Canola Oil was developed without GMO biotechnology

The rape plant (Brassica napus) is related to mustard, turnip, cabbage, radish, and horseradish plants. Its oil has been used for centuries as a cooking oil in Europe and Asia (India and the Far East).

Both rapeseed oil and mustard seed oil contain relatively high levels of a fatty acid called erucic acid. As with some other oils, when heated to high temperatures unrefined rapeseed oil can release fumes which have been theorized to be associated with an increased lung cancer risk. These fumes have been blamed on its high erucic acid content; perhaps undeservedly since refined rapeseed oil did not seem to share this characteristic and since mustard seed oil is still a staple cooking oil in South and East Asia.

In any case, rapeseed oil was not sold as a food in the United States for many years, and this is why a low-erucic acid version was developed by traditional cross-breeding of varieties that had lower than usual levels. Originally developed in Canada in 1974, it was dubbed “Canola” oil to distinguish it from traditional rapeseed oil; the name implies its Canadian origin. This oil is often sold in Europe under its more commonly known “rapeseed” rather than the “Canola” name, even if the low erucic acid type is used.

Canola (low erucic acid rapeseed) oil received GRAS status in 1985, allowing it to be sold as a food or food additive in the United States.

These dates are long before the first commercial GMO crops were approved by the U.S. government in the mid-1990s. Since Canola’s breeding history actually goes back decades before that, it clearly was originally developed without the use of genetic engineering (GE, or biotechnology). Today, most of the canola grown in North America is GMO (from GE seeds); though there are still some Identity Preserved (IP) canola crops, from which is produced non-GMO canola oil.

The history of the use of rapeseed oil in food in the US is well summarized in the preamble of the final rule which affirmed the GRAS status of low erucic acid rapeseed (LEAR) oil (Federal Register, 1985: 21 CFR 184.1555 (c)(4)).

REFERENCES:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-oil-crops/canola.aspx#crophistory

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/canola.html

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp

What's the difference between non-GMO and organic?

IP-Certified Organics are produced without GMOs (genetically modified organisms) but are not tested for potential GMO contamination by pollen drift, etc. The IP stands for 'identity preserved"; in other words, there is an audit trail documenting the production and process inputs and a third party certifier overseeing and signing off on the paperwork. All crops and foods produced under this designation meet U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations under its National Organic Program (USDA-NOP) that include allowable and non-allowable agricultural and food production inputs. Such inputs include irradiation (not allowed), agricultural chemicals (only natural source ones allowed), and GMOs (not allowed). Theer are also lists of allowed/not allowed food addititives and rules for making label claims for organics.

IP-non-GMO certification is similar, but this certification is only for processes that exclude introducing GMO substances or seeds. The difference is that there are other restrictions as to what is allowed to be used with organics that don't apply to non-GMO conventional foods. For example, agricultural chemicals, synthetic food additives, etc are allowed with non-GMO but not for certified organics.

Testing is another issue. Testing of such products is not widely done, and studies have shown that there is less GMO contamination of certified organics than conventional crops when neither is supposed to contain GMOs. Exports to Europe may require GMO testing to be done and results must be under a threshold (typically 0.5% maximum). But most certified organic and non-GMO certified ingredients are not tested for residual GMOs that could have gotten in by seed contamination, pollen drift, handling errors, etc. and this is usually not considered to be a significant problem that requires testing.

Neil rebuts article on GMO (Biotech) safety

My response to the AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH's Health FactsAndFears article titled, "Studies Indicate GM Crops Are Safer and Healthier" is posted on their website below the original article: http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.962/news_detail.asp