Issue is more about trade barriers
READING the SciDevNet article titled “Palm oil under fire as potential carcinogen” recently caused me much despair as I found it not only misleading but also quite simple in its “black-and-white” approach.
I am not here to say that palm oil is an elixir. All foods – oils and fats, carbohydrates or proteins – when consumed in excess will do more harm than good. The same applies to coffee, sizzling steaks, chocolate and wine.
As for palm oil, well, it is one of the 17 oils and fats in this world consumed for over 5,000 years. In the SciDevNet article, palm oil is portrayed as an oil that may potentially cause cancer if consumed. The problem with this sort of (shall we call it) “sofa journalism” is that it is written in such a way that the word “potential” almost morphs into palm oil = cancer.
This is misleading and, above all, does not do anyone any justice but it does fan the flames of sensationalising perceptions even though the substance behind these claims are weak.
Firstly, many foods contain 3-MCPD or glycidol esters (GE), including processed meats such as sausages, and sauces, gravies and almost all vegetable oils. This is a fact.
And yes, while palm oil, if processed under inferior conditions, can display higher levels of these components there are also today many palm oil producers in Malaysia and Indonesia who can produce palm oil with 3MCPD and GE contents that are almost non-detectable and much lower than what is found in processed meats, gravies, sauces, biscuits and other vegetable oils.
So why only single out palm oil? This is really the crux of the matter. Believe me, it has a lot to do with creating trade barriers and protecting a fragile agricultural industry in Europe that today is artificially kept alive on subsidies from the EU’s common agricultural policy. Full stop.
Indeed, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been fast to pull the trigger, and while it is commendable to raise awareness and to reach for higher standards, we should also ask for explanations as to why the American Joint Executive Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has set thresholds for 3MCPD and GEs which are much less stringent compared to their European counterparts.
Furthermore, why is there absolutely no mention by the SciDevNet journalist that many chocolate spreads in Europe using sunflower oil were found to contain much higher levels of 3MCPD and GE visa-vis chocolate spreads containing palm oil? Why was this elegantly swept under the carpet?
Secondly, the attempt to link palmitic acid as a molecule of evil-boosting metastases – and with that the spread of cancer – is noth- ing but a scaremongering distortion of science. There is absolutely no sound evidence that can document beyond any doubt that palmitic acid is a cause for promoting cancer.
Palm oil does have a high percentage of palmitic acid but, please remember, so do red meats, mutton, pizzas, chocolates, cheese, cookies, etc. But there is absolutely no mention of this. Do these foods also have a link to cancer?
In fact, over the years I have observed that too many nutritionists, including SciDevNet’s journalist, fail to understand that people don’t eat fatty acids as pure chemicals.
Like all other food products, the health effects of an oil or a fat depend on what it does and does not contain and on what is eaten instead. In this context, SciDevNet’s science and, most importantly, their insinuations are misplaced.
Indeed, problems often arise from the presence of something which should be absent or from the absence of something which should be present. In this connection, it has become very clear that the article published on SciDevNet perhaps unintentionally opted for an absence of substantive journalism yet advocated for a sensationalistic piece of journalism that needs to be corrected.
Furthermore, why is there absolutely no mention by the SciDevNet journalist that many chocolate spreads in Europe using sunflower oil were found to contain much higher levels of 3MCPD and GE vis-a-vis chocolate spreads containing palm oil?