The evidence might as well be nonexistent since it is out of reach. I cannot and have not seen it, all I have is 2 sentences to go off. I can find lots of 2 sentence refutations of impeccable source, but without any context, my sources are just as good as yours - which is to say, no good at all.
And while I applaud your desire to keep people informed, I have to say that scientific discussion requires laying out all the facts on the table in an open and forthright manner. There have been no facts brought to this particular discussion, other than the generalities we’ve talked about so far.
As to your other study, canola oil still contains erucic acid, which is far more toxic to rats than to humans. Our digestive systems can actually break down minimal amounts of erucic acid without difficulty. Rats on the other hand cannot handle it well at all, so you’d see a skew in the results from that factor alone.
They were not able to definitely attribute the cause of shortened lifespans based on analysis of the oxidative stress levels. Canola in fact proved beneficial in some ways, despite the shortened lifespans, in the reduction of cholesterol levels. They were only able to say that a change in the oxidative status of the system existed, and not able to attribute its source. There were also reference to previous studies on the effects of accumulation of plant sterols.
Canola oil is not a pure substance. It is a graded substance, marketed for sale at varying qualities. Once again, we have a study that doesn’t qualitatively assess the canola oil, but merely refers to its name, as if that is the only qualification needed. Was it 4% erucic acid? Was it 12%, meant for industrial lubrication? Was it .02% ultra fine cold pressed organic?
The study was good. They made all the right measurements and had the right experimental controls. They provide some good data, but it lacks important context, and fails to address a critical difference in human and rat digestion. Rats are generally less able to digest vegetable fats than humans. Vegetable oil, regardless of the source, tends to be pretty bad for rats - it is chronically toxic. Humans, however, have much more robust digestive systems, and are not only able to tolerate vegetable fats, but thrive on them.
I don’t see any evidence, imperfect or otherwise, that canola is unhealthy for human consumption. I agree that with nutrition you should proceed with great caution. I’m not seeing any danger from canola. I’m not even seeing the possibility of danger, yet - if such danger existed, there would be a strident debate occurring in the nutrition science world. Look at the heated back and forth about fructose and HFCS. There is no such canola dialogue among scientists, that I’m able to find - only bloggers and us little people.
I’m really damn good at looking stuff up online, and I’m just not seeing any evidence. I’m seeing a whole lot of hyperbole and link-generating auto spam on blogs, and 99% of them refer to the same 1994 study. 98% of those reference only the abstract. That’s not science, or evidence. That’s sensationalistic capitalization on peoples fears.