The Weston Price Foundation[2]) have concerns about the possible health risks of Canola oil. Claims made by the Weston Price Foundation include: animal testing that indicates growth retardation, a higher incidence of heart lesions of the myocardium, decrease in platelet count and increase in platelet size, vitamin E deficiency, high blood pressure, and lowered life spans. In many of the studies cited by the Foundation, when saturated fats were added to the diets, health improved. The Weston Price Foundation also states that the modern process of extracting the oils with high-pressure mechanical pressing along with industrial solvent residue in the oil such as Hexane in itself can be toxic. These heat, high pressure and solvent processing methods[3] are common with most contemporary vegetable oils. Since omega-3 fatty acids rapidly become offensive smelling and subject to rancidification when processed with high heat and oxygen, the oil is then subjected to a deodorizing process which removes much of the Omega-3 and replaces it with trans fats. The actual claims of the Omega 3 content of processed canola oil have been challenged by a study[4] done at the University of Florida which found trans fat levels of up to 4.6 percent in commercial canola oil as opposed to the Canadian Governments assertion that the oil has 0.2 percent trans fat. Because of concerns about inhibited growth in human infants, canola oil is not permitted in infant formula by the FDA[citation needed].
Genetic modification
Genetically modified canola which is resistant to herbicide was first introduced to Canada in 1995. Today 80% of the area of canola is sown with genetically modified canola.[20]
Contamination of conventional canola crops from neighbouring genetically engineered fields has been a serious problem for Canadian canola farmers. It is very difficult for farmers to grow non-GM crops because of the frequent contamination.
The most high-profile case of contamination is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, where Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement because his field was contaminated with Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready glyphosate tolerant canola. The supreme court ruled that Percy was in violation of Monsanto's patent because the crops were growing on his land, but he was not required to pay Monsanto damages since he did not benefit financially from its presence.[21] On March 19, 2008, Schmeiser and Monsanto Canada Inc came to an out of court settlement whereby Monsanto will pay for the clean-up costs of the contamination which came to a total of $660 Canadian. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if any further contamination occurred.[22]
Introduction of the genetically modified crop to Australia is generating considerable controversy.[23] Canola is Australia's third biggest crop, and is often used by wheat farmers as a break crop to improve soil quality. As of 2008 the only genetically modified crops in Australia were non-food crops: carnations and cotton. In 2003, Australia's gene technology regulator approved the release of canola altered to make it resistant to the herbicide Glufosinate ammonium.[24]
No comments:
Post a Comment