It makes it easy to wonder if there's a connection between that fact and the types of diseases, particularly auto immune and inflammatory diseases, that occur in the population.
I tried to get my parents to switch from canola—universally used in India and Bangladesh these days—to time-tested mustard oil, and they were like “mhmm.” :-/
The story is a lot more interesting than I could have imagined:
It’s particularly popular in the northern state of West Bengal in India, where it’s used in dishes such as achaars, a pickled condiment used to add an acidic spice to a wide variety of dishes.
Through careful breeding processes, the group of scientists were able to produce rapeseed plants with low levels of erucic acid. The oil, later to be named canola oil (can- for Canada, -ola which stands for “oil, low acid”) soon became a commercialized, easily marketable hit with both the public and science community alike (Fisher, 2020).
Other than the genetic engineering and solvent-based extraction of canola oil. But yes, that was my parents reaction as well. Regardless, it’s just butter, ghee, and sometimes olive or avocado oil at my house. Because food and cleanliness taboos are sub-scientific.
I don’t think people eating butter instead of canola oil is what upsets people.
It’s people ignoring the mountain of evidence that such a switch would be a backwards step for health outcomes and claiming the opposite because they read a book by the usual rogues’ gallery of science misinterpreters (Taubes, Teicholz, Shanahan).
ant-seed oil is anti-scientific and prays on people being ignorant about the research on health outcomes and relies on emotional appeals and appeals to nature such as "the genetic engineering and solvent-based extraction of canola oil".
Who are you trying to kid? You listed sunflower seed oil alongside canola --- you're presumably just as opposed to mustard seed oil.
It would be funny if the one seed oil you're OK with is mustard seed oil, the oil closest in composition to canola, the one oil anyone has a legit gripe about (it doesn't taste very good).
Mustard oil has been used in the subcontinent since the Indus valley civilization 4,500 years ago. It’s extremely well understood. Unlike solvent extraction of oil.
You write this as if there isn't controversy about mustard oil, which is banned in the United States because it contains high levels of a likely heart toxin ("Among South Asians living in the US, ASCVD risk is four-fold higher than the local population") and limited throughout Europe. The entire point of solvent extraction is convert rapeseed oil, which would otherwise be similarly problematic (they're basically the same plant!) into something less toxic than mustard oil (that's literally why it's called "canola").
I don't care either way; let the mustard oil flow. I don't buy the mustard oil thing either. Just don't pretend that mustard oil is somehow healthier than canola. Use whichever fat tastes best to you.
Canola oil is simply a mustard-seed oil from a hybrid mustard bred for low erucic acid content. Solvent extraction is widely used, but not something that defines canola oil. Cold-pressed and expeller-pressed canola oil are also produced on a smaller scale.
Then it's results would be easy to summarize. Yet, I'm finding no such simple summary, nor good agreement between studies. It's not like this is a multi billion dollar a year industry so that's a very confusing outcome. /s
This is a very silly take. If you consume any animal foods raised in the US, you are consuming canola / rapeseed meal, soybeans (90% of soy grown in the us is used to create animal feed), and sunflower seed / meal already. You are consuming it in a condensed secondary form (one tropic level up). It seems exceptionally backwards to be worried about eating any of these foods when the animals you eat are essentially just condensed versions of these ingredients where any downside effects would have accumulated heavily.
Also canola oil is now considered on par or healthier than olive oil. Soybeans are one of the worlds few complete plant protein sources with a high quality protein and widely consumed all over the world to both animals and humans to much beneficial effect. Sunflower oil is the least healthy thing here, but still considered quite healthy without excessive heating.
> You are consuming it in a condensed secondary form (one tropic level up).
I always find this is looked over and a double standard. You can raise an animal on a diet of anything along with medication, drugs, and supplements, and advocates will label the beef/chicken/pork product as "meat" and "natural" as if it was a single pure ingredient. But then if a non-meat alternative like a burger is mentioned, every individual ingredient used gets scrutinized, even if that ingredient is often fed to farm animals like soy or grain.
This, in my opinion, is the most important point in the thread and the clearest expression of it. For purposes of this argument, meat is conceived of essentially as a single ingredient, and the raising of the animal in artificial conditions, on hormones, fed on processed food with its associated environmental footprints are kind of sidestepped, while alternatives have to answer for every step in the chain of production.
That mapping seems correct to me, as a lot of the objections here are free-floating one-offs that presume these background assumptions more so than they are apples to apples comparisons intent on clearly comparing them in totality.
I wish they'd just sell the fish cells, alone. Would love to try that.