Talk:Cooking oil/Archive 1

Archive 1

Refining the Health Info?

This passage is a little misleading: "While consumption of small amounts of saturated fats is essential, excessive amounts of such fats has been shown to be correlated with coronary heart disease." This is a topic of some controversy with a good deal of scientific evidence on both sides (e.g. FDA's opinion vs. Harvard School of Public Health's). Might I recommend a more neutral wording that then refers the reader to the article on saturated fats? This section on health should be kept short and as simple as possible, since it is not the main focus of the article, and the reader referred to more exhaustive discussions elsewhere. Eg.: "There is considerable debate as to the health effects of saturated fat, with authorities such as the FDA and Harvard School of Public Health coming to contradictory conclusions. The interested reader is referred to x, y z." 19:09 UTC 22 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.163.133 (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, modern studies are starting to call into question the idea that saturated fat is bad, and increasing evidence that metabolic syndrome from high-glycemic carbohydrates are doing more damage. For example, look at "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes, or check out the studies done by the Weston Price Foundation to see alternatives ideas. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Smoke Points?

Where did the information in the table of smoke points come from? The endnotes for the two entries (lard, hard margarine) that have citations are broken. The numbers themselves are suspect as well, namely canola oil. In every cookbook and website I can find that lists smoke points, canola is never listed above 400°F (206°C), and shares a similar smoke point to grapeseed, sesame, and olive oil. Cottonseed oil is slightly higher at around 420°F, and sunflower, safflower, corn, and peanut oils are all 'high-heat' oils with smoke points of 450°F (232°C) or more.

Instead, in the chart, canola is listed as having a higher smoke point than grapeseed, olive, cottonseed and even corn and peanut oils.

See http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/CollectedInfo/OilSmokePoints.htm

http://www.care2.com/channels/solutions/home/143

http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article.php?id=50&title=Smoke+Points+of+Various+Fats

and the Hormel page listed in the 'speed' section.

Tofof 07:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

added by on maree apr 2007: I have added entry for smoke point and fat content for unrefined sesame oil and semi-refined sesame oil. I just picked it up from another web-site. It will be good if anybody can verify it.

Note that coconut oil and olive oil have the highest smoke when unrefined, all oils have high smoke points when refined and coconut oil and olive oil have long shelf lives for an oil. You are comparing refined seed oils on the chart but the coconut and olive oils listed on the chart are extra virgin. Please fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.42.30 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Also, http://www.oliveoilsource.com/cooking_olive_oil.htm says olive oil has a high smoke point. Is this relative to other oils? Is the website ok?

http://www.soapnuts.com/shelf.html says olive oil has a long shelf life, longer than a year (obviously the best grading on the chart). Coconut oil gets the same high score.

Avocado Oil is missing from the chart. From http://books.google.com/books?id=AeSoUpnXBrAC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=avocado+oil+nutritional+profile+site:.org&source=bl&ots=WB441ZQFEl&sig=6n1EKcnCdqn8t8LKqsddRXyLucQ&hl=en&ei=RLXGSfb_HIK2sQOuzYzqBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result 520 degree smoke point (presumably Fahrenheit). 20% saturated, 70% monounsaturated, and 10% polyunsaturated.70.234.12.242 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Melting point

In a similar classification to an oil's smoke point, I would find the melting point of a cooking fat to be valuable information for the purposes of cooking, therefore, an improvement to the page. For example, I understand (uncited) the melting point of coconut oil is around 76F degrees.70.234.12.242 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this page with a chart titled "Oils and their melting points and Iodine Values" (http://vegburner.co.uk/oils.htm), a nice chart with melting points, given as centigrade degrees. It's not about cooking, but instead fuel oils. Particularly, I'm interested in knowing the melting point to make some decisions about cooking oils used for baking.70.234.12.242 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality

I am doing the deep frying oil analysis which regarding the total polar material of oil. The project to test the quality frying oil in snack food. if anyone could help me get the information, i will very apreciated. thank you

Best regards, cynthia

Dear Cynthia,

There is a very good expert at the website at www.palmoil.com where you can address your questions to frank pantzaris

J.Dow

Speed

I am doing a science project to test which cooking oil out of a long list of them would boil/fry chicken faster. If anyone could help me, it would be greatly apreciated.

Thanks,

Marc Lione Westbrook, LA

Dear Marc,

See my note to Cynthia avove.

J.Dow

If you can also gather the info on the temperatures at which the various vegtable oils begin to smoke (aka; smoke point) it would be a good addition. Also information on the basic extraction methods would be good too. I added a list of some of the (many) vegtable oils off of the top of my head. -- Dbroadwell 15:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This table: :http://www.hormel.com/templates/knowledge/knowledge.asp?catitemid=42&id=571

shows smoke points for various oils. I would imagine that your chicken would cook fastest in the oil that you could get hottest. So heat your oil to the max, plunge in the chicken and there you go.

Wiggy

Resold oil

I read a claim (``rumor) that commercial frying oil from better restaurants is collected, filtered, perhaps otherwise treated, then resold to cheaper restaurants or food processors. Like many legends it has the ring of truth but I don't know how to confirm or deny. Thoughts?

yes, used oil can be cleaned up and re used for edible purposed, but it will not be as good as new. But the usual outlets are for animal feeds and biodiesel. JD

Very sadly, yes. I have a friend who is trying to mke a business out of recycling oil for other purposes, and he has to compete with these "people". The practice should be criminal, if it isn't already. Not as good as new is an understatement, according to my friend, and if you've read this article, its not hard to see why. ���Jergas (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As an automotive fuel

Is it true that regular cooking oil can be used to fuel cars instead of diesel/petrol/gasoline? --Coffeelover 20:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, see biodiesel. 159753 14:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That is why biodiesel was introduced. JD

"Cooking Oil" vs. Vegetable Oil

If we merge these articles as "cooking oils", then we are going to need a new article on SALAD OILS. If we merge these articles as "vegetable oils", then we are going to need a new article for ANIMAL OILS. If we merge these articles as "Edible oils", then we need a new article for biodiesel oils, and nobody is going to be able to find the edible oils article. Merger is NOT an idea that's been well thought-out. ClairSamoht 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also against the merge: not all vegetable oils are used for cooking, nor all cooking oils are vegetable. StefanoC 09:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - dito. -- Ravn 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Wiggy! 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose- Vegetable oil is not just for cooking. I encountered "vegetable oil" during research on Biodiesel, a gasoline alternative. Hardly cooking oil.
• Oppose Cooking oil is not vegetable. Vegetable is not cooking oil. They are distinctly different, and should have their own articles. Besides, if you were to merge the articles, would you call it Vegetable Oil or Cooking Oil? Neither would be correct.

No merging since vehicle are not cooking SVO ;-)

--Gerfriedc 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose- Vegetable oil is not just for cooking. I encountered "vegetable oil" during research on Biodiesel, a gasoline alternative. Hardly cooking oil.

This has been pending since February, and no votes for merging. I've removed the merge tag from both articles. Waitak 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

what is its use?

the main problem with this article is that it does not expand on the function of oil in cooking. does it soften the foods, make the foods crisp.....?

Yes, this article (and the article on Frying) does not make clear the purpose of cooking oil, which I believe is to act as a heat distribution medium that ensures uniform cooking of food fragments, rather than simply burning the parts of food fragments that are in contact with the hot surface. Without oil, the heat is not normally conducted to the rest of the fragment with sufficient rapidity. The quicker one stirs, the less oil is required. 144.136.83.19 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Rice Bran Oil on the list of breakdown of different oils. Rice Oil has one of the highest smoke points of any oil except for Avacado oil.

Spanish cooking oil scandal

I'm wondering about the Spanish cooking oil scandal which seems to appear nowhere in Wikipedia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,541260,00.html

At least a thousand people died. I think it should be mentioned here perhaps with a link to the article. 221.133.67.191 14:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, it is referred to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_oil_syndrome but that article does not do the subject justice, nor refer to it by the name I have always known it: "the Spanish cooking oil scandal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberman The Tory (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I just created the following redirects: Spanish olive oil scandal and Spanish cooking oil scandal.TMCk (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Table at "Types of oils and their characteristics" to bulky

It may be better to only display a small table (with only the most major oils described) and place a bigger and more extensive one at the List of vegetable oils-article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.171.147 (talk • contribs)

I've redone the table using Wiki markup, and generally tightened up the formatting. Waitak 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost the whole chart under the "Types of oils and their characteristics" section of the article should be removed until it can be sourced reliably. Most of the oils there have no source linked next to their characteristic on the chart. Are people supposed to look at the chart and assume that Wikipedia is the top authority of all cooking oil contents? The same goes for the specific pages on those individual oils in which their specific pages have charts with no source. For example, if you click on coconut oil from the chart list, you go to the coconut oil page that has a really fancy-looking chart that looks convincing, but the entire chart has no link to any source next to it. Wikipedia somehow inherently knows the exact percentage of saturated fat in coconut oil! Now, maybe there's some obscure link to some stats on all those oils somewhere in a vague part of the article that I missed, but the charts themselves are worthless if they don't have sources next to them. Someone who simply wants to look at all of the differences in cooking oil in a quick fashion needs quick and easy access to links that are conveniently and appropriately put next to the most obvious place anyone looking at the articles will check: the charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.230.26 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed "health and nutrition" section in cooking-oil article

Generally speaking, the oils with the least amount of fatty acids are the most healthy. However, these fats which can be divided into 3 types (saturated, monunsaturated, and polyunsaturated) still need to be aquired in the course of the day to some extent (or 30% of one's daily food energy ) and depending on the type of fat they are less or more unhealthy. This needed uptake of fats is however also possible with other types of food, in stead of all by plain oil. Saturated fat is most harmful and should not be consumed in quantities more than 10% of a day's worth of calories. Also, the monunsaturated and polyunsaturated fats are best consumed in comparable amounts (making the oil with a more comparable amount of these fats again slightly more healthy).

On a whole, common oils which are considered the most healthy are thus sesame oil, soy oil, flax oil, canola oil, corn oil, ... and the least healthy oils are coconut oil, palm kernel oil, palm oil and peanut oil.

PLEASE REVERT this rewrite as it is completely founded and correct (I've spent several hours on it, and got the information from specialised books)

Zippo 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, KVDP. Thanks for contributing, and especially for talking about it here. Happy to work with you on the info that you've provided. I didn't revert your contribution casually - I also spent a good hour reading carefully through it, and trying to keep as much as I could. I know that it's not comfortable having contributions reverted by other editors, and I apologize if the reversion offended you.

There are several problems here:

• The style that you've written in isn't "encyclopedic". That is, aside from what you're saying, how you're saying it needs a fair bit of work. Again, happy to work with you here.
• You don't cite any sources. I appreciate (now that you've said so) that you got the information from books, but you didn't tell us what those books are.
• You removed several references that were already in the article. That weakens the article and (unless you're claiming that these references are not worthy of inclusion) will almost always be reverted.
• You don't say why these oils are considered the most healthy (and that's a very strong claim), nor why the others are the least healthy. You can't just make such a strong statement without backing it up.
• The information on the portion of daily calories that should be acquired from various fats is already in the article, and doesn't need to be repeated.

So... I won't just revert it, but how about working on it either here (in the talk page) or in a sandbox page? I'd be happy to work with you on it, if you like, and I'm sure other editors would as well. Waitak 14:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Waitak, especially on the encyclopedic character of what was written, and the overly casual approach to the existing references. Wiggy! 15:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First draft of revised version: please tell me if this is OK so I (or you) can replace it

Generally speaking, all oil is fat and the daily intake of fats should always be kept very low. However as it is still required for cooking and as a very limited amount of fat still need to be taken in daily (no more than 10% of a persons day's worth of calories), it is best to divert to a cooking oil which is at least more healthy. The healthiest oils are those that are composed of the lowest amount of saturated fatty acids and the highest amount of unsaturated (preferably monounsaturated) fats.. Also, to prevent overheating of the oil (which makes the oils very unhealthy and turns them into cancer-causing agents), the cooking oil must always be chosen based on the function it is to serve (high-heat, medium-heat or low-heat frying/baking). If you're realizing, unrefined olive oil smokes at a higher temperature than non-refined sunflower/safflower oil and extra light olive oil has a very high smoke point.

You've misread the FDA article you're quoting. That 10% number is for saturated fat, not all all fat. The recommendation is for 30% total, equally divided between saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. And "wisegeek" is hardly a reliable source. Saturated oils do not turn rancid in cooking, and rancid is VERY unhealthy. Monounsaturated and polyunsaturated oils are excellent as salad oils, but are marginal for cooking purposes. ClairSamoht - Wikipedia - by policy, they don't care about truth, by practice, they don't care about verifiability. 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On a whole, the common oils which are considered the most healthy can be divided into 3 categories, one for each temperature range between 500 and less than 320 degrees fahrenheit. They are marked on the table below.

high-temperature frying (500 degrees fahrenheit and above)	super canola oil, almond oil, apricot kernel oil, high-oleic safflower oil or sunflower oil, peanut or soybean oils
medium temperature frying (below 375 degrees fahrenheit)	canola, walnut, sunflower or sesame. Use or any of the higher-heat oils for sauces
low-temperature frying (less than 320 degrees fahrenheit)	olive, corn,

The cooking oils which are considered least healthy (being made up of mostly saturated fats) are:

 [[coconut oil]], [[palm oil]], ... 

You shouldn't be using unattributed "are considered" sentences in WikiPedia, as Wikipedia does not claim to be an authority. Instead, it reports what authorities say. You should be saying "John Doe, Surgeon General of the Second Congregational Church of Kidneystones, recommends" ClairSamoht - Wikipedia - by policy, they don't care about truth, by practice, they don't care about verifiability. 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra considerations

Aldough the examples above mention which oils are generally most healthy, there are some exeptions:

Peanut allergy

Peanut, cashew and other nut-based oils may also present a hazard to persons with a nut allergy. A severe allergic reaction may cause anaphylactic shock and result in death.

Trans fats

Cooking oil is a special problem, as hydrogenation of oils makes them more stable, but also creates trans fats which are unhealthy.

Animal products (dairy and lard) can create trans fats for certain usage however the traces of trans fat from animals and other products which have saturated fats are significantly less than the concentration found in oils that has been through hydrogenation and isn't hazardous when consumed normally in a balanced diet. Coconut oil is an exception to the idea.

You will note that the reference next given by Zippo, oliveoilsource, basically refutes the prior paragraph. "Changing a cis-fat to a trans-fat does not occur on a home stove." And I'd like some reference that says hydrogenating coconut oil produces less trans fats than lard has. Lard has *zero* transfats when you cut it out of the animal. I don't see how you'd get *negative* amounts of trans fats when you hydrogenate coconut oil. ClairSamoht - Wikipedia - by policy, they don't care about truth, by practice, they don't care about verifiability. 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Butter is around 4% CLA, so lard might have a few percent as well. Hydrogenating coconut oil (partially or fully) produces at most, less than 4%.

Some hydrogenation of oils occurs during cooking, causing normally healthy unsaturated fats like olive oil to convert to trans fats. But in non-industrial settings this process does not occur at appreciable quantities.

Zippo 09:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put back the original version of the discussion in the talk page, and moved your first draft to the end. In general, you shouldn't edit existing content of talk pages. That makes it look like the discussion was something other than what it actually was. It's better to do what I've done here: leave the old content, and add new content to the bottom of the discussion.

I'll look at the specifics of the draft in a separate post. One initial comment, though: "limited as much as possible" and "some amounts of fat still need to be taken in daily" don't go together. More later. Waitak 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

-->perhaps the "table" for the second list (least healthy oils) should be reworked. I used the "pre"-tag as I don't exactly know whats the correct way. This however makes the links to not work. Perhaps you can put this right (while still preserving the same look; it looks better when the 2 tables are both the same size, spanning the entire screen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 09:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Andrea G. Hi, I don't know if this is the correct forum for adding my comments but I just wanted to bring to your attention that coconut oil should definitely not be listed as the most unhealthy oil. If you speak to any knowledgeable nutritionist or Naturopathic Doctor about fats and oils, he/she will probably tell you that virgin coconut oil is the ONLY oil that should ever be used for cooking. Coconut oil is heat stable and does not break down into harmful free radicals, etc. the way that vegetable oils do during cooking. As well, the medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) in coconut oil are believed to be very heart healthy. Sure there are some conflicting studies on this topic but at a minimum, both opinions should be included. (Remember when "they" told us to eat margarine instead of butter, and use artificial sweeteners instead of sugar?) Please be careful about encouraging people to fry their food in canola oil! Thanks for your time. Andrea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.7.246 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC) If you go to oliveoilsource.com, go to chemistry and go to "How olive oil goes rancid, then you'll see that rancid olive oil isn't poisonous it's healthy just like non-rancid olive oil (just not as healthy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.42.30 (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this is arguing something from three years ago, but I would like to point out that a "naturopathic doctor" is not a real doctor by any modern standard. Alternative medicine/science does not and should not ever get any serious recommendation in any article, except for articles specifically about "alternative" science and medicine. Coconut oil is horrible for you because it's almost completely saturated fat (at least according to Wikipedia's page on both cooking oil in general and according to the coconut oil page, which didn't seem to cite sources from what I could see), which is one of the worst kinds of fat, as one can assume from the fact that the American Heart Assocation recommend only a maximum of 7% of saturated fat as your daily intake of total fat. Thankfully, that's how the article reads, but I'd like to state this here for anyone who randomly reads the discussion page and sees the above guy's post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.230.26 (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cooking oil contaminates water...

This information about 1lt of cooking oil being able to contaminate 1 million litres of water has appeared again and again in my inbox. Perhaps here is the origin of this. It is sourced but the source is just a Brazilian webpage of unknown credibility. For some reason my mind tells me that this is a classic rumour spread through email. 1 million litres of water!? Sounds illogical. Could someone who has studied the subject (e.g. a chemical engineer) clarify this? Thanx! Kalambaki2 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "contaminates" is not the mot juste, as it somewhat implies that the water is rendered "toxic" or "poisonous". The idea (which is not that surprising or illogical) is that oil floats over water and spreads into a thin membrane, preventing oxigenation of water and deteriorating its quality. While 1 million litres seems a lot, it corresponds to an area of 30x30 metres and a depth of 1 metre. SaintCahier (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy this. The NYC page (ref. 8) talks about "motor oil" contamination, not cooking oil. After all, cooking oil is biodegradable. Aldo L (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct and/or provide citation. Petrodiesel will degrade given sufficient residency too - it's a matter of time until chemical breakdown (e.g., Biodiesel breaks down faster than veg oil, and veg oil faster than #2 petro, but this is relative[1]). I suspect the questionable ratio has more to do with oxygen depletion. As veg oil breaks down in a waterway, oxygen normally available to wildlife is consumed. Here's the best source I could find in limited time.--E8 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I just ran across this page and thought the reference to 1 million liters of water seemed somewhat suspect. I appreciate SaintCahier's possible rationalization for it, but if the point is credible, we should either find a credible citation for it, or remove it... Reecesel (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote Remove it. Aldo L (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the real reason why cooking oil should not be discarded down the kitchen sink, at least in New York City: "Liquefied fat, oil, or grease (FOG) that is poured down the kitchen sink drain can cause serious impacts. FOG can cling to the insides of pipes and the sewer system. Over time, it can build up and can eventually block pipes completely. If wastewater can’t move freely through pipes and out into the sewer system, it can back up into your home and can cause unsanitary conditions and damages that can be expensive to repair." http://nyc.gov/html/dep/html/residents/congrease.shtml

This whole affair reminds me of those chain e-mail messages that cry "Save water! The Earth is running out of it", while drinking water is actually a renewable resource and the real problem is the lack of sufficient treatment and distribution facilities. Aldo L (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs, E8. Good job. The main problem seems to be eutrophication. So, from my chair here dumping a truckload of cooking oil into a lagoon would do no more harm that dumping a truckload of eggs. Aldo L (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Health

Why are vegetable cooking oils supposed to be consumed in a limited volume? If they are naturally unsaturated and contain 0g of cholesterol per serving, what are the potential health risks from overconsumption. This should be included in the article as well. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to the health effects section included weasel phrasing. This phrasing cannot remain, but the content it was added to is questionable. The wiseGEEK source wasn't reliable for this subject and has been removed. This leaves the statements in question without a reliable source. There should be a substantial amount of reliable research on this subject.--E8 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cooking without oil

In the article, a section should come which mentions cooking techniques that do not use any oil. These include steaming and boiling (eg trough the use of rice cookers, food steamers, tefal frying pans, ...).

Also mention the CRON-diet, rawfood-diet and other diets that make very limited use of oil or no oil at all.

Thanks,

KVDP (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Udo Erasmus source

Please discuss the reliability of this source here.--E8 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

E8, if you think that a negative book review (by a competing writer, mind you) means that there's no concensus on a topic, then there wouldn't be concensus on anything that has been written on Wikipedia, would there?

When I look at your track record, it seems to me that your contributions mainly consist of removing other peoples contributions. I find this not in the good spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for and by all people, and must certainly not become the playground of hairsplitters.

Really, how sick is your life if you use a program to check on other peoples contributions? HAHAHAHAHA Now, have fun destroying all those hours people spent on writing articles for Wikipedia, only to find out later that someone didn't find what they had to say all that important.

• For the sake of civility, please remove the personal attacks. Notably, I did comment on how to improve the additions you proposed, linked on talk page (if you look here, you'll note I'm not the only editor to revert your work and comment on your page). Keep in mind, Wikipedia editors do not own their edits, and when there is disagreement about an issue, it's Wikipedia policy to discuss these issues on the talk pages. If you have constructive input about the reliability of your singular source, or any quality secondary sources that verify Udo Erasmus's claims, please continue the discussion here.--E8 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest editors rethink their mission. Personally, I'm not going to invest half a day of work into Wikipedia anymore because your work is removed AND censored too easily. Good luck with your job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.207.78 (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate doubts on the reliability, not censorship. There is a case, Case No. CV 98-475 LGB in the US District Court, Central District of California. Relevant Records site Translated Dutch page sheds light on the details, saying (at least seemingly, translated by machine as it is) that in the case it was stated that Erasmus has his credentials from a fake university, Donsbach University, having in the 1960s left University of British Columbia with no degree.--99.102.232.238 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Waste cooking oil

Should waste cooking oil really be disposed (when recycling is not applicable) by putting it in a sealed non-recyclable container and discard it with regular garbage? It would, intuitively, be better to put it into a biodegradable container and discard it with biodegradable waste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.1.21 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is easier to recycle a clean container than one with a non-water-soluble content. Besides, being recyclable does not equal being biodegradable. Anyway, see the discussion about cooking oil "contaminating" water. Aldo L (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the neutrality of sat/unsat fat

- Palm Oil argument: Neutrality disputed because this section is backed up only by sources 9-11 which are from just one author - NG T. K. from Malaysia. Owing to the fact that Malaysia is a large exporter of palm oil and that there are only Malaysian sources support these claims, I call their neutrality disputable. --Lordtct (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

- Vested interest of contributor - The author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.46.125.252) of the disputed section seemed to have great interest in promoting hydrogenated fat and palm oil products. Interesting, the author is also a contributor to IOI Group page, a palm oil company in Malaysia. IP address resolves to Malaysia. --Lordtct (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Two of the sources have peer-review, one being the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and as such, are considered reliable sources; if they are outdated or flawed in some way, there should be other publications refuting or improving on the findings. If the user has incorrectly cited, misquoted, or skewed information from the sources, this should be corrected and could indicate conflict of interest of the user, as you have suggested. If there is specific content that you can show is biased, please post in detail.--E8 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Smoke Points information should be removed from the big table

It is inaccurate and does not have enough references. Also the information is duplicated (although not as good as) in Smoke point.

Chicago2020 (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cooking fat

Cooking fat redirects to this article, which deals only with vegetable oils. Where is the discussion of butter, lard, dripping, suet, goosefat and the like as cooking fats? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This bothered me as well: the intro says that cooking oil is "of plant origin", but further down lard and clarified butter are mentioned, which are only of plant origin if you consider what the animal ate. //Essin (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And Category:Cooking fats is a subcategory of Category:Cooking oils, which seems a bit backwards to me. Surely oils can be counted as fats, but not the other way round? //Essin (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oils are a subset of fat according to the WP definitions. This is indeed backwards, as you have noted.--E8 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. There may be a consensus for two articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cooking oil → Cooking fat – Cooking fat currently redirects here. There is no article on cooking fats. Oils are a subset of fats. This article should be moved to the broader title and expanded to include cooking fats, the traditional cooking medium in, inter alia, northern Europe, North America and India. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Discussion, determining consensus, and actually implementing the expansion of the scope of the article should be made first before any such rename. Otherwise, you may end up confusing readers who are specifically looking for the common name of "cooking oil" because it will not have the precise title per WP:CRITERIA. Of course, an alternative would be to first develop the cooking fat article as a separate page first, and then do a merge (then again, you might find a large amount of content to warrant two separate articles anyway). Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion was begun on 24 June; first reply was last week (see above). Yes, development of a separate cooking fat page is an option IMO; but see comments below on definitions from E8. I don't myself much mind how it's done, but suggest that the principal cooking fats used in (non-Mediterranean) western cuisine (butter, lard, goosefat, suet, dripping) get some kind of coverage in this wiki. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a cooking fats article, covering things like butter and lard. Waitak (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Oils are a subset of lipids. Fats are lipids that are solid at room temperature (like Crisco). Oils are lipids that are liquid at room temperature. My strong view is that the article should remain cooking oil. Waitak (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• From Oil: "An oil is any substance that is liquid at ambient temperatures and does not mix with water but may mix with other oils and organic solvents." From Fat: "Fats consist of a wide group of compounds that are generally soluble in organic solvents and generally insoluble in water. Chemically, fats are triglycerides, triesters of glycerol and any of several fatty acids. Fats may be either solid or liquid at room temperature, depending on their structure and composition." This would clearly make oils a subgroup of fats. The fats definition is further explained, but repeated use of the term "usually" is a bit weaselly. Perhaps the definition of Fat needs modification (with citations), as there is discussion of the definition of fat on its respective Talk.--E8 (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Here in England people seem to use in cooking and for frying, solid-at-room-temperature fat such as lard more often then sunflower oil or olive oil or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• The issue isn't whether cooking oils or cooking fats are more common. Rather, the question is whether cooking oils are a subset of cooking fats. My impression is that cooking oils are liquids, and cooking fats are solids. I don't believe that a vegetable oil would reasonably be called a cooking fat, the definition above notwithstanding. Waitak (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would say that both definitions (oils as a subset of fats, or oils and fats as subsets of triglyceride[ mixture]s) are common. Maybe a solution would be a separate article about cooking fat, which says that the term might or might not also cover cooking oils? Do whale oil and fish oil count as cooking oils? They're triglyceride mixtures that are used in food and are liquid at room temperature, but they're not of plant origin. //Essin (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hot chill oil.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hot chill oil.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced and how-to material

I have removed the following from the article, the first sentence because it is unreferenced, the second because it is how (not) to. Placing here in case anyone wants to fix and replace either one:

The generic term "vegetable oil" when used to label a cooking oil product may refer to a specific oil (such as rapeseed oil) or may refer to a blend of a variety of oils often based on palm, corn, soybean or sunflower oils.

However, care must be taken when storing flavored oils to prevent the growth of Clostridium botulinum (the bacteria that produces toxins that can lead to botulism).

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Rapeseed oil is poisonous, so it is never appropriate as a cooking oil, regardless of the temperature. Rapeseed oil is also not "remarketed" as Canola. So I replaced the reference in the medium cooking oil section 67.226.171.67 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)