Canola Oil Can Cause Health Problems?

RexB · Canola Oil Can Cause Health Problems?

I have been informed of some health problems that can be caused by canola oil. Apparently, canola oil comes from genetically modified rapeseed plants. Rapeseed oil can be used as insect repellant and was the source of the chemicals for mustard gas. Rapeseed is preported to cause emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability, and blindness in animals and humans. There is quite a lot in the article, so let me know what you think.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=ca...en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Mr. McGoo

Well I just Googled it and got opinions on both sides, however would prefer not to have any for dinner.

RexB

I guess the link I posted was one side of the story here the other side:

http://www.nuggetshooter.ipbhost....0&gopid=82143&#entry82143

I guess long term use of of canola oil with the 1-2% eurucic acid might not be the best thing, but hopefully it's not as toxic as mentioned in the article link I first posted. Anyway, I think I'll limit my consumption mainly just because there are alternatives such as olive oil, safflower and sunflower oil out there. Who knows what they use when you eat out though. I just researched McDonalds, and of course they have all sort of weird things in the food here's french fries for example:

French Fries:
Potatoes, vegetable oil (partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural beef flavor (wheat and milk derivatives)*, citric acid (preservative), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain color), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent)), salt. Prepared in vegetable oil ((may contain one of the following: Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated corn oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness), dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent). *CONTAINS: WHEAT AND MILK (Natural beef flavor contains hydrolyzed wheat and hydrolyzed milk as starting ingredients.)

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:SQishk...;cd=1&gl=us

(note - the isp no. is because I did a google search and this is their cache of this site, click on the link that reads "current page" to visit the real site address without the isp no. attached)

Rex

Mr. McGoo

Guess I'll just stick to Jack Daniels..............U no it's killing you, but u don't care!

rehab

generally speaking, there are a lot of things we use as food that causes a lot of distress and harm to the body. Margarine is one of them.

If not that, then some things are okay until they get heated, and that causes a problem, such as other vegatable oils used in frying that release acrylamides.

Almost all processed foods work against the natural goodness of wholefoods, supplying us with convenience instead of adequate nutritional values, and combinations of nutrients as made by God when the plant gave fruit. A lot of what would be very nutritional food is messed up by the process of canning, packaging, etc., rendering something that is still edible but not the same product as could be had in a home garden.

Thene there are processed ingredients which take on a life of their own, and are used as a key ingredient in just about everything else. Through the general 'dumbing down' of consumer enlightenment (it tastes good so it must be okay), we get loaded up with derivatives that also bring the body down. Corn-based sugars falls into this category, as do peanut products, and so on.

What used to be fairly healthy drinks are now an adulterated synthetically flavored concoction, such as root beer, sassafras, ginger ale, and such; many containing a full third by volume of corn sweetnener, rather than the once more heathful herbal basis.

How we cook things, and in what sort of metal utensil (as in aluminum pans) can also cause problems.

Then there are non-food influences that also get us real bad, such as surrounding ourselves in multiple magnetic fields that are generated and emanate from small electrical and electronic appliances, and computers. Such usage and associations cause microwaving of the brain, and arthritis, prostrate problems, cancers. etc.

Like graffiti, where can you go nowadays to get away from all of it? Even the most wholly organic food plot is still messed up either by airborne pollutants, and soil contaminants, some of which were either deliberately buried and left, or thrown on top as part of some US Government guinea pig scheme. Fish eat it, or we inject it into the beef and fowl that we then eat down the road. perhaps one of the most insidious plots is the estrogenation of food over a period of time that cause serious damage to the body and human function. Estrogens make for good marbelling and prime beef, but is never quite broken down by the human body, and acts upon anything susceptible to it, which also includes chemicals that are not estrogens in and of theirselves, but which the body takes in as such and the influences of such mimic the real deal.

Perhaps the greatest change wrought upon mankind was the move into an economy and lifestyle based on cash and coinage. for in the factories and the mills, and in every day life of the world masses, monetary credit sends everyone off to work in their car, office and construction work, mining, and service work, in order to work an live in a community and urban life that doesn't lend much to tending your own garden, but rather, finding some chemical concoction down at the local market that passes for food, tastes good, and frees up some of our time for some other pursuit.
In that pursuit, we sacrifice our own body....

just my thoughts

rehab

Saturday, August 4, 2007
FALLON, Nev. - Two dairy farms have dumped milk after the discovery of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope in 25 nearby drinking water wells.

Officials from Sorensen's Dairy and Oasis Dairy said they will stop selling milk until it is tested for the isotope, polonium-210, by the Food and Drug Administration. Officials said there's no known health risk at this time.

A study released Friday by the U.S. Geological Survey found the radioactive isotope in 24 private wells and one public well around Fallon, about 60 miles east of Reno. Polonium-210 is known to cause cancer in humans.

All dairies around Fallon sell their milk to the Dairy Farmers of America cooperative, which in turn markets the milk to a dairy in Reno and plants in northern California.

Fallon farmer Bret Sorensen said he began dumping 6,000 gallons of milk Friday morning at the cooperative's request.

Dr. Anette Rink, a supervisor at the Nevada Department of Agriculture, said she expects to have test results back from the FDA by Monday. Milk is not normally sampled for polonium-210 because the cows' bodies filter out most of the metal, Rink said.

Concentrations of polonium-210 found in the 25 wells ranged from less than 0.1 to 67.7 picocuries per liter. Thirteen had amounts greater than 15, which is the maximum allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency for public wells. The EPA does not regulate private wells.

Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian security agent, was killed in London last year with a dose of polonium-210 much larger than the amount detected in Fallon.

USGS researchers conducted the well tests as part of a University of Nevada, Reno, study investigating a possible link between groundwater contamination and 20 leukemia cases around Fallon since 1997. Health officials say about one leukemia case in five years would be expected.

rehab

try reading this really good book about bad things our own government does against its own people, and those of other nations:

GI Guinea Pigs: How the Pentagon Exposed Our Troops to Dangers More Deadly Than War : Agent Orange and Atomic Radiation
by Michael Uhl

hammer

Charlie: I would like to get that book, I was in an atomic test in July of 1957, be interesting to read about some of the other things overlords have dropped on us.--thanks for the post.

rehab

if you go on amazon, they have sellers that are selling the used version for about 1 buck, plus shipping.

type in GI guinea pigs, or michael uhl. it should come up. I recommend the book. it's good reading and a a good third is about the test site

rehab · takin another swig from a plastic bottle

Some risk linked to plastic chemical
A federal panel finds 'some concern' that exposure to bisphenol A affects brain development in children and infants.
By Marla Cone
August 9, 2007

A federal panel of scientists concluded Wednesday that an estrogen-like compound in plastic could be posing some risk to the brain development of babies and children.

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is found in low levels in virtually every human body. A component of polycarbonate plastic, it can leach from baby bottles and other hard plastic beverage containers, food can linings and other consumer products.

Culminating months of scientific debate, the decision by the 12 advisors of the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction -- part of the National Institutes of Health -- is the first official, government action related to the chemical. Their recommendation will be reviewed for a federal report that could lead to regulations restricting one of the most used chemicals.

The scientists ranked their concerns about BPA, concluding they had "some concern" about neurological and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children, but "minimal" or "negligible" concern about reproductive effects. The findings put the panel roughly in the middle -- between the chemical industry, which has long said there is no evidence of danger to humans, and the environmental activists and scientists who say it is probably harming people.

Steve Hentges of the American Chemistry Council's polycarbonate division said the panel's report was "strong reassurance to consumers" that products containing BPA are safe.

Frederick vom Saal, a University of Missouri-Columbia reproductive toxicologist who has conducted studies on BPA, was disappointed that the panel did not rank the risk higher. But, he said, "the panel is now on record saying there are human health concerns."

The panel reviewed about 500 animal studies, many of which reported that the estrogen-like chemical alters various functions and parts of the body. Some have found altered brain development, precancerous changes in prostates and mammary glands, low sperm counts, and damage to the uterus. Plastics industry representatives say the lab experiments are inconclusive and flawed.

No study has looked for effects in people exposed to the plastic products, which have contained BPA for 50 years.

The panel had five rankings for its findings: negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern and severe concern. In its conclusion, the level was "some concern."

For fetuses, pregnant women, infants and children, the panel reported there was "some concern that exposure to bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral effects." In studies of newborn animals, low doses of BPA cause structural changes in the brain that trigger learning deficits and hyperactivity.

For fetuses and children, they said there was "minimal concern" that BPA harms the prostate gland and causes premature puberty, and "negligible concern" that it causes birth defects.

For adults, they reported "negligible concern about adverse reproductive effects."

John Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program, which oversees the reproductive health center, said the panel gave the most weight to neurological effects in children, infants and fetuses because studies consistently have found those effects when newborn animals are exposed to low doses similar to what people encounter. Bucher said that because the science remains uncertain, it is up to individuals to decide whether they want to avoid products containing BPA.

"To me, we're still in that stage of scratching around at the surface of this issue," he said.

Last week, Vom Saal and 37 other scientists published a consensus statement in a scientific journal concluding it was likely that BPA affected humans, even at low doses. The federal panel's findings were not as strongly worded.

Environmentalists lambasted the panel, saying it had minimized the risks and ignored important research.

"Only the chemical industry agrees with the decision that BPA has little or no human health risks. That by itself should speak volumes about the corrupted process endorsed by the panel today," said Dr. Anila Jacob of the Environmental Working Group.

In March, the Los Angeles Times reported that the panel's preliminary report on BPA was drafted by a private consulting firm with financial ties to the chemical industry. The National Toxicology Program fired the company but ruled that the report was unbiased.

Part of the reason the panel ranked the risks as less serious than did the other group of scientists is that the panel rejected several dozen animal studies that found reproductive effects. In those studies, animals were exposed through injections, rather than through their diet. The decision to reject the studies has been controversial with toxicologists.

Two of the panel's scientists are from private pharmaceutical companies, six from universities and two from federal agencies. It was chaired by Robert Chapin, head of developmental toxicology at Pfizer Inc. None has expertise in BPA.

Their recommendations will go to the National Toxicology Program, the federal scientists who help regulators mold policy about toxic substances. Officials there will send their report out for review by other scientists before deciding whether to declare BPA toxic to humans. Bucher said he would also update it with the consensus statement and studies published last week.

The final report could trigger a review of BPA by California officials under Proposition 65, which requires warnings on consumer products that pose a risk of cancer or reproductive harm.

--

marla.cone@latimes.com

Goldfinger

There's a lot we don't know and understand about biochemistry and genetics. I think all these hydrocarbons used in everyday life contribute to cancer and other diseases in some way and once we understand the dangers- life expectancy will rise greatly.

Steve

RexB

Hydrocarbons, yep, like the new sweetener "Splenda" it just basically chlorinated hydrocarbons. The manufacturers will tell you it's wonderful stuff, but I don't believe it. I know people who have complained about symptoms from using it.

"Sucralose (Splenda®) is a chlorocarbon and is more accurately compared to ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides. The chlorocarbons have long been known for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise then, that the testing of sucralose reveals it causes up to 40% shrinkage of the thymus: a gland that is the very foundation of our immune system. Sucralose also causes swelling of the liver and kidneys, calcification of the kidney, fertility issues in male rats, and gastrointestinal problems in pregnant rats. If you experience kidney pain, cramping, swelling, an irritated bladder, or blood in your urine after using sucralose in Splenda, stop use immediately".

Goldfinger

I'm not condeming all hydrocarbons as a group but I think there's quite a few specific ones that shouldn't be on the marketplace.

Or should at least be restricted in their use......

Don't know much about Splenda other then what you posted.

Steve

RexB

To be "fair" I will say that I can't confirm all the details of the quote above, it could be an internet exaggeration. However, I do know of some people who have had problems using this product. I imagine some people are more prone to react to it.

Canola Oil Can Cause Health Problems?

takin another swig from a plastic bottle