I came across this article and couldn’t help but notice the dubious wording they use and how their answer goes logically wrong:
First off, the inclusion of phrases like “on the Internet” is meant to discredit the idea before it’s even mentioned and note that Mayo Clinic article itself is “on the Internet”. The phrase “toxins that are harmful to humans” is also suspect. Does that mean it has toxins but they claim they aren’t harmful to us? Does that mean it wasn’t good for the rats but they think this is one the time our anatomies are not analogous? Regardless, they’re trying to make it wordy. The best way to phrase the question would be: “Does Canola oil really contain toxins?”. They use that question as the title, so they should have left it at that. They should also cite the sources of the rumor and confront them explicitly.
The post then goes on to deny this (big surprise) without supporting its claims. Ms. Zeratsky takes out the straw man of erucic acid but neglects to mention the real problem people have with Canola oil. The problem with Canola oil is not directly related to its contents: it’s the problem of rancidity. If it’s highly prone to go rancid and consuming rancid oils is harmful to your health, then Canola oil is not a healthier option, especially for cooking (but isn’t that all you do with it because it doesn’t taste good enough to garnish/drizzle with?).
I know Canola is a brand name that people invested in it want to protect, but in a free market economy if your product isn’t good, your business fails. We’ve chosen in this country to operate that way, to allow competition and uncertainty to drive us after quality. We really need to stop protecting bad ideas and unhealthy food. Even if it is logistically difficult to abandon them, it will be worth it to us in the long run.