I wonder if roe would be feasible

Canola, sunflower, and soy are some of the most widely consumed foods on the planet; presumably far exceeding consumption of salmon.

This wasn't always the case.

It makes it easy to wonder if there's a connection between that fact and the types of diseases, particularly auto immune and inflammatory diseases, that occur in the population.

This is an extremely studied question.

I tried to get my parents to switch from canola—universally used in India and Bangladesh these days—to time-tested mustard oil, and they were like “mhmm.” :-/

That's ironic, because rapeseed and mustard seed oils are about as closely related as any two food oils can be.

Other than the genetic engineering and solvent-based extraction of canola oil. But yes, that was my parents reaction as well. Regardless, it’s just butter, ghee, and sometimes olive or avocado oil at my house. Because food and cleanliness taboos are sub-scientific.

Totally agree with you. I do not understand how this viewpoint upsets people.

ant-seed oil is anti-scientific and prays on people being ignorant about the research on health outcomes and relies on emotional appeals and appeals to nature such as "the genetic engineering and solvent-based extraction of canola oil".

Calling the rejection of a novel highly processed food replacement like this anti-scientific is comically illogical.

Who are you trying to kid? You listed sunflower seed oil alongside canola --- you're presumably just as opposed to mustard seed oil.

It would be funny if the one seed oil you're OK with is mustard seed oil, the oil closest in composition to canola, the one oil anyone has a legit gripe about (it doesn't taste very good).

you care more about morally loaded terms than research and call me illogical. ok

I don’t think people eating butter instead of canola oil is what upsets people.

It’s people ignoring the mountain of evidence that such a switch would be a backwards step for health outcomes and claiming the opposite because they read a book by the usual rogues’ gallery of science misinterpreters (Taubes, Teicholz, Shanahan).

I don't know what time-tested means but mustard oil is banned in EU/US for edible uses due to high erucic acid. So you parents were right!

Mustard oil has been used in the subcontinent since the Indus valley civilization 4,500 years ago. It’s extremely well understood. Unlike solvent extraction of oil.

Canola oil is simply a mustard-seed oil from a hybrid mustard bred for low erucic acid content. Solvent extraction is widely used, but not something that defines canola oil. Cold-pressed and expeller-pressed canola oil are also produced on a smaller scale.

You write this as if there isn't controversy about mustard oil, which is banned in the United States because it contains high levels of a likely heart toxin ("Among South Asians living in the US, ASCVD risk is four-fold higher than the local population") and limited throughout Europe. The entire point of solvent extraction is convert rapeseed oil, which would otherwise be similarly problematic (they're basically the same plant!) into something less toxic than mustard oil (that's literally why it's called "canola").

I don't care either way; let the mustard oil flow. I don't buy the mustard oil thing either. Just don't pretend that mustard oil is somehow healthier than canola. Use whichever fat tastes best to you.

No, in populations which traditionally use mustard oil heart problems are common. So it's time tested to cause heart failure.

Is that true in a meaningful way? Bangladesh’s life expectancy at 65 is higher than richer countries like China, Vietnam, and Jordan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_lif...

Seams not all mustard oil is Banned in the EU.

I've got a bottle of Uncle Roy's cold pressed extra virgin "spicy" mustard seed oil at my local Spar.

The label reads "erucic acid free", so I'm guessing they somehow remove it?

It even has the awful pun of "The healthy Oilternative".

I understand they also remove (most of?) it from Canola Oil.

Thanks for letting me know, I'll try to get my hands on it.

The story is a lot more interesting than I could have imagined:

  It’s particularly popular in the northern state of West Bengal in India, where it’s used in dishes such as achaars, a pickled condiment used to add an acidic spice to a wide variety of dishes.

  Through careful breeding processes, the group of scientists were able to produce rapeseed plants with low levels of erucic acid. The oil, later to be named canola oil (can- for Canada, -ola which stands for “oil, low acid”) soon became a commercialized, easily marketable hit with both the public and science community alike (Fisher, 2020).

https://sites.bu.edu/gastronomyblog/2022/05/18/the-marvelous...

  The FDA has approved one brand of edible mustard seed oil that’s produced from a cultivar bred explicitly for its low levels of erucic acid.

https://www.andersonintl.com/the-controversy-surrounding-mus...

Still digging for the brand

Then it's results would be easy to summarize. Yet, I'm finding no such simple summary, nor good agreement between studies. It's not like this is a multi billion dollar a year industry so that's a very confusing outcome. /s

This is the sort of “logic” that people like RFK Jr. use. What’s the evidence for the connection you’re trying to make?

> This wasn't always the case.

This is pretty vague. Similarly ~50 years ago, people were not eating as much meat as they do today.

If one is going to make sweeping generalisations based on cross sectional data, you have to be open to all the sweeping generalisations.

So is it also easy to wonder if there’s a connection between high canola consumption and the fact we’re living longer than ever?

Okay? Many of us don't care for that.

Farm salmon is artificially colored, and the feedstock they're raised on includes the same oils.

Smoked and canned salmon are often packaged with similar oils and flavor additives.

Horrible, right? I avoid those too.

I base my choices on health outcomes rather than vibes.

This is a very silly take. If you consume any animal foods raised in the US, you are consuming canola / rapeseed meal, soybeans (90% of soy grown in the us is used to create animal feed), and sunflower seed / meal already. You are consuming it in a condensed secondary form (one tropic level up). It seems exceptionally backwards to be worried about eating any of these foods when the animals you eat are essentially just condensed versions of these ingredients where any downside effects would have accumulated heavily.

Also canola oil is now considered on par or healthier than olive oil. Soybeans are one of the worlds few complete plant protein sources with a high quality protein and widely consumed all over the world to both animals and humans to much beneficial effect. Sunflower oil is the least healthy thing here, but still considered quite healthy without excessive heating.

Many “beef burgers” have filler included like soy and wheat.

> You are consuming it in a condensed secondary form (one tropic level up).

I always find this is looked over and a double standard. You can raise an animal on a diet of anything along with medication, drugs, and supplements, and advocates will label the beef/chicken/pork product as "meat" and "natural" as if it was a single pure ingredient. But then if a non-meat alternative like a burger is mentioned, every individual ingredient used gets scrutinized, even if that ingredient is often fed to farm animals like soy or grain.

This, in my opinion, is the most important point in the thread and the clearest expression of it. For purposes of this argument, meat is conceived of essentially as a single ingredient, and the raising of the animal in artificial conditions, on hormones, fed on processed food with its associated environmental footprints are kind of sidestepped, while alternatives have to answer for every step in the chain of production.

That mapping seems correct to me, as a lot of the objections here are free-floating one-offs that presume these background assumptions more so than they are apples to apples comparisons intent on clearly comparing them in totality.

Fallacious argument. Buy grass fed and grass finished.

> I wish they'd just sell the fish cells, alone. Would love to try that.

They already sell those at the seafood aisle.