Talk:Erucic acid

message: The article on Canola says Erucic acid had been linked to cancer in large amounts.  This article needs to elaborate on this and other health risks there are from Erucic acid, and for that mater any health benefits.
:I have the references for this article ready but there on the Windows PC which has gone down  again. Please bare with me for a few days, until I get it up and running again.--Aspro 18:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Erucic acid silver salt has be found to useful modify the properties of photographic film.
This sentence in the Uses section requires editing for clarity by someone who understands the intent. Trelligan 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There. Have endeavoured to keep it really simple to understand and comprehensive. Does it make sense to everyone? --Aspro 08:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence requires editing 

message: ------------------------
The health section is really far from NPOV. It cites the canola oil council as a main reference (?) and has many references to an internet hoax, but ignores all the legitimate research and reasonable concerns detailed below. It appears to be a whitewash job focusing on a straw man. 
I think it is fair to give more citations and points on the point of view there may be a risk in canola oil / erucic acid consumption. There is plenty of evidence and no definitive proof of safety in humans. What is the role of a long-term longitudinal study in humans in providing definitive evidence that canola oil is safe in terms of many potential health issues?
citations given below for all points. Some of these points may be belong here, some in the erucic acid article that should be linked, and others in both:
1) the FDA does require less than 2% erucic oil in food grade rapeseed oil, shouldn't this be mentioned, and why?
2) the defense against negative rat studies is that they have trouble processing vegetable oils. But some studies with negative results control for this, and in others specific changes in cellular chemistry specific to erucic acid are revealed. Rat studies elucidating the toxic mechanisms of erucic acid are still being made. In any case, the status of all rat studies showing negative health effects is a still questioned by some scientific researchers and should not be so simply dismissed. See citations below.
3) again in terms of this defense against rat studies, there are studies with health effects in mice and gerbils, and also pigs and squirrel monkeys that don't have trouble processing vegetable oils.
4) there are a number of studies in humans showing large changes in cellular chemistry due to erucic acid.
5) the article does not say why erucic acid should not be taken by infants. It is not broken down in the infant liver, but why is that necessary?
::See Metabolism of erucic acid:  these particular enzymes are in short supply (as the mother's milk is the normal food source during this period), although not totally absent.[2][3] --Aspro (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Started to answer your points  but you appear to be misreading something and getting other things confused. A lot of time was spent combing through the stuff that got added  to Canola, which then found its way over to this article.  Much of it seemed to come from conspiracy sites and the like. Then hours where spent reading through each paper and evaluating them from a NPOV and putting what was left in some meaningful context. As you said somewhere, there is a lot of financing bias out on the web and in the media, so  we removed that which does not belong in an encyclopedia or which were poor examples or plain bum steering non-sense. Skimming through the above, it reads to me as if you're suggesting we  just add it all back in again. As I get time,  I'll go through these two articles again  and see if I can phrase thing more clearly to address your observations. --Aspro (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health issues not NPOV 

message: The first citation in the heart concerns section does not address concerns for heart disease in humans, nor anything about health effects of feeding erucic oils to animals or humans. The second citation does not discuss at all the effect of different types of oils on rats. These references should be replaced with appropriate ones.
RiceMilk (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart concerns - incorrect citations 

message: The first 2 sentences of the "Health effects" section are echoed nearly word-for-word by the section "Low erucic acid rapeseed", producing an odd deja vu effect in the reader.  Could somebody clean this up?  --Reify-tech (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial duplication of text

message: Today in this dif I deleted the following:
Epidemiological studies suggest that, in regions where mustard oil is still used in a traditional manner, mustard oil may afford some protection against cardiovascular diseases. In this sense “traditional” means that (a) the oil is used fresh; and (b) vegetable fats count only as a small percentage of the total caloric intake. Whether this effect is due to the nature of erucic acid per se to make the blood platelets less sticky, or to the presence of a reasonably high percentage of α-linolenic acid, or to a combination of properties of fresh unrefined oil, is as yet uncertain. Care needs to be taken with such epidemiological studies to exclude the possibility of early deaths from other causes skewing the results. The fact that early asymptomatic coronary disease is readily detectable post mortem and is absent in the mustard oil cohorts tends to add weight to the hypothesis that mustard oil is protective. ref 
The reason I deleted it, is that entire paragraph is based on a single primary source, and as per MEDRS we do not base content on primary sources - we rely on review articles.   I also want to say, that this is not just MEDRS, the policy WP:OR also drives for secondary sources. 
The deletion was reverted by  in this dif with the comment, Wikilawyering.   In response, I say, following policies and guidelines is not wikilawyering!  we need to find decent secondary sources to work off of.  I was looking in pubmed and there are other primary sources that contradict this one, so we have a case here of classic WP:OR by cherrypicking a source.  We need secondary sources not primary ones, to avoid this problem.
I think the FSANZ monograph is great http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/Erucic%20acid%20monograph.pdf and is pretty recent.  Can we use this as our sourcde, Aspro?  Thanks Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for heavens sake Jytdog, spend some time to  read and comprehend the papers your so keen to use  to to support your fringe ideas. That  paper you quote above even says “However, the available evidence does not indicate an association between myocardial lesions, of the type observed in rats, or significant myocardial lipidosis, and the consumption of rapeseed oil.” Which is what I and the other editors of this article, (who evidently  have have spent more time than you),  have  researched and  laid out!--Aspro (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: please comment on content, not contributor. i was working on the mustard oil article when you reverted me here - it is a more elaborated version of where i think it would be good to go. i would appreciate it if you would respond to what i wrote above. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I also want to point out, that the 2004 Rastogi paper at no point says that erucic acid is good for you.  It points back to the early 1998 study by Ghafoorunissa which found that the negatives of erucic acid outweighed the benefits of ALA in mustard oil; the 2004 Rastogi paper just says that this didn't happen here  - I quote "The inverse association that we observed between mustard oil consumption and IHD risk may support a beneficial effect of α-linolenic acid intake.... Unlike canola oil, mustard oil is also a source of erucic acid (22:1), a long-chain monounsaturated fatty acid. It has been suggested that erucic acid in mustard oil may counterbalance the beneficial effects of linolenic acid by increasing serum LDL-cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations (30 - this is the 1998 paper). However, our findings suggest that the overall effect of mustard seed oil is beneficial."  So there is no way you can use the 2004 paper to argue the erucic acid is good for you. Rastogi doesn't say that, and putting that in WP is OR. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDRS issue 

message: 1) The cited reference "No negative health effects of any exposure to erucic acid have been documented in humans.[5]" does not make that statement at all. What it concludes is only that "... the available evidence does not indicate an association between myocardial lesions, of the type observed in rats, or significant myocardial lipidosis, and the consumption of rapeseed oil." This review article only examines erucic acid as a cause of myocardial lesions in humans, only one specific health effect, not all heath effects; erucic acid is associated with many other health effects than just myocardial lesions in animals and humans.
Thus the cited reference does not support the claim that references it.
2) From the Mayo Clinic website:
""Rapeseed oil contains very high levels of erucic acid, a compound that in large amounts can be toxic to humans. "
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/canola-oil/faq-20058235
The Mayo Clinic website is a valid wikipedia source for the review of medical information and is saying that erucic acid is toxic to humans. Therefore at the very least how can it be valid to state that erucic acid is not toxic to humans in this article?
3) Canola, which contains erucic acid, is not just human food, but used as animal feed. In 2007-2008, 2.5 million metric tons of Canada produced canola meal (rapeseed meal) alone was used as animal feed around the world:
page 3, Canola Council of Canada, "Canola meal Feed Guide",
http://www.canolacouncil.org/media/516716/canola_meal_feed_guide_english.pdf
Therefore toxicology data for animals has a place in this article.
4) From the highly regarded medical textbook on toxicology, most recent edition, there is a paragraph on the toxicity of erucic acid (p. 656-657):
"Growth suppression, myocardial fatty infiltration, mononuclear cell infiltration, and were observed in weanlging rats fed with erucic acid...In addition, ducklings showed hydropericardium and cirrhosis, and guinea developed splenomegaly and hemolytic anemia."
"In humans, however, although ...Lorenzl's oil (oleic and erucic acid) ... leads to thrombocytopenia and lympopenia... adverse effects from dietary consumption of erucic acid have not been reported.", pg. 657,
Hayes' Principles and Methods of Toxicology, Sixth Edition
A. Wallace Hayes, Claire L. Kruger
CRC Press, Oct 10, 2014 - Medical - 2184 pages
The section on erucic acid toxicology in this long established medical reference, a tertiary reference that summarizes review articles, is saying that erucic acid is toxic to various animals causing a number of different health effects. It also says that Lorenzo's Oil, a medication containing erucic acid, causes disease in humans, but that consuming erucic acid in the diet has no reported health effects. That is what the actual reference says, not original research.
A valid summary of these high quality references could be: Erucic acid is known to be toxic in animals and humans at high enough levels but there is no evidence of health risks to humans when consumed as part of the diet.
After a few weeks for discussion I will add these references to the article.
MongoNut (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: the current source here) is a gold standard toxicology report - the most recent one i could find that treated this in depth.  The Mayo Clinic website is not reliable per WP:MEDRS. And yes!  Hayes does say:  "In humans. however. although the long-term use of Lorenzo's oil (oleic acid and erucic acid) in the treatment of adrenoleukodystrophy or adrenomyeloneuropathy leads to thrombocytopenia and lymphopenia (Unkrig et al. 1994), adverse effects from dietary consumption of erucic acid have not been reported."  It is unclear what your point is. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrectly cited reference in health section

message: Pictured here is brassidic acid (trans isomer) whereas the page is about the cis isomer. I would recommend keeping brassidic acid on the page, but perhaps below the correct isomer of erucic acid, as well as being appropriately labeled. Dfcorrea00 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical structure 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erucic_acid#Sources_of_erucic_acid
Why is there a mention of Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed under Sources of Erucic Acid?
Since Lorenzo's Oil, has there been any research in Erucic Acid's influence on Serum Cholesterol?
Aaron
2601:18A:C781:8ABA:A950:6879:88E4:33F1 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: yes that was goofy. fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEAR as Source of Erucic? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Erucic acid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010225533/http://ers.usda.gov/publications/IUS6/ius6c.pdf to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/IUS6/ius6c.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified