefore canola is dangerous, it shouldn't be here. Those "positive research results" are all primary sources, which are to be used judiciously. Does Hayes, 2007 state clearly and unequivocally that the levels of erucic acid found in canola oil are a) definitely toxic b) possibly toxic or c) unlikely to be toxic? I suspect the answer is c) and therefore your use of primary sources to "refute" secondary is horribly, horribly inappropriate, particularly given MEDRS' statement "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

email hoax

I think the discussion of an email hoax requires an inline citation rather than just a link to a web page. There is a way to cite web pages in an inline citation. Without this, a reader has no way within the article to identify the author, the publisher, the date, etc. of the citation, and also wouldn't that be proper wikipedia style?

Also, the web page source for this is trend micro, which is an antivirus software, and not an expert on health, canola oil, etc. This is another reason I think an inline citation would allow readers to evaluate the reference better.

The reference also doesn't substantiate the date, or the fact that it was "widely circulated".

In fact, there are many websites making false or unscientific claims about canola oil, and there may well have been many such emails asking to be forwarded. This section gives the misleading impression that the negative hype about canola oil comes solely from one email.. which even if true, is not supported by the linked web page.

A more accurate and informative discussion of internet rumors about canola oil would cover the various sites, the different claims, and how they are in conflict with the scientific evidence.

Since this section really deals with (unscientific) health concerns about canola oil, I think it should be moved to the health research section, or perhaps the health research section should be renamed health concerns, or health information.

RiceMilk (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea time

Clearly there is a disagreement over the addition of this new content. I infer that the recent e-publication of doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2010.10.006 on 21 October may have triggered RM's interest in the topic. Please remember that wp:THEREISNODEADLINE, and that wp:MEDRS calls for the citation of review articles wherever possible in support of medical assertions. I would urge editors to calmly discuss the additions one at a time, rather than simply reverting each other. Meanwhile, the onus is on the adding editor to support the additions with such citations.

Full disclosure: I came here following a heads-up at my talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, secondary sources are required, not new syntheses. I'll be reviewing and providing an opinion in the next little while. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed most of the information and sources - animals are not humans, and primary sources should not be cited to override secondary. In particular, canola shouldn't be treated as carrying identical risks as erucic acid, particularly given active breeding and testing efforts to ensure levels of erucic acid are kept below a safety threshold. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was wrong about textbooks - they are valid sources. However the main problem with that particular bit was that it was WP:SYNTH. Also, RiceMilk should read WP:TLDR. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Textbooks are perfectly valid sources, but that doesn't mean they're used properly in this case. Hayes is a solid source, but not to imply that canola oil is dangerous. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Too much data

There was way too much detail on the results of a single study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A new study that reexamined data on the length and weight gain of infants indicates that infant formula containing canola oil supports normal growth.

Canola is a form of rapeseed that is low in erucic acid and high in contains a high proportion of monounsaturated fatty-acids and low levels of saturated fats.

According to the authors of the new study from Germany, this nutritional profile “facilitates the manufacture of infant formula with a fatty acid profile more similar to human milk”.

In the US canola oil is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) only in foods, fats, and oils for non-infant consumption. This is because erucic acid has been associated with myocardial defects in some animal studies.

In Europe, however, there is no restriction on the use of canola oil in infant formula, the authors point out. In finished products, however, erucic acid may not make up more than 1 per cent of the total fat content.

However while canola-containing infant products have been used in studies to investigate the effects of the linoleic acid:alpha-linoleic acid ration on visual function, Peter Rzehak and colleagues from Germany found little published data to compare the safety of formulas containing canola with those that did not.

In order to assess the effects on growth, they re-analyzed data on infant weight and length from a prospective double-blind trial in full-term infants, known as the German Infant Nutritional Intervention (GINI) study. This involved some 2252 babies born in Munich between September 1995 and July 1996.

Data on the length and weight of babies that were fed canola formula and non-canola formula were compared in weeks 4-5, month 3-4, and month 6 to 7 after birth.

The team found that although infants fed canola tended to be longer and heavier in general, no differences were seen in terms of weight gain or growth in any of the three periods or across the whole period.

“We conclude that infant formulas containing part of the lipid source as canola oil have no adverse effects on infant growth, neither in weight nor in length compared to feeding a formula without canola oil,” they wrote in a report accepted for publication in the journal Clinical Nutrition.

Limitation

One limitation of the study that was mentioned was that the stringent inclusion criteria meant that only 85 infants’ data could be included in the study. The babies had to be feeding on the respective formulas exclusively for the first 16 weeks of life.

What is more, the formulas in the canola and non-canola groups were not the same. The researchers pointed out that any compositional aspects with a detrimental effect on growth would have been detected in overall growth effects of the formula.

Source

Clinical Nutrition (online ahead of print)

DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2010.11.002

Growth of infants fed formula rich in canola oil (low erucic acid rapeseed oil)

DeadLink

Links 25 and 28 do not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsw (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal Issues

People all too often overlook the fact that in the Schmeiser case, the courts found Monsanto to have committed trespass. Schmeiser has standing for damages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.181.157 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Leading off with GM is POV

It's true and verifiable that lots of genetically modified canola is grown, and it's fine to mention that in the body of the article. But that's not central to what canola is, and it doesn't belong in the lead. The lead should say that canola is rapeseed oil that meets the standard for erucic acid level, that it was first bred in 1978, that it stands for CANadian Oil Low Acid, and that it's for human consumption. Maybe there should be something in there about the fatty-acid composition. Maybe the controversy over its health effects should be in the lead paragraph too; I haven't looked into whether it's serious enough to belong there, or only get a section in the body of the article. But canola is canola regardless of whether it's GM or conventionally-bred. Putting GM into the lead serves only to advance the POV that GM is a dangerous big deal that we should all worry about. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Important aspect missing from the "Genetic Modification Issues".

Here in Oztralia, the government research organization is working on GM canola from a completely different aspect to the glyphosate resistance currently mentioned in the article. The CSIRO article is here: http://www.csiro.au/science/Omega3-Canola-Collaboration.html and would, I imagine, constitute an impeccable verifiable source. For those who don't wish to read the whole article, here is an executive summary in point form:

  • Omega three is a very important human nutrient.
  • Currently, it is obtained from seafood.
  • The actual production of Omega 3 is by microscopic plants (phytoplankton) in the ocean; it merely concentrates in the bodies of fish as it moves up the foodchain.
  • It is impractical, for a variety of practical and environmental reasons, to obtain fish at a fast enough rate to provide the human population with sufficient omega three.
  • Canola oil contains omega three.
  • However, it is not the same "quality" (lesser health benefit) as "seafood grade" (my term) omega three.
  • CSIRO has a project where the gene from phytoplankton that allows them to produce seafood grade omega three is to be spliced into canola.
  • CSIRO estimates that this project would take about a decade.
  • If/when successful, this would result in the production of canola oil containing seafood grade omega three.
  • Which would allow production of seafood grade omega three in rates/quantities way unattainable from fishing.

The GM issue here is that this is a fantastic health benefit (and excellent commercial venture) that with current technology is unattainable in any other (ie, non-GM way).

Please, please, please, correct/comment on the above if you feel that there is anything significant that is incorrect, misleading or omitted. Once this has been done, the summary can then be turned into a more appropriate Wiki-style section and included in the main article. I would be delighted to do this if no-one else wishes to. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Colza

Colza and Canola are two names for the same plant. Canola is a trademark.

http://parisfocus.blogspot.com/2010/05/canola-or-colza-depends-on-where-you.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eur (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Different cultivars. Consider merging with Brassica rapa.Novangelis (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This article now reads like an advertorial , encourages systemic bias, and makes a mess of the original definition (based on erucic acid content)(hence it now includes not one but a host of different cultivars). A particularly important individual cutlivar could have is own article but localised, geographical vernacular errors such as hovering the carpet, thermos flasks, writing with a biro and growing canola have no place on WP. A table has just appeared comparing just 'canola' with other vegetable oils. A more fitting table (for this article) would be a comparison of similar oilseed Brassica -(it includes not only Brassica rapa but napus and juncea species as well). Rather than the existing table that excludes other oilseed rape as though they don't exist. The existing table would be better off on that article or a separate List of oilseed rape cultivars. Like-wise, Colza should be merged. Also, there is some confusion over the generic names – (no doubt from editors reading the popular press). Farmers and industry refer to it as 'oil rapeseed' as a crop and rapeseed oil as the oil – generically speaking. It always gets listed in the ingredients list as simply 'vegetable oil'. This area need to be made more encyclopedic and less promotional.--Aspro (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's and example: List of tomato cultivars. If the list was just got going, others editors might be able to expand. This I think, would be more informative than the mess of (somewhat misleading) articles we have at present. --Aspro (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove "known toxin" from erucic acid

The section on erucic acid indicates it is a known toxin, and provides a source, but this is in direct contradiction to the Wiki page on erucic acid, which provides several sources indicating that there are no known indications of any adverse health effects. Some simple googling with phrases like "usda erucic acid safety" or "toxicity" turned up a few documents on erucic acid in various contexts, but no indication that it is toxic.

Im recommending it for removal, and will do so in a week or so if there is no objection (im assuming thats the proper procedure). Ronin2040 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not change that. The erucic acid article appears to violate the "original research" policy WP:OR and using sources that do not meet WP:MEDRS. I just edited the erucic article to correct that. Thanks for pointing out the problem.Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved claim from History to Erucic acid section

Moved the following claim: "The Chinese and Indians use rapeseed oils that are unrefined (natural)" and modified to reflect what the source was about; i.e, it was not really about the history of canola, but the potential health effects of high erucic acid oils. Not sure if it should even remain where I moved it, but the source is fairly recent, even if the claim is a bit broad (author contends that Indians and Chinese suffered no noticeable health effects for thousands of years...) Richigi (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Omega-3 Fatty acid

This article states canola oil is "a significant source of the essential omega-3 fatty acid is associated with reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.", whereas the Omega-3 fatty acid page patently contradicts this claim. If the claim is controversial, then this should be noted in the article's text. 97.80.123.226 (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Canada Low Acid?

http://www.soyatech.com/canola_facts.htm makes the following claim:

"Christened “Canola” from “Can” (for Canada) and “ola” (for oil low acid)..."

...but the source is a bit dodgy. Does anyone have a more reliable source for this claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

How about this source: http://www.canolainfo.org/canola Or the Canada Canloa Council: http://www.canolacouncil.org/oil-and-meal/what-is-canola/ Opendestiny (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Global Production of Canola

I noticed that the "global production of Canola" statistic that is cited (58.4 tonnes) is actually the global production of rapeseed; however Canola and rapeseed are not interchangable terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opendestiny (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Make more distinction between the canola plants and other rapeseed varieties. They are different.

Moved latest contribution from annon to bottom of talk page (from the top)--Aspro (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Canola oil is made from the canola plant. This is a different plant from the rapeseed plant. http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/facts/what-is-canola-oil.htm http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/canola-oil Please let's correct the factual error that says canola oil is from the rapeseed plant. Unlike the rapeseed plant, canola oil contains only low levels of erucic acid; levels that are acceptable for humans.

When you say 'plant' do you really mean cultivar? Being an encyclopedia we need to get these things right.--Aspro (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Merge with Rapeseed

There is much overlap with the Rapeseed page. I propose Canola deal with the oil and Rapeseed with the plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.76.24 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't think that's realistic. From an encyclopedic point of view, canola should be merged into rapeseed but there is so much commercial pressure (upon WP (see debates about paid editing on Wikipedia)), that interested organisations will fight-tooth-and-nail to make a crop of canola (and it products, e.g., canola oil) appear to be something unique and different from a crop of rapeseed (and it products, e.g., rapeseed oil).--Aspro (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
what actual reason do you have to cite paid editing with respect to discussions/arguments on this article in particular? Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dangerous if heated?

The Cooking oil article says canola oil can easily become toxic when heated; but this article makes no mention of that fact, and states it is safe to use for making food... So which is it, safe or potentially toxic? --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. That is WP:FRINGE and I have removed that content from the other article. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion by Aspro re toxicity

Having a little edit war here - Aspro would you please explain the reasoning in your long edit note, here? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Un-weaned neonates drink milk, their livers have no need to produce the enzyme to metabolise erucic acid because milk does not contain it. The studies show that on introduction, their livers then ramp up and start to metabolize it. Just like the kidneys adapt to remove high dietary salt. Does that article state that salt it a known toxin -which it is.? Sure you don't need high erucic acid in baby milk formulae powder either– the article mentions this. Your trying to introduce a context that is misleading in respect of the article as a whole. I think you are Wikilawyering because you’re demanding I explain myself first... for your edits. --Aspro (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't get personal and read motivations into things - wikipedia is collaborative and i am trying to understand the rationale for the change you made. I understand well that everything is toxic at a given dose - including water. i am not sure what point you are making though - can you please explain? The best source that i have been able to find on erucic acid is this one http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/Erucic%20acid%20monograph.pdf - and while it is clear that there is no evidence of human harm from EA, it does take the animal studies seriously enough to set the NOEL based on them. it is not a big deal today anymore since there is no high EU products available in much of the western world... but please, what is your point? thx Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Reduced lung function

There is a wide study that is accepted as being a real issue in numerous online sources

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140520220424.htm

Im trying to share but keep facing issues putting it up from wiki editors - please help me find a source you are happy with rather than taking me down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamhead (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 June 2014‎ (UTC)

It is great that you want to improve the article. However the content you are trying to add is health related, and the sourcing guideline called "MEDRS" applies here. Please see WP:MEDRS. Neither the source you are bringing, nor the underlying research paper, are reliable souorces for health-related content. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Goitrogenic content of Rapeseed

Because rapeseed is part of the Brassicaceae family, AKA Cruciferous vegetables, it contains Goitrogenic compounds, as Rapeseed is already listed on the 'Goitrogen' page. Could someone kindly insert more information about the goitrogens found in rapeseeds, as this directly relates to the mass consumption of Canola oil. Goitrogen consumption can contribute to development of Thyroid cancer in prone individuals, especially when the individual also has a deficiency in Iodine, used for production of the crucial thryoid hormones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgfduck (talk • contribs) 04:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for posting and pointing out the Goitrogen article. That article is a disaster and does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Please do not have any health concerns based on it. Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
additional note - one of the few appropriate articles cited in the [[Goitrogen] page is [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9055870 this one} (and even it is old and we shouldn't be using it!) says the following - am quoting it since it is behind a paywall:

Brassica vegetables have a goitrogenic potential [7,17]. The goitrogenic effects have been ascribed to hydrolysis products of glucosinolates, in particular thiocyanate ion and 5-vinyloxazolidine-2~thione (goitrin). The mechanism of goitrogenicity seems to be different between thiocyanate ion and goitrin. The thiocyanate ion would compete with iodine for uptake by the thyroid gland. Thus, its goitrogenicity depends upon the iodine content of the diet. Goitrin would interfere with thyroid hormone synthesis and would therefore be goitrogenic irrespective of the iodine status. In several studies goitrogenicity of rapeseed glucosinolates was examined [217]. In animals, inhibition of thyroid hormone synthesis, thyroid hypertrophy and goitre occurred, depending upon the dose of rapeseed glucosinolates tested and the animals used. In swine, reacting strongly to the goitrogenic activity of rapeseed glucosinolates [217], this is particularly a problem since rapeseed contributes largely to their food intake. Feeding a diet with a high content of Brussels sprouts to rats resulted in decreased levels of circulating thyroxin and in an increase of morphological thyroid activation [15]. In human, no effect of a high but realistic intake of Brussels sprouts on the thyroid function was found [219,220].(emphasis added)

please note the last sentence. i do realize that the sentence is about brussels sprouts but a) it is brassica and b) it shows you that animal studies need to be handled carefully - they don't always translate directly to humans. Also this article is about potential anti-cancer effects of these same compounds in brassica. This article, and others like it, are the way that scientists communicate with each other while they try to figure stuff out. They are not meant for consumption by the public, and are very much not intended for anyone to take action on.Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Australian production figures wrong

"Australia produced 3450 Mega tonnes of canola seed in 2014" is clearly wrong, that's half a tonne of Canola for every person on earth!!! The "units" on the table in the reference are not clearly explained.

I found this http://www.australianoilseeds.com/about_aof/news/ecord_canola_crop_for_2012 that gives a figure of 2.946 million tonnes for 2012, that makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.183.53 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Canola oil is supposedly rather unhealthy - the opposite of what the mainstream knowledge is?!?

I'll just copy this link here. Hope someone can verify and maybe at least partially edit the Wikipedia article as the claims that canola oil is really healthy sound a bit (if not a lot) off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.47.120 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

that is not an acceptable source in WP. Please see WP:MEDRS for explanation of the kinds of sources that are. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Erucic acid IS known to be associated with toxic effects in humans

1) The cited reference "no health effects have been associated with consumption by humans of erucic acid[38]" does not make that statement at all. What it concludes is only that "... the available evidence does not indicate an association between myocardial lesions, of the type observed in rats, or significant myocardial lipidosis, and the consumption of rapeseed oil." This review article only examines erucic acid as a cause of myocardial lesions in humans, only one specific health effect, not all heath effects; erucic acid is associated with many other health effects than just myocardial lesions in animals and humans.

Thus the cited reference does not support the claim that references it.

2) From the Mayo Clinic website: ""Rapeseed oil contains very high levels of erucic acid, a compound that in large amounts can be toxic to humans. " http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/canola-oil/faq-20058235

The Mayo Clinic website is a valid wikipedia source for the review of medical information and is saying that erucic acid is toxic to humans. Therefore at the very least how can it be valid to state that erucic acid is not toxic to humans in this article?

3) Canola is not just human food, but used as animal feed. In 2007-2008, 2.5 million metric tons of canola meal was used as animal feed around the world: page 3, Canola Council of Canada, "Canola meal Feed Guide", http://www.canolacouncil.org/media/516716/canola_meal_feed_guide_english.pdf Therefore toxicology data for animals has a place in this article.

4) From the highly regarded medical textbook on toxicology, most recent edition, there is a paragraph on the toxicity of erucic acid (p. 656-657): "Growth suppression, myocardial fatty infiltration, mononuclear cell infiltration, and were observed in weanlging rats fed with erucic acid...In addition, ducklings showed hydropericardium and cirrhosis, and guinea developed splenomegaly and hemolytic anemia."

"In humans, however, although ...Lorenzl's oil (oleic and erucic acid) ... leads to thrombocytopenia and lympopenia... adverse effects from dietary consumption of erucic acid have not been reported.", pg. 657, Hayes' Principles and Methods of Toxicology, Sixth Edition A. Wallace Hayes, Claire L. Kruger CRC Press, Oct 10, 2014 - Medical - 2184 pages

The section on erucic acid toxicology in this long established medical reference, which is tertiary reference that summarizes peer-reviewed articles, is saying that erucic acid is toxic to various animals causing a number of different health effects. It also says that Lorenzo's Oil, a medication containing erucic acid, causes disease in humans, but that consuming erucic acid in the diet has no reported health effects. That is what the actual reference says, not original research.

I don't believe that summarizing these valid references is original research. A valid summary of all of these high quality references could be:

"Canola oil contains small amounts of erucic acid, known to be toxic in animals and humans at high enough levels, but there is no evidence of health risks to humans when consumed in the diet.[refs] "

This is what the article stated before the last major revision to the sentences on erucic acid. MongoNut (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You have constructed (perhaps unwittingly) a complex question. One could add to the article that in a 'balanced diet', no toxic effects have ever been-observed in human studies but no studies have ever been done upon this. Other than anecdotal surveys, that in India, populations which traditionally cook with mustard oil suffer less heart disease than other cohorts. So in that respect mustard oil appears to have a protective effect. So I won't add that to the article. Read the references of the animal studies and you will find that the oil was not being given as part of a balanced diet but as the 'only' nutrition. One can expect problems in this laboratory setting because even too much water can produce water toxicity too. So, to use results from such extreme animal laboratory trials and attempt to apply them as a-proven-known and hold them true for the general population is misguided. Neither was there any double blind trial ever done on Lorenzo's oil. We can only add to this article what we have good secondary sources for. --Aspro (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
same question was posted at Talk:Erucic acid and i responded there. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


In the dozens of animal studies, (whose results are summarized in the tertial, medical reference book I cited), the amount erucic acid in the diet varied greatly, it was not always the only oil fed. In any case, to discount the medical reference book on toxicology, which says erucic acid causes diseases in animals, on the basis of the how much they were fed, would be original research- the wikipedia authors' own reasoning. The textbook itself is not ambiguous on the toxicity of erucic acid in animals, which is a fact that should be mentioned. Those studies only prove it is toxic to animals, not humans, and I am not suggesting the animals studies should be used to support toxicity in humans. Only exactly what the reference itself states.

This defines a secondary source:

"A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations."

The reference I cited "Principles and Methods of Toxicology" is a professional book, a respected current toxicology reference, which uses the Lorenzo's oil results to conclude that the oil can result in human disease. To debate their conclusion because it was not a double blind study is the wikipedia authors' own research. The reference itself concludes that it does cause disease. The dose of erucic acid in the oil is much larger than people would get from dietary canola oil, so that it is fair to state that while erucic acid is toxic to humans in large enough doses, there is no evidence of health risks from dietary consumption... that is what the reference itself states.

A review of this book which is a widely recognized reference:

"Wallace-Hayes has engaged over 90 distinguished investigators to contribute to this new edition. There is also a chapter dedicated to … Statistics … the information is presented in a logical sequence and it is an excellent reference source. I would recommend this book to any working one aiming to study in the area of safety sciences and it is a necessity for all those working in this area." —Shirley Price in BTS Newsletter, Issue 32 in 2008

Also, the cited reference [38] presently in the article to support the claim "no health effects have been associated with consumption by humans of erucic acid[38]" does not make that statement at all. That claim should be corrected to fit what the reference states.

The revisions to the article removed an accurate statement supported by a medical reference secondary source, and replaced it with an inaccurate statement not supported by tne New Zealand government's review report. "Food Standards Australia New Zealand Food" is a government agency, and I am not sure in any case that it qualifies as a major health organization; however as I said it doesn't support the claim that cites it. On the other hand the Mayo Clinic is a major health organization, and I have cited the Mayo Clinic that erucic acid can be toxic to humans in large enough doses (see 2) above).

MongoNut (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Your comments regarding Erucic acid should be paced on that talk page -not here.--Aspro (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Tanuja Rastogi (2004) Diet and risk of ischemic heart disease in India. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 79, No. 4, 582-592, April 2004. Retrieved 2007-01-29
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canola_oil/Archive_1&oldid=1090552019"