Talk:Rapeseed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Toxic Oil Syndrome

"This was attributed to Olive Oil being adulterated with rapeseed oil, and in particular the effects of high erucic acid containing rapeseed oil. This has had a long term negative impact on the use of rapeseed and canola oil in Spain."

This is appears to be inaccurate -- see the US Wikipedia page on toxic oil syndrome:

"The commonly-accepted hypothesis states that toxic compounds derived during the refinement process, used to remove the aniline and to denature oils intended for industrial use, were responsible [for the illness]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.3.226.241 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be a fair amount of discussion as to whether oil was even the cause of the outbreak. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/aug/25/research.highereducation

"...vast quantities of the oil were sold in regions (notably Catalonia) where there had not been a single case of illness."

Untitled

Extracting and refining rapeseed oil external link is dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.157.149 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that rapeseed oil is very dangerous to humans when consumed. This article says it is not dangerous. What's the whole story?

Original varieties contained a substance which was toxic. Mostly used for lamps and consumed by poor people, or during WWI. Then varieties without were isolated (in Canada I think), multiplied... and current cultivated ones are not toxic any more. SweetLittleFluffyThing

See my comment about Canola below. Glucosinolates were the problem.Tomcrisp7 12:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Emergency landings

Rapeseed fields are considered ideal when attempting to make a light aircraft emergency landings (practice forced landings). This is because the bright yellow colour allows the pilot to easily identify any powerlines in a field which usually blend into grass.

I'm a licensed glider pilot, trained in landing in casual terrain, which is inherent feature of this sport. I'm pretty sure that the above is a terrible false. In fact, landing in rapeseed field is extremely dangerous. Rapeseed plants are very branched, and branches of neighbouring plants are entwined, so the whole field forms a dense carpet-like net. In addition, these plants are quite strong.

When you land in, for example, potatoes, your undercarriage meets and fells subsequent plants, which are big, but stand alone. They succumb under your wheels easily and gradually slow you down, as they absorb some of your kinetic energy. The same is true for most crops, but when you land in rapeseed, the rapeseed plants do not fall so easily as they support each other. They catch and hold your wheels as a net and don't allow to move further. It's very probable to tear your wheels off, cause a turnover or drive aircraft's nose into the ground.

It is even safer to land in a corn field or even a tree nursery than in rapeseed!

Moreover: bright yellow has nothing to do with powerlines recognition. The pylons indicate where the power lines go, and there is no problem if the wire blends into the grass - pilots look for pylons, not wires.

I decided to remove the quoted statements. This kind of false information can hurt someone.

--Grzes (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Curious inverted name

Is there any reason why people use both "rape seed oil" and "oil seed rape" as synonyms, but would never use , eg, both "sunflower seed oil" and "oil seed sunflower". Why do people invert the name? Is this a modern occurence, and if so what was the original name? 88.107.119.202 16:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well they aren't actually synonyms, because "rape seed oil" refers to the oil and "oil seed rape" refers to the plant. But the complex terminology is most likely an attempt to disambiguate from the crime in horticultural use. Pollinator 16:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Oilseed sunflowers" is common terminology to distinguish them from "confectionary sunflowers". That refers to the plants, not to their oil. Gene Nygaard 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hay Fever

Despite what I have just read. I know when Rape seed oil is in flower because it crucifies me.

Another comment - I lived near a field that for a couple of years was turned over the rape cultivation. My hayfever worsened considerably, as did my father's.

Further comment - I feel the hayfever issue has been side-stepped, as far as I am concerned it is an evil plant that gives me hayfever. Quote 'as rapeseed is an entomophilous crop, with pollen transfer primarily by insects' - is this why my car gets covered in a yellow dust??

I think this is a complex issue - the pollen certainly makes honey taste where bees commonly feed on the plant. But it is not a wind spread pollen. The plant does have a considerable odour especially in flower and farmers consider it discourages those walking on their land. Given the smell during flowering it does produce some volatile organic chemicals and these might be responsible for the allergies which would not technically be hay fever, as the allergy might not be a response to the pollen. Ardalby (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nutritional properties ?

Does anyone know what the nutritional properties of rapeseed oil is ? I have been using light olive oil but the rapeseed holds up better to high heat. I know that olive oil is safe and even beneficial in the diet - Need to know about these qualities in rapeseed oil. E Mail me @ ferlady@pacbell.net - Thank you.

Internet Myths/Urban Legends about rapeseed/canola oil

There are rampant lies on the topic on the internet, often spread in highly alarmist email with claims such as rape seed being related to mustard plants (true), which in turn are claimed to be the source of Mustard gas, the chemical weapon (Totally false: mustard gas is named that because it smells somewhat like mustard and NOT because of its origin). Other false claims include: canola oil causes mad cow disease, causes glaucoma, "emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability, and blindness in animals and humans" and a host of other ills[1]. I assume it is a combination of our society's common fear of the evils of the big corporation (it is usually claimed it was created by an evil industry empire), genetic engineering and technology in general (it is claimed to be genetically engineered, not true: though some common varieties are genetically engineered there are also full organic crops with no genetic engineering), and maybe the name itself, since "rape" causes such a heavy emotional reaction in many people... hard NOT to go "ick" at something called "rapeseed" - and no surprise they named the new strain "canola."

I think a section on this should be added - maybe just a short mention of the pervasive myth and its veracity. This might be the information people are looking for when they look it up, as seen by the first comment at the top of this page. Bigdoglover 11:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Just noticed I missed the links to debunking articles at the bottom. Still, should there be an actual paragraph on this? Bigdoglover 11:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Roundup Ready Controversy

I've added a paragraph pointing out that herbicide use in modern agriculture is so widespread that the biodiversity problem isn't limited to herbicide-tolerant crops. Also, by growing a different crop, and using a selective herbicide, the volunteer plants are quite easy to eliminate. From my experience as a farmer, now retired, I know these real problems have been exaggerated by campaigners. Unfortunately, a lot of the websites on this topic are produced by campaigns--verification is going to be tricky, and may depend on assembling a chain of references to show what's the common knowledge of the farmer. Zhochaka 09:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. If I could grow "Round-Up ready" GMO rape (which we can't in Europe) I would not be at all worried about the volunteer rape being resistant to Round-Up (glyphosate) in following crops. I have added as little as 5g per hectare of Ally (metsulfuron-methyl ; DuPont) during stubble cleaning (the process of chemically clearing existing weeds prior to planting a new crop) with great success as rape is not very susceptible to the low (3 litres / hectare) doses of 380g glyphosate concentration Round-Up typically used in stubble cleaning anyway. Even if this didn't work, cultivation work would destroy the resistant rape volunteers, and even then, should a few survive, the broad-leaved weed herbicide used on the following wheat crop (Bifenox + Mecoprop, for example) would kill the remainder. If a handful of plants survived, it would not change the fact that they, whilst being resistant to Round-Up, would succumb to all other broad-leaved weed herbicides, of which there are litterally hundreds. So would any wild plants they bred with, although this idea is to all intents and purposes a figment of the environmental activist's imagination in any real sense.Tomcrisp7 13:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article really needs some clean-up. The last sentence of the second paragraph makes absolutely no sense. I don't think it meets standards for neutrality either. Facts about Rapeseed and myths about Rapeseed should be clearly separated into separate sections, or myths and opinions should not be mentioned at all. Instead of saying that people with allergies are psycho, try saying "one explanation offered is.." 66.122.246.153 03:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Sandy

Pests and diseases

Oh dear, oh dear. What this needs is the help of a producer or agronomist. I'll do this if you like when I have some time. We need to be talking about the most severe European pests and diseases such as Cabbage Leaf Flea Beetle and Phoma.Tomcrisp7 12:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a producer or agronomist from North America could do the same for the North American side ?Tomcrisp7 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Canola

To my knowledge the word Canola is simply the North American terminology for rapeseed and does in no way refer to particular varieties (cultivar = a word only used in horticulture) nor refer to erucic acid content. Modern rape varieties are known as "Double 0" or "00" varieties as they have been bred to no longer contain the impurities that prevented its development for so long, erucic acid and "glucosinolates".Tomcrisp7 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Canola is a trademarked variety of Rapeseed, Tom. The trademark is owned by the Canola Council of Canada; here are some references that you might find of interest:

http://www.canola-council.org/ind_definition.html

http://www.canola-council.org/ind_overview.html

http://www.canola-council.org/Rapeseed.aspx

http://www.canola-council.org/cooking_myths.html

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 14:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jim. Your link goes to a website that states:

"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."

This states that Rapeseed cannot be called Canola if it has less than two per cent erucic acid and less than 30 umoles glucosinolates. This does not imply a particular variety of canola, it is a commercial definition norm for the oil products of all varieties of Canola / European "00" oilseed rape. Since the vast majority of modern varieties of commercially known Canola / European "00" oilseed rape meet these norms this would entitle all such growers and industrials to use the term when applied to these products. Example : the variety "Jet Neuf" (France 1982) produces oil of over 30 umoles glucosinolates, and therefore could not be referred to by the Canadian term Canola. On the other hand, the variety "Campala", an "00" variety (France 2003) has low levels and could be referred to as Canola although Europeans would not want to as there is no popular conception of the word in Europe as applied to this crop. Thank you for clearing that up. I think maybe you were confusing my use of the word "variety" which is the agricultural equivalent of the word cultivar. So may I propose a mutual conclusion that establishes that "Canola" is a Canadian (originally) term meaning "00" oilseed rape in Europe ? Tomcrisp7 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, the exact technical answer would be the definition given by the Canola Council of Canada at http://www.canola-council.org/ind_definition.html:

The official definition of canola is:

... an oil that must contain less than 2% erucic acid, and

the solid component of the seed must contain less than

30 micromoles of any one or any mixture of

3-butenyl glucosinolate, 4-pentenyl glucosinolate,

2-hydroxy-3 butenyl glucosinolate, and 2-hydroxy-

4-pentenyl glucosinolate per gram of air-dry, oil-free solid.

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, so we can establish that Canola is not, as you claimed, a trademarked variety (cultivar) of rapeseed. We can establish that Canola is a trademark establishing a minimum inclusion of erucic acid and glucosinolates that applies to all varieties (cultivars) of the crop and the oil made from them, and that only European "double 0" rapeseeds and their oils could be given the name Canola if the Europeans so desired. May I ask whether in North America farmers differenciate between "Rapeseed" and "canola" crops ? I suspect that Canola is the populist generic term for all rapeseed there as I have never heard any American up until now use the words rape, rapeseed or oilseed rape. In fact I have often had to translate "rapeseed" to "canola" for American friends in order for them to understand what I was talking about.

Taking your last point first, Tom, no; "Canola" is not a generic term for rapeseed. By way of analogy, all jets are planes; all planes are not jets. Canola is a subset of rapeseed that must meet the Canola Council of Canada definition. Some of the links above give the historical background of how the Canola variant was originally bred from rapeseed. To the best of my knowledge, Tom, "Canola" continues to be a trademarked term. You can find trademark references quickly if you google for "canola" and "trademark". For example:

http://canola-council.org/PDF/canola/english/milestones21.pdf

http://www.hart.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-122.html

http://www.canola.ab.ca/tec/gml/shtml

It may be (and this is simply a guess) that "Canola" remains a trademarked term, while "canola" has become an accepted generic term for anything that meets the Canola Council of Canada definition. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not acceptable for the article to say "one particular cultivar, Canola". This should be changed to a phrase referring to a trademark defining minimum quality standards for oilseeds and oil. By all means cross reference to the Canola Council but I fear you are misunderstanding the big picture here. Canola is not a cultivar of rape, the Canola council do not pretend that it is. Also, for the benefit of Europeans who have no familiarity with the term, the article should say something like "...the crop and its oil are known by the term Canola in North America". You seem to think I am disputing the idea of the Canola trademark. I am not. But this is not the priority usage of the term among professionals, as you would know if you were from an agricultural background. I do not go around saying I am a grower of "double 0" rapeseed, as there is no need, the default term is rapeseed in Europe, and is Canola in North America. Oilseed rape and oil that would not meet the Canola Council standards is no longer grown in Europe, and to my knowledge, in North America, except for specialist contracts. That this specialist minority crop and its oil should not be referred to as Canola, tell that to all the American farmers who only know of the word "Canola".

Here is an extract from:

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxcanola.html

"Canola" is defined as any of several varieties of the rape plant having seeds that contain less than 2% erucic acid, and whose solid component contains less than 30 micromoles per gram of glucosinolates. (This has been the statutory definition in Canada since 1986.) If you ever come across rapeseed oil that is *not* canola, avoid it, because erucic acid causes heart lesions, and glucosinolates cause thyroid enlargement and poor feed conversion!
Rape plants have been grown in Europe since the 13th century; rapeseed oil was used in Asia and Europe originally in lamps, and later as a cooking oil. Canola was developed between 1958 and 1974 by two Canadian scientists, Baldur Stefansson and Richard Downey.
Dictionaries have variously explained "canola" as standing for "Canada oil, low acid", and as a blend of "Canada" and "colza". I imagine that "Mazola" (a brand name for corn [= "maize"] oil) had an influence.
"Canola" was originally a trademark in Canada, but is now a generic term. It's the only term one is now likely to encounter there on packaging and in newspapers and books; some sources do say that canola was "formerly called rape". But the term "rape" still has some currency among Canadian farmers. (Although "rape" denoting the plant is etymologically unconnected with "rape" meaning forced sexual intercourse, the homonymy doubtless contributed to the former term's falling into disfavour.)
The Canola Council of Canada, based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, told me that "Canola" was registered as a trademark in 1978 (that's one year before MWCD10's 1979) by the Western Canadian Oilseed Crushers' Association, and that control of the term was transferred in 1980 to the Rapeseed Association of Canada, which changed its name to the Canola Council of Canada the same year. They say that the origin is simply "Canadian oil", that "it's not an acronym", and that rapeseed oil that does not meet the criteria for canola should still be called "rapeseed oil"".

Note the part : "Canola" was originally a trademark in Canada, but is now a generic term"; whearas you just said "Taking your last point first, Tom, no; "Canola" is not a generic term for rapeseed".

You seem to think "Canola" is a cultivar (variety) whearas it is clearly not.

Tomcrisp7 08:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I didn't put the word "cultivar" in the article. I'm not specifically arguing for it. I said canola was a "trademarked variety of rapeseed" that must meet the Canola Council of Canada's definition. If it's the word "variety" that bothers you, I'm happy to use the word "subset". As to the current trademark status of Canola, I literally don't know. I find conflicting sources, many of which assert the trademark status, and others that say the term has become generic. Finally, I said "canola is not a generic term for rapeseed", and that seems to be the significant sticking point for you. I believe you are saying that something like the following: "Europeans understand rapeseed to mean modern 00 varieties only, therefore all rapeseed according to this understanding 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, this is the part of your argument that I honestly don't understand. Google the term "non-canola rapeseed". Can you explain once more why you believe "canola" is a synonym for "rapeseed"? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with the article at the moment is that it basically says that rapeseed oil is not fit for human consumption and that canola is a type of rapeseed oil which has been bred to be safe. The implication that rapeseed oil which is not called canola is unsafe is pretty alarming considering there is no such word as canola in the UK. Someone who found this article because they wanted to make a recipe they found on a US website and googled canola to find out what it was might well not feel clear that it is exactly the same stuff they can buy in any supermarket labelled as rapeseed oil or vegetable oil. At the moment the article makes it sound like the UK has laxer food standards than the US and Canada and have a lot of potentially dodgy bottles of oilseed rape on our shelves.

According to the Canola Council of Canada, canola is not only certain varieties of brassica napus but also some varieties of brassica rapa and some varieties of brassica juncea. The article, especially the opening paragraph, makes it seem as though canola is only brassica napus. It would seem to me to be better to remove most references to canola from this article and to add them to brassica. Coyets (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Cultivation and uses

I would dispute the comment that "rapeseed is primarily cultivated for animal feed". As a producer, I believe this crop is classified as an "oilseed", and the commercial organisation for production and sale is directed to oil tituration plants. The rape meal is considered a by-product. The EU support scheme also classes rape as an oilseed.

As a dairy producer I would say that rape meal at around 35% protein is fatally flawed as a competitor to soya meal at 45% protein as it is less concentrated. Also the trituration plants use high temperature ether extraction methods which "cook" the resulting meal leading to loss of digestibility. Therefore you never know in advance when you order a 27 tonne load whether the product is going to be good or "cooked". Cold pressed rape meal is a better product and can be produced by small scale farm biodiesel projects. You are correct about the problem with GM guarantees. This mainly affects organic producers.Tomcrisp7 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the emphasis on 'cattle feed' is a result of the original marketing campaign. Whole Rape is not suitable for cattle at all (because of the Erucic acid content)so the original Canola variety was developed. The latter sales and marketing efforts to worry the food regulators into recommending this variety in response to the magic'ed up fears to human health came latter, (humans can actually digest erucic acid very well, and poor Indians who still cook with it have been found have less heart disease than those who can afford 'healthier' oils). So at the time this was (by definition) Canola's only Unique_selling_proposition. This aspect or benefit (ie. you can also feed it to cattle) was exaggerated to get a point across to the would be purchaser. So, yes, you are probable right that the article needs to be brought into line with reality. --Aspro 11:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

roundup ready rapeseed

I understand roundup ready rapeseed is supposed to be a non-fertile hybrid, so it shouldn't self-sow - if it does self-sow, how are you supposed to kill it?Garrie 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

cultivation

it is mentioned that it is grown as a winter-cover crop - but this doesn't go far enough in saying that it is grown with the normal cereal cultivation machinery, as a part of a rotational cropping system eg controlling diseases and using different nutrient proportions to wheat, oats etc.Garrie 06:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I really think use of the rapeseed meal should be seperated out from cultivation. it may only be a by-product but it is economically important both to rapeseed production and to the feedlotting industries.Garrie 06:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

China Incident Under Health Section

It appears that the connection between the rapeseed oil and the stampede is purely coincidental. It doesn't belong in the article at all - and especially under the Health section. There is no need to take every bit of news trivia and carelessly stick it in wikipedia. 75.18.212.211 03:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to explain where it got its name

Article needs to explain where it got its name. And I'd like to know. "Rape-seed" ??? Where did that come from? And how does this have to do with rape? William Ortiz (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead already explains the etymology. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not very well. William Ortiz 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much to say. In Latin, rapa is a turnip, rapina is the act of pillaging or plundering, or generally taking something by force. But the older English word that preserved the Latin distinction, rapine, has fallen out of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.172.235 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags

It has been tagged for over half a year, and the bits that are likely myths are still in the article, uncited. Should be time soon to delete the worse half of the article. Narayanese (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

rapeseed or rape

Is this vegetable more commonly known as 'rapeseed' internationally? I have always heard of the plant referred to as rape, and the seed only as rapeseed.99.224.220.52 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative spellings

The product is generally sold in stores within the Northeastern United States as rappi[2][3] so I added that to the alternative spellings in the article.173.49.135.190 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Health concerns and erucic acid content

Some of these details may belong in a linked canola oil section and/or a linked erucic acid oil section, but this article does discuss facts relating to human consumption of low erucic acid rapeseed oil and should at least mention, summarize and link these details.

This is a very important subject not to be left out. Low erucic acid rapeseed oil is an ever increasing component of human food globally, perhaps especially in North America, and as the below material shows there is a huge literature documenting physiological changes and health effects in humans, rats, mice, guinea pigs, pigs, and squirrel monkeys. High levels of erucic acid, as found in normal rapeseed, are unsafe for animal consumption as a matter of consensus, and this certainly deserves discussion. Although low erucic acid rapeseed oil is legal for human consumption in most places, there is still a significant amount of research and opinion that believes there is doubt about its safety. There are so many health issues relating to erucic acid with some research support, they cannot be easily dismissed. Emphasizing the internet hoax as the only other point of view on this is highly misleading.

I think it is fair to give more citations and points on the point of view there may be a risk in rapeseed oil / erucic acid consumption. There is plenty of evidence and no definitive proof of safety in humans with regard to all the issues raised below. 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. Rat studies elucidating the toxic mechanisms of erucic acid are still being made. In any case, the status of all rat studies showing negative health effects is a still questioned by some scientific researchers and should not be so simply dismissed. See citations below.

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, the main dietary source of erucic acid. 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, however it probably belongs in the article on canola oil rather than erucic acid.

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 ... RiceMilk (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the information above is not included in the article on rape seed. The article as it stands seems very biased to me. There has been research even in Canadian Universities showing that rape is detrimental to cattle. specifically the Dept. of Animal Science in Manitoba. The article on rape seed as it stands looks like a propaganda piece by canola and rape growers. It makes me question Wikipedia's neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminouswolf (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[ I moved the preceding comment by Luminouswolf to below those of RiceMilk (rather than within them), as it appeared to be one person's comments with two signatures, and was therefore confusing. Hamamelis (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC) ]

The health impact of erucic acid needs to be in a separate section. The level of erucic acid in canola oil is regulated. Negative health impact of erucic acid is not the same as negative health impact of canola oil. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Smoke Point

There is an article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point

on the meaning of the term Smoke Point. It compares many oils and as such is quite helpful with a choice of cooking oil etc. Would someone who knows consider adding the Smoke Point of Rapeseed Oil to that article? Andoni (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Roundup Ready

I can smell Monsantos dirty hands all over this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.134.191 (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, look. A nutter.

Boo! Monsanto's under your bed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If Monsanto is under your bed, you have been genetically modified and will have to pay a licence fee to them every time you experience a happy ending... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.9.81 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yu Choy?

Yu Choy redirects here. Is Yu Choy (the common Chinese vegetable) the same as Rape? 75.42.18.69 (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Although Yu choy redirects to this article, the article only mentions yau choy as being "some varieties of rapeseed". Is yu choy a misspelling or an alternative spelling? Coyets (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The majority of European cars and trucks run on diesel fuel and an estimated 66% of total rapeseed oil supply in the European Union is expected to be used for biodiesel production in the 2010-2011 year.

What does this mean, in plain English?

The sentence is too long and got garbled on the way.

At first I thought it was saying "The majority of European cars and trucks run on diesel fuel", which it does, but I don't think that's what it means.

So change it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.104.119 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)