>...I have no idea whether the claims made there are true, so it
>would be interesting to hear from anyone who has more knowledge of
>the subject than I.
>
>http://www.sightings.com/politics6/canola.htm

Dropped by, can only say, "like duh!"

This list's archives have some past discussions on canola.

IMO canola fails the Paleo Criterion in several ways:
- It is not edible raw (well, sure you can eat it,
  but you can say that about many toxins).
- It is extracted by high-tech methods.
- Most/all canola/rape is GM, and therefore not
  researched well or long enough to determine what
  else the GM plant is cranking out.

This last is admittedly the "Frankenfood" criterion,
but since Paleo draws heavily on evolutionary theory,
the principle of insufficient adaptation to a change
in food supply would seem to apply here. Paleos argue,
quite sensibly, that humans haven't adapted well to
the agricultural staples over the last 10K years. I
should think that this would apply doubly to the
entirely new "corporate" foods of the last 5-10 years.

And please, don't quibble about getting that bottle
of organic, hand-pressed canola from Uncle Fritz's
back 40. Nobody else is going to have that, if it
really does exist, which is unlikely. What we're
talking about is what 99.99999% of consumers are
going to buy through standard retail channels: GM,
erucic-toxic, high-tech purified, wild-land plowing,
agribusiness-serving product. Rant finis!