Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've read that site too but a after a quick look at Wiki I maintain the differences are negligible and that as canola is bred from rapeseed, when referring to cooking oil canola is the name given to the same stuff that we call rape.

I suspect if they were different we would be able to buy 'canola oil' in the UK.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Isn't canola effectively a genetically modified form of rapeseed?

>

> Yes...


No...!


From your own post, Foxy: "In the 1970s canola was created through traditional plant cross-breeding"]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Isn't canola effectively a genetically

> modified form of rapeseed?

> >

> > Yes...

>

> No...!

>

> From your own post, Foxy: "In the 1970s canola was

> created through traditional plant cross-breeding"]


Not that simple.... Rape seed oil needs to be modified before cross breeding


Canola oil is developed from the rapeseed plant, which is part of the mustard family of plants. These oils have long been used for industrial purposes (in candles, lipsticks, soaps, inks, lubricants, and biofuels). It?s an industrial oil, not a food.


Rapeseed oil is the source behind mustard gas, and on its own it causes emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability, and blindness. But through the beauty of genetic modification, we now sell it as an edible oil.


The claim is that canola is safe to use because through modification it is no longer rapeseed but ?canola.? Except? canola is just genetically modified rapeseed.


http://vanessaruns.com/2011/02/08/gmos-and-why-you-should-never-use-canola-oil/


DulwichFox

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------


> > > > Isn't canola effectively a genetically modified form of rapeseed?

> > >

> > > Yes...

> >

> > No...!

> >

> > From your own post, Foxy: "In the 1970s canola was created through traditional plant cross-breeding"]

>

> Not that simple.... Rape seed oil needs to be modified before cross breeding


That sentence doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever, Foxy.



> The claim is that canola is safe to use because through modification it is no longer rapeseed but

> ?canola.? Except? canola is just genetically modified rapeseed.


The development of Canola not involve any genetic modification for the very simple and obvious reason that Canola was created in the 1970s, but genetic modification technology for plants didn't exist until the 1980s. It is impossible for Canola to be based on GM technology!



> http://vanessaruns.com/2011/02/08/gmos-and-why-you-should-never-use-canola-oil/

>

> DulwichFox


Foxy, you really need to find some credible sites for your information. The 'information' on that site is pretty much completely based on the email hoax Snopes identified.

READ this thread once through but can't find the fact that McDonald's have very recently had to admit that there are fifteen (or was it seventeen?) ingredients in their 'fries' AS WELL AS potatoes and (one) cooking oil. McDonalds have set about playing this down by mounting a youth-friendly video campaign in which a boy-ish trustworthy-looking actor pretends to be candidly answering answering an innocent FAQ (on the viewers behalf!) by going through the list of 'fries' ingredients as though the company had disclosed them out of stupendous generosity. The video ends with the actor saying something like: 'So that's it! You keep firing the questions at me, and I'll keep digging-out the answers for you'. It's quite consummately done. The main script goes something like this, listing the ingredients in turn: 'Ultra-noxious-mineral-manipulate'? - that's just another name for flavouring! You want flavour in your fries, right; 'Chemicalicalised-mutation-inoganic-super-poxic'? Why, that's just an entirely natural something we need to keep your fries fresh! You want your McDonald's fries fresh don't you?. . . and so on. It cleverly diverts away from all fair and real concerns, like, for example, why on earth there are actually seventeen ingredients in what is probably - with the exception of a raw carrot - the world's simplest food; a food which I think we all take for granted as involving no more than chipped potatoes and oil.


Perhaps the number of chemicals involved is what we should have expected all along from this company. However what I was not prepared for - and, perhaps, not just because I am vegetarian - is that meat could be involved. But, yep, beef extract is one of the ingredients (That one's for flavour! We know you want your fries tasty!, or some such line). I don't often eat (eat?) at McDonalds, but I don't avoid fast-food joints on principle. Before their introduction of veggie-burgers I just had chips; suddenly veggie-burger and chips seem a viable - if not satisfying - option. But we now see the deception that's been going on over all the years: one food line is specifically sold as not containing meat, while another, that (most unexpectedly) does contain meat is not actually suitable for vegetarians! Overlook my personal dietary whims, but consider those who have religious constrictions on what they eat being duped by this chain, with as I think we all know by now chance of apology or comeback.


[Fresh edit] APOLOGIES, FOLk - I was cross-directed to (what I now discover I failed to notice was just the third page of) this thread by search, and therefore hadn't read the earlier postings when I read it. Sorry for the repetitions

DIX Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But, yep, beef extract is one of the ingredients


Not in the UK they don't. "McDonald's UK French Fries are officially accredited by the Vegetarian Society."


> consider those who have religious constrictions on what they eat


Why? Why is religious belief more important than people who have actually arrived at their morals through independent thought?

My original post was just to highlight that 17-19 were used to produce French Fries..


I was just astonished.


The thing that amazes me is from some of the replies here,indicates that people do not seem to care

or show any level of concern for what's in their food, whilst at the same time ranting and raving

in other threads about restaurants that are selling Organic produce and their willingness to pay through

the nose for it..


DulwichFox

The KFC Hotdog looks absolutely vile. And I like KFC (gravy rocks).


Used to like the Maccas banana milkshakes a lot as a kid, but suffered from a lot of migraines as a teenager, and had particularly bad one on a day when I'd had a milkshake, and haven't been able to touch them in the 20 odd years since.


Best urban myth was that KFC were farming freak chickens with 8 legs or whatever, and that they'd changed the name to KFC because they were not allowed to use the word Chicken.


All utter bollocks, but good fun.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • A festival-style trolley that will fit in a hatch back. For moving son into halls at uni with a very far away car park!  Thanks    Lottie   
    • Hi, my daughter has a basic electric keyboard she really should clear out of her old room. It's a classic beginners one. Are you interested?  If so, I'll photograph it and find the name.    Lottie 
    • I don’t think Reform will withstand the heat of any election.  Finding enough people to stand will be bad enough. Finding credible ones quite a bid tougher  I think yes this government is lacking in a long term plan and has not had a good first year. Today the least.   but the speed with which this was dealt with is a notable shift compared to last 14 years where months would drag by and we would constantly be told to draw a line under  if Labour called an election tomorrow, there is not a single party that could present a better alternative with any credibility. And that’s a low bar Reform are dangerous lunatics but more worrying is the descent of the Tories into the same swamp i also worry that England voters have contracted some melodrama virus after the Tories where we had 5 PMs in almost as many years  it’s ok for governments to be unpopular without needing to have an election every 1-2 years       Looks like Lucy Connolly will me one of those Reform candidates at next election tells you everything you need to know about that party and where the country would be headed 
    • Well, I made £50 out of it and Alice owes me another bullseye, so I had a good day Clearly the thread has moved on, but just a final few words on Rayner (from me, at least). If she hadn't gone like this (with a chance to revive her career at some point in the future) there's plenty of other stuff loaded up and ready to be fired at her about the motivation, finances and machinations of her move down South. It's not pretty reading. Tawdry doesn't come close. I was born in Ashton Hospital and grew up in Tameside, I've got a lot of friends and family who weren't as lucky as me and didn't make it out, some close to her constituency party, and there's been a lot of bad feeling around 'Our Ange' for a long time. My favourite quote was: 'She should fuck off back to Stockport.' And that was from a party member. The writing was on the wall for her. Moving from Ashton (majority c6.5k, large Pakistani minority, but predominantly white working class and targeted by both the Independent Alliance and Reform) to Hove (majority c20k, neither of these issues with the electorate) was a pretty cynical move, and she's fucked it royally. 'The Honourable Member for Hove and Portslade' will be sleeping a lot easier in their bed tonight. This thread was never supposed to about Labour bashing, and I'm not sure it is. It's definitely descended into 'Whataboutery', and that seems to be the problem, in my mind at least, with British politics. It's playground stuff, he said/she said, blame-game bollocks. Watch PMQs and ask yourself if you'd accept this sort of behaviour amongst toddlers, let alone in an elected parliament. One thing that does stand out is the opposition to Reform across the board, and yet we seem to be sleepwalking towards a likely scenario where Farage could head up a minority Reform government. I've 'followed' politics since the late Seventies - mainly because the BBC News came on right after 'Roobard and Custard' or 'The Magic Roundabout' - and I can't remember an era where both major parties are so bereft of leadership, direction or ideas. There's a certain irony that we'll all be getting a test text on Sunday to warn us of an impending 'National Emergency'. Seems quite prescient.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...