So, Old Herman is an EARTH RAPER.

[caskur]

Canola is one of the more nutritious and heart friendly oils



While I use extra virgin olive a la Mediterranean diet fame, I know canola is pretty good and I am not a olive snob  

I use extra virgin for salads too, but for cooking I use canola oil.

You have to be careful using extra virgin olive oil to fry because it can fume and catch fire...

But I still use it...



you can use extra virgin olive oil 14 times and still have the health benefits... But any other oil should only be used once.



I've been using a commercially prepared French dressing lately. I haven't read the label so I'm probably eating canola... I'll check the babel tomorrow...



But salad dressing I use white balsamic vinegar with extra virgin olive as a base.

[Biggie Smiles]

Ya, I didn't get peaches post / thread.



He's acting like canola is a bed thing which is very deceptive  .. prolly due to lack of knowledge on the subject



till seoul came along

When have you ever known a leftist to know fuck all about anything besides looking like a completely deflated tit with pimples on it

[caskur]

nice tree to have

I bought it when it was a short stick with 28 black olives on it....lol



20 years ago... so the tree is 20 years old.

[Anonymous]

Ya, I didn't get peaches post / thread.



He's acting like canola is a bed thing which is very deceptive  .. prolly due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erucic_acid[/url]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil">//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil

Although wild rapeseed oil contains significant amounts of erucic acid,[50] the cultivars used to produce commercial, food-grade canola oil were bred to contain less than 2% erucic acid,[51] an amount deemed not significant as a health risk. To date, no health effects have been associated with dietary consumption of erucic acid by humans; but tests of erucic acid metabolism in other species imply that higher levels may be detrimental.[52][53]:646–657

Chinese people use a lot oil for cooking..



Canola oil is low in saturated fats.

Well, please go on with your cooking, and use plenty of this oil which used to contain toxic levels of erucic acid but now has been aggressively hybridized to less than 2 per cent, genetically modified to a farethewell, and engineered to be ROUNDUP READY.  Just keep in mind though, that while the plant may be ROUNDUP READY, https://www.berkeleywellness.com/health ... and-truths">https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food-safety/article/canola-oil-myths-and-truths[/url]

[Anonymous]

I for one appreciate Seoul correcting your disingenuous attack of an edible product that feeds hundreds of  millions of people globally.

[Anonymous]

I knew where Peaches was going with this from the start. it has nothing to do with canola oil being bad for our health which has been debunked.



Experiments on animals have pointed to the possibility that erucic acid, consumed in large quantities, may cause heart damage, although Indian researchers have published findings that call into question these conclusions and the implication that the consumption of mustard or rapeseed oil is dangerous.



And in fact,



A 2013 review, sponsored by the Canola Council of Canada and the U.S. Canola Association, concluded there was a substantial reduction in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and an increase in tocopherol levels and improved insulin sensitivity, compared with other sources of dietary fat.[34] A 2014 review of health effects from consuming plant oils rich in alpha-linolenic acid, including canola, stated that there was moderate benefit for lower risk of cardiovascular diseases, bone fractures, and type-2 diabetes.[41]



And about Erucic acid

Main article: Erucic acid

Although wild rapeseed oil contains significant amounts of erucic acid,[50] the cultivars used to produce commercial, food-grade canola oil were bred to contain less than 2% erucic acid,[51] an amount deemed not significant as a health risk. To date, [size=150]no health effects have been associated with dietary consumption of erucic acid by humans[/size]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil



As usual, this is about your irrational hatred of the success of the free enterprise system.

[Anonymous]

I knew where Peaches was going with this from the start. it has nothing to do with canola oil being bad for our health which has been debunked.



Experiments on animals have pointed to the possibility that erucic acid, consumed in large quantities, may cause heart damage, although Indian researchers have published findings that call into question these conclusions and the implication that the consumption of mustard or rapeseed oil is dangerous.



And in fact,



the cultivars used to produce commercial, food-grade canola oil were bred to contain less than 2% erucic acid,[51] an amount deemed not significant as a health risk. To date,



Yeah, that "review" is odds on to be a real doozy.  I mean, it's not like those two bodies have anything at stake, so they can do some dispassionate unbiased "science" ...amirite?

[Anonymous]

You beat me to it Herm.

[Anonymous]

You beat me to it Herm.

So you guys are both "crickets" about the glyphosate herbicides, I take it.

[Anonymous]

I knew where Peaches was going with this from the start. it has nothing to do with canola oil being bad for our health which has been debunked.



Experiments on animals have pointed to the possibility that erucic acid, consumed in large quantities, may cause heart damage, although Indian researchers have published findings that call into question these conclusions and the implication that the consumption of mustard or rapeseed oil is dangerous.



And in fact,



the cultivars used to produce commercial, food-grade canola oil were bred to contain less than 2% erucic acid,[51] an amount deemed not significant as a health risk. To date,



Yeah, that "review" is odds on to be a real doozy.  I mean, it's not like those two bodies have anything at stake, so they can do some dispassionate unbiased "science" ...amirite?

It's not our fault that you made a claim with no basis in science or honesty. We proved you wrong, now move on.

[Anonymous]

You beat me to it Herm.

So you guys are both "crickets" about the glyphosate herbicides, I take it.

As long as it used as it should, what about it. As you would say it's a nothing burger.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/glyphosate-1.4091495">https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/glyphosate-1.4091495



But, it's interesting you pivoted from ignorant criticism of canola to baseless accusations of Health Canada. But, it all comes down to your bias against the free enterprise system. And like it or not, genetically modified foods can be a source of nutritious food. Take golden rice for example.

[Anonymous]

As usual, this is about your irrational hatred of the success of the free enterprise system.

That is a canard.  I've always been a fan of the free enterprise system, and spent well over half of my working life as a self employed entrepreneur.  Your mischaracterization of me will not become true through multiple repetitions of such an untruth.



It seems to bother you, though, that I am opposed to a perversion of free enterprise where corporations own the government.  I don't call that "free enterprise," but rather a form of fascism.   Let us be accurate here.

It's not our fault that you made a claim with no basis in science or honesty. We proved you wrong, now move on.

It's a rough road you choose, calling a "study" by the Canadian and US Canola Associations "science" while trying to keep a straight face.  Scientists have to have #paymasters as you know, and paymasters have ways of getting the "scientific" results they want.  Especially when their jobs depend on such results.

[Bricktop]

Odd that you don't seem to apply that same rationalisation to the climate change hoax.

[Anonymous]

It's a rough road you choose, calling a "study" by the Canadian and US Canola Associations "science" while trying to keep a straight face.  Scientists have to have #paymasters as you know, and paymasters have ways of getting the "scientific" results they want.  Especially when their jobs depend on such results.

It's not our fault that you cannot prove that canola is harmful to the health of people who use it. Now, you are claiming Health Canada is biased and again without proof.



And I occasionally use canola too by the way.

[Anonymous]

Odd that you don't seem to apply that same rationalisation to the climate change hoax.

I meant to post that too. But, I wouldn't use the word hoax. The climate is changing, as it always has.