Lindybill,
You give yourself away when you start attacking "Genetically modified" foods. You must think I am dumb enough not to know that this process is just a more efficient way of modifying plants than the methods we have been using for thousands of years. Take a look at the corn found by the Spaniards in South America and what was done with it the old fashioned modified way.
I can't deny that I enjoy sweet corn on the cob that is most likely genetically modified. Like I said, I am not an absolutist. I just research things as I go, and categorize things as good, bad, neutral, and when I eat, I try to limit the bad, eat more of the good.
I am by no means some kind of luddite. I also believe in evolution, but I am not for trying for an evolutionary leap during my lifetime, with me being on the receiving end of the dietary shock. Besides, I (or my wife) are past childbearing age, so if I were to evolve, overcome and adapt to the experiments the food industry throws at us, I am not going to be passing on these genes on any more.
So with the food I eat, I am no longer the guinea pig for humanity, it is only about me. The risk benefit is the benefit for the humanity, if I were to develop superior genes and procreate, risk is all to me and my health. So the risk / benefit analysis is prety one sided, IMO.
Therefore, with my own scoring, Canola went from good (high in Monosaturated) to neutral or even bad category (as I learned more), since there could be risks associated with it. I see 3 risks:
1. it still has 28% Omega 6
2. apparently, not stable at high heat (property shared with all unsaturated fats)
3. GMO "risks"
You can use (or disregard) the info as you please.
Joe |
