[lotsofpulp]

> As a challenge to anyone objecting to this comment,

You are free to comment whatever you want, but I don’t see any evidence to support your hypothesis on a population wide basis.

>I ask you to look up the history of canola oil and say whether such a substance would be accepted into the food supply today.

If you are referring to genetically modified rapeseed plants to be herbicide resistant, then it would most definitely be accepted into the food supply today. Genetically modifying plants still happens all over the world.

[jqgatsby]

It's funny, you're the only person who replied who mentioned my challenge, and it's clear you aren't familiar with the history of canola oil, nor are any of the other people replying. You "don't see any evidence" sounds so authoritative, like you are familar with the topic!

The relevant modification is with respect to erucic acid, which pre-modification, was 50% of the content of rapeseed oil, and which provably causes heart lesions in mammals.

There's no way that someone today could take a plant that naturally produces a useful but toxic industrial lubricant, modify it to be less toxic, and then start feeding it to humans. But in the 1970s you could still get away with stuff like that.

[lotsofpulp]

> There's no way that someone today could take a plant that naturally produces a useful but toxic industrial lubricant, modify it to be less toxic, and then start feeding it to humans. But in the 1970s you could still get away with stuff like that.

Why? I am not seeing the causation. Tomatoes came from a family of plants that are not edible, and now they are consumed worldwide.