Scare Tactics: Canola Oil

So occasionally you will see images or posts going around social media making lofty accusations regarding this or that chemical/product/food item.  In general these are simply scare tactics that are being used to  re-enforce the ideals of "natural" and "holistic" diets/products.  So as we see these posted on social media, we will take some time to debunk them for you.

Canola Oil: Is it as bad as rape?
Now that heading is a bit sensationalist, we must admit.  However, that is the ideal set forward by the following post:

As you can tell, this post is warning the public about the TERROR that is Canola (rape) oil.  We thought we would begin our "Scare Tactics" series by analyzing this particular post for all it's merits.

Where does Canola Oil come from?

Indeed, Canola oil was created in Canada, as a derivative of the rapeseed plant in an effort to overcome the high acidity of the parent plant.  Rapeseed oil, because of it's high acidity, is indeed bad for human consumption.  However, here is where the article/post starts in with it's propaganda.  Rapeseed oil is NOT "Rape oil" and would never be described as such.  By using the term "Rape" to describe the oil, the authors of this posting are giving the readers a false association, they are saying that you should associate this oil with something as bad a rape.

"It is genetically engineered rapeseed".  Exactly, rapeseed was not fit for human consumption, but a derivative of it might be.  You may question us saying "how is that so?".  For those that don't know, the Corn that we all know, love, and eat today, is a "genetically modified" version of the original corn, teosinte.  Here is a pretty good article describing that corn.  We HIGHLY doubt you would want to taste it.  Genetic engineering is something that has been done for centuries.  Farmers would cross fertilize plants to make plants that were less drought sensitive, and produced better tasting and higher yield crops.  In the same vein, Canola plants were created from plants that grew fine, but had acidity that was overwhelming.  

Is this oil safe?

So the article continues to talk about Rapeseed as a lubricating oil, never meant for human consumption.  Indeed, this is true, as is the fact that it has been SUGGESTED to be bad for human health (The wall street journal is not now, nor has it ever been, a reliable scientific journal, we direct you to our earlier post about how to find a proper scientific journal).  There are many potential side effects of Rapeseed oil, however we are not worried about that, as it was deemed not fit for human consumption long ago.  

So finally we get to potential effects of Canola oil.  First, the claim that canola oil has trans fatty acids.  Somewhat true.  Canola oil actually has very low levels of trans fatty acids.  Trans fatty acids can be found in MANY food sources including (but not limited to) crackers, cookies, cakes, frozen pies, snack foods (like microwaved popcorn), frozen pizzas, fast food, margarine, coffee creamers, refrigerated dough, and ready to use frosting.

Then, "trans fatty acids have a direct link to cancer".  Now, there are several reviews out there (here and here as examples) that suggest there may be links between trans fatty acids and three types of cancer, colon, prostate and breast.  However, these associations as "weak" and "inconsistent", suggesting that there is far more to be studied here to directly understand the risks.  What is important to note, is that all of these claims are made on "diets high in trans fat", aka not just from canola oil.  Interestingly enough, a quick search in pubmed reveals that canola oil use may be beneficial, as it helps chemo drugs function and inhibits breast cancer growth in rat models! And this isn't the only study that says so! (Here's another, and here yet another)

The post continues with discussing that "rape seed" (should be rapeseed) was fed to cows who went blind, which has nothing to do with canola oil, as we've already established, it's a genetically modified version with differing properties.  Then "peanut oil is being replaced with rape oil..." again, rapeseed oil, and not canola oil that was used as part of mustard gas.

Are degenerative diseases caused by canola oil?!

In this portion o the post, we now get an explaination of Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) that claims it is a rare degenerative disease "caused by in a build up long-chain fatty acids (c22 to C28)...canola oil is a very long chain fatty acid oil (c22)".  The important thing to note here is that Adrenoleukodystrophy is a GENETIC DISORDER caused by a MUTATION OF A GENE.  It is not CAUSED by canola oil.  This disease results in hypersensitivity to long chain fatty acids, meaning that those with ALD should avoid them, including canola oil.  But canola oil will NOT cause ALD.

The posting ends with some anecdotal evidence about a man who bred birds making sure there is not rapeseed in their food (not canola seed, which again, is a different thing entirely).  And about Rapeseed oil omitting cancer causing chemicals (again, in the wall street journal, a highly reputable science journal /sarcasm).  Canola can be used as a pesticide, however it is believed to act not by killing the insects, but by "altering the outer layer of the leaf surface or acting as an irritant to the insect."

The Bottom Line

Canola oil is not Rapeseed oil.  Canola oil cannot, and will not, cause Adrenleukodystrophy.  Canola oil itself has been noted to be anti-cancer.  Do not believe every post you see, especially those attempting to tie a food item to a horrible crime (rape).  All the best!  

Understanding Scientific Literature, Part 1

So, there are many keys to understanding and reviewing scientific literature.  To understand it on the level of a PhD scientist isn't actually all that difficult.  So I thought I would give you all, over time, some tips to better understand scientific literature.

Part 1: The search for a "good" article

In order to understand if a point or argument you are reading about is relevant, it's good to learn what is, and isn't, a "good" article.  But first, where do you find articles?  That's extremely simple.  There are databases that one can put in terms, and get out all of the papers related to those terms.  So if you wanted to look up whether canola oil was good or bad for cancer.  You could just go to the database and type "cancer" and "canola oil", and boom, articles.  There are two primary databases for searching scientific articles.  The first is google scholar http://scholar.google.com .  Now, google scholar is a good place to find scholarly articles on any topic.  However, typically a google scholar listing is not necessarily an indication of a good journal.  Now, the other is http://www.pubmed.com .  Typically, most scientists looking for articles on a subject of inquiry into science/medicine will use pubmed.

So you've searched pubmed, and now you've found some papers!  But how do you tell which ones are "good" vs. "bad"?

Well let's take the example we mentioned above.  I searched canola oil, breast cancer on pubmed.  I have come up with nine articles, most of which stating that canola oil can be preventative for breast cancer.  So, which articles do I trust?  Well, the first thing to take into account is journal impact factor.  This is a metric that is assigned typically yearly in Journal Citation Reports from Thomson Reuters.  This measure basically says "how many times were articles published in this journal cited, vs the number of total articles in this journal".  The higher the value, the "better" the journal.  Now this isn't the be all end all of metrics, however if you are looking at journals, something with an impact factor of 1 will be far less difficult to publish in than a journal with an impact factor of 10.  There are online databases (behind registration walls) that track impact factors, but really the easiest way to see one is to google "journal name, impact factor".

Now, an article is published on pubmed, and has a good impact factor...does that mean it's a good paper and all the claims made accurate?  Well, while these are good early indicators, they do not necessarily mean that you have a "good" article.  We'll talk another time about actually reading data and figuring out if it matches what the person is saying in the article.  All the best!

The Warburg Effect and Cancer

So this blog is planned to be a home for scientific explanations about information that is being released on social media.  A little background: Yes, I am a PhD trained scientist.  I study things that people don't understand and they give me these horrible "wtf" looking faces when I try to explain it.  But that's me.  I am a caring loving individual who gets entirely stepped upon and walked over because I am too polite to push the subject.  Not anymore.

So what's the first thing I want to give my whole response to?  This image:

Now, why is this an issue?  It was presented as a way to tell people that they need to adjust their acidic pH (though I doubt these people even know what pH is) with essential oils.  But let's just take it at face value.  It has a quote, apparently attributed to Dr. Otto Warburg, a fairly famous cancer researcher.  However it does not include a citation to what document this is on page 77 of.  Without citation, why would anyone believe first that this quote is 100% one from Dr. Warburg?  I mean seriously.

Dave Sommers, a self employed entrepreneur (as his facebook lists him) with a Bachelors of the Arts in Communications is attributed in the bottom of the photo.  Now, here is the second issue with this image.  Why on earth would we trust a self employed entrepreneur with no science degree to analyze the data of Dr. Warburg and give us up to date information?

So what DID Dr. Warburg study?  Dr. Warburg studied metabolism of cancer cells.  Specifically, he has been noted for something called The Warburg Effect.  From the Wiki about this effect " the Warburg effect is the observation that most cancer cells predominantly produce energy by a high rate of glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation in the cytosol, rather than by a comparatively low rate of glycolysis followed by oxidation of pyruvate in mitochondria as in most normal cells.^[1][2] "  Those references at the end there are 15516961 and 16982728. For those that don't know, those are pubmed ID numbers and can be looked up on http://www.pubmed.com.  These are in reputable journals as well.  But what does this mean?  This means that instead of regular metabolism, cancer cells seem to have higher levels of glutamine metabolism.  Does this make them more acidic, possibly (though there are mechanisms within the cells that are upregulated to deal with this, because if it became too acidic the cells would eat themselves).  Interestingly, this is the complete opposite of the statement Mister Sommers postulates.  Why?  Because cancer cells survive JUST FINE in oxygen rich compartments.  Normal metabolism is NOT turned off in cancer cells and that's been shown numerous times.  Also, if this was a cause for cancer, than inhibitors of glycolytic pathways would be effective in cancer treatment and completely kill cancer cells.  While such inhibitors do exist and are undergoing investigation, there has been no clear evidence that these can work ALONE to kill cancers.


It was, in fact, Dr. Warburg's hypothesis that this shift of metabolism was the SOLE cause of cancer.  However, Dr. Warburg's hypothesis has been proved to be not true.  There are many oncogenes (genes/proteins that cause cancer) that have nothing to do directly with glycolytic metabolism.


For more information about the Warburg Effect, do check wikipedia.  They are well cited on THIS specific scientific effect.  Also, please learn to question anything someone presents to you, because as I put forth here, not everything is worthwhile and can be in fact quite misleading.  


I'll add some more posts later.  I hope this cleared this one up at least.