Anyone catch the Good Fat, Bat Fat - Facts behind the Fat show on Palm Oil in the AFC last Wednesday?

Its about trans fat in food and how Palm Oil has no transfat and is healthy. I did not know that it is an efficient crop. Could have been more interesting.

Didn't catch it, but we've really a big job ahead of us to re-educate the brainwashed public about the healthy palm oil because decades back, the soybean oil franchise gave us a beating. It was completely false but then again what isn't on TV?

I agree Teh Beng. Certain competitors of Palm Oil have been very aggressive in giving misconceptions about Palm Oil. It's time to set things right. I know that Palm Oil cannot be all good but its not all bad especially compared to other competing oils in other countries. I think Palm Oil has been singled out as a target as it is a very efficient competitive threat to other vegetable oil's market share. In the end, it's business.

din manage to catch it but sure it'll be shown over and over again.

i hv a couple bottles of carotina sample, havent use it yet. i read it produces good carrot cake, will try it and let you guys know how it fared.

I accidentally saw it. Meaning that I was flipping the channels and saw this. Its good to see a documentary that is neutral in reporting, not all bad. The documentary could be better done tho. A bit too lengthy and boring. And then while googling I stumbled on this

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2246072/zealand-auckland-zoo-bars

WTF?? New Zealand Zoo banning Cadbury because it contains palm oil? Why not ban Japan equipment because of its whaling industry? Why not ban American products for singlehandedly emitting 25% of the global ozone depleting gasses that is causing global climate change that affects everyone, Why not ban countries producing weapons that could destroy millions of people in one go? Aren't these bigger concerns on a global basis?

I think we need more documentaries and stuff to educate these poor misguided people. What say you FriedChillies? You guys champion the Nation's cause for local food right? Isn't palm oil our nation's food interest as well?

Im conflicted about this matter. While I do think that some of the protests against the palm oil industry is misguided and industry driven, Im not prepared to place National pride over enviromental concerns ranging from air quality (the forest in Sumatra isnt going to clear itself for new plantations-smog anyone?) to degradation of one of the few remaining biodiversty hotspots in the world (and home to at least 3 critically endangered species). Much more emphasis needs to be placed on sustainable palm oil production. There are legacies and then there are legacies. I remember when the leatherback turtle was a symbol of Malaysian tourism never thinking Id live to see it virtually extinct in Malaysian waters. Id hate to see the day when the only place you can find a orangutan is in the zoo.

Its not about palm oil, its about ethics. But then again, its easy to talk about ethics when we're not starving.

I totally agree with ensuring we care for the world as much as it cares for us. The resources of a country managed by an ideal government would almost always ensure a net economic gain for every citizen and the country's dependants (ie plants and animals). Unfortunately, there is no ideal government in existence today.

For now, let us ensure the citizens of this country put pressure on listed companies involved in the Palm oil industry to adhere to environmentally sound policies regardless of where their plantations are located. As for Indonesia, we can only politely ask them to do likewise. How that would have an impact on their citizens in the outskirts I have no idea, but to see them is to believe how hard their life is.

Great comments. Thanks you guys. Just to answer a few questions.

dim dim : We do champion the cause of Malaysia. But the task of championing the cause to convince the ones misguided by the media (as TehBeng said)is not solely ours. It's everyone in Malaysia. Information on this subject in terms of environment, palm oil etc is quite unbalanced as it is.

Anyway, I was talking to a group of my friends as well. Sometimes the discussion gets a bit heated, sometimes the agreement is mutual. Here are some of the issues brought forward :

1. If environment is the issue, wouldn't there be a better global effecr if we go after the countries who are culprits in polluting the environment?
2. If the developed countries are exporting Palm Oil to the rest of the world, would we even be having this conversation? No? So what's the real issue here?
3. Palm oil is natural, healthy and cheap for people. If it is replaced with competing oils are we willing to pay a higher price, consume less healthier oils or even genetically modified crops?
4. If we are concerned about orang utans due to deforestation, why only one species? Why not blame the the developed countries for the climate change that is making many species in the brink of extinction including the issue of water for people?
5. Is it better to drastically reduce the global carbon emission or stop deforestation but still let carbon emissions go up?
6. If countries with rainforest are tasked with reducing development in lieu of cleaning the environment, shouldn't these countries be compensated by the polluters?
7. Is the finger pointing about Palm Oil fair in relation to other countries actions on a global basis?
8. Why are we talking about only Palm Oil being sustainable, why not other commodity crops grown by other countries as well?
9. Do we have enough balanced facts about Palm Oil to make an informed decision about where we stand or is it clouded by other things?

i can conclude that olive oil equals to palm oil......enlighten me pls..

Are you asking a question? Making a statement?

hotspice - 28 July 2009 02:21 PM

i can conclude that olive oil equals to palm oil......enlighten me pls..

I agree that the matter can get quite heated at times. The enviroment is a multifaceted issue with most if not all playing a role in polluting the enviroment and certainly all bearing responsibility in cleaning it up. There seems to be a bit of a football game between the western/developed and eastern/developing world on blame and responsibility. President Bush raised mirror arguments in refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty. There seems to be a regrettable strain of chauvinism by all parties in dealing with the issue. In my view, the blame game will get us no where. Im not interested to preserve the rainforest just because the Developed Nations tell me to. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of palm oil production now goes towards bio fuels so they have a hand in it too. Then again if the judgement of the westerners are subject to bias, so is ours. I didnt mean to suggest that we should only be concerned with the protection of Orangutans anymore than I would suggest China should only be concerned with protecting Pandas. I used it as an example of an iconic critiquely endangered species which is dear to many people and belongs in the same family of primate as man. To me, the rainforest is a national treasure. Our national treasure. One we did not ask for or earn. One which we have the power but not the right to deny future generations. As I said, there are legacies and there are legacies. Forty years ago, we talked in terms of protecting the enviroment so that our grandchildren and great grandchidren can inherit it. Now there is a real possibility that certain local animals that my generation saw in zoos growing up may all be dead before we are. Sure, we could probably come up with a good argument that the Developed countries are as much to blame but what comfort is that? Is that what we want on our tombstones? "It wasnt me."? The world is spinning so much faster than it used to. Am I asking people to stop buying palm oil for cooking? No, but where possible that consumer voice should be used to preserve a legacy that, God willing, will endure long after this year's financial reports are either recycled (hopefully) or buried in a landfill. On a side note, I do like the idea of Developed Nations contributing money towards the preservation of rainforest but I would like to see that money go towards its intended goals. We cant just leave it to the authorities. Look at the Paya Indah Wetlands disaster.

On Teh Beng's point, while Fair Trade products havent exactly taken off, the basic principle of fairer payment terms to farmers for their work (even if it means less profit for the listed company owners) is sound.

Fair Trade is only prevalent in the west. I've yet to see it in this country.

Certainly what you've said about our natural resources is true. The key word is we inherited it and never truly deserved it. Thus we are actually custodians of it for the future. The future looks bleak indeed because the nature of man is selfishness.

I'm all for palm oil development, more appropriately sustainable palm oil development. But our economy system is bias. It doesn't appropriately reward producers of goods. Rather most of the cream goes to marketeers, retailers, bureaucracy and etc. This is part of the problem because without sufficient margins to sustain them, plantations are forced to cut corners and environmental protection is one of the first to go because it has no direct correlation to feeding them there and then.

We all know however, the environment has direct bearing on our lives in the future. Already we are seeing devastating effects of playing about with nature. Certainly the destruction of cities like Aceh, Orleans etc had a tremendous economic impact. One would say that the cost of it all would have covered all our environmental protection costs if we had it in place the first time around. But those who pays for those protection or remedial costs are not the ones who make the most money out of the produce. The costs either would have been borne by the plantations themselves or the government when it comes to disaster recovery. The free loaders mentioned earlier have made their pile.

We can discuss this at length and I wish we would because it would certainly show that kopitiamers here are not so far removed from reality that they only see the food before them but not the costs of getting it there. Far from preaching, each of us should discuss ways on how we can support environmental issues. FC can play a big part here but collecting information about all the eateries and their suppliers. We can with enough on the roll call play a lobbyist role. However I hesitate to intrude on what is not my baby.

As for the olive oil... no, I don't think palm oil is as good as olive oil. Palm oil is good, virgin coconut oil is even better. Each oil is different. But I do believe that the make up of man is that they respond most to the food qualities available in their geographical region. Thus I believe that for us south east asians, palm oil and coconut oil is the best oil for our consumption.

Shortening and margarine from hydrogenated palm oil is high in Trans Fat.

Huh. What an odd thing to say. Its hydrogenated fat. That's the bad stuff. You make hydrogenated fat from olive oil and linseed oil and it'll be just as bad.

I do agree that environmental issues are top priority. But I don't like the developed nations 'pigeon hole'ing Malaysia as perpetrators of climate change and killers of fury animals whilst they themselves are bigger perpetrators. By finger pointing to us and manipulating media doesn't mean that they are innocent. This manipulation has caused good people with good hearts and intentions to base their decisions on the wrong information and become the free agents of people with higher agenda. You can see that comments from posters such as asian-malaysian and tehbeng show that we care about the environment.

So, I personally would like to see a fairer reporting from the media and since there are no platforms to talk about the fairer side of palm oil as all the platforms out there are nearly or all bad, I am hoping that this forum can be a platform to voice my concerns.

So, as an example of fairer reporting, instead of saying that cutting down rainforest are all bad, we need to report that we still have above 60% forest cover as compared to developed nations who have as little as 20%. So maybe we go to the government to say that whilst we want progress, we want to cap the deforestation to maybe 30-40%. If other countries complain about our policy, then get them to limit their deforestation as well. 60% forest cover nationwide is a very high number that most developed countries cannot achieve without hindering their progress.

If we talk about orangutans, are we really killing them by the thousands? it appears from the media that we are. Or is it accidental when we log down some trees? Don't we have a orangutan relocation programme? Maybe we should not say cutting down trees are bad but pressure the government to fund sanctuaries so that we can move them. But why limit to just orangutans? Don't other animals deserve similar respect? Ot is it just because orangutans seems to look cute so they deserve special treatment? Isn't this just some BS media play then? What about looking at the bigger picture then? Countries developing weapons that have killed hundreds of thousands of people in one blast? And have reaped billions for sale of arms targeted at innocent civillians? Environmentally and sociologically, these give much worse impact on people and environment.

Coming back to this sticky issue of palm oil, I feel that we should have a more balanced information about this subject instad of being brainwashed by other people with higher agendas. Perhaps this is my starting point. Tehbeng gave a very good example. Someone said that hydrogenated palm oil is high in transfat. He pointed out that hydrodenation in itself is bad even for olive oil. I would like to add that whilst some other oils require hydrogenation to achieve a stable condition, this is not necessary for palm oil. And even if palm oil is hydrogenated, it has much less transfat than other hyd oils due to the chemical properties of palm oil.

Perhaps its time we set the record straight on Palm Oil? Have some form of mythbusters programme looking at all these issues fairly and see whether it is really plausible, confirmed or busted? Not just based on heresay.

I do think that the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) could do more to promote sustainable palm oil production with minimum dadamge tothe enviroment.

Im all for transparent information gathering about palm oil production. If anyone has clear figures that support the palm oil case Im eager to hear it. For the mean time I do treat the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a credible authority. The IUCN is the body that labeled the Sumatran Orangutan as cirtically endangered with estimated decline in population of over 80% over the last 75 years with an estimated population of 7,500. Thats what separates them from extinction. Once again, I mention the Orangutan as a pointed example and not as the be all and end all. If we are not willing to preserve the habitat of a creature to which most people are naturally inclined to feel affection for, it is a safe bet that the "Save the Dung Beetle" foundation wont be having their calls returned any time soon. Preserving the natural range of creatures like tigers and orangutans naturally means protecting all the other creatures (and people) sharing that enviroment.

With regard to media bias, I believe Hunter Thompson said that "Objective Journalism" was a contradiction in terms. The media will always be bias and industry players on both sides will always try to twist the story to fit their goals. Sometimes the rest of us just have to decide what we are going to do with the limited information and the time we are give.

It looks like whether you are right or wrong depends on which side of the fence you are on and what argument you are putting forward. It seems that if we just look at Palm Oil in isolation, we are bad but if we look at a macro level, issues people put forth negatively about Palm Oil pales in comparison to what other people are doing. Like I said, in the end, its business and what we need to see is whether the end justifies the means. But there is a lack of neutral information about palm oil out there. Just from the search engines, it's all bad, I believe. Asian-Malaysian does have a point on Objective Journalism. Perhaps the Malaysian palm oil industry should stand up and fight them back. If Objective Journalism is a contradiction, perhaps the malaysian side should be more aggresive and tell their story instead if they have one.

Likewise, other vegetable oil like Canola, sunflower, Corn, Soybean, Peanut, Coconut, etc is also Trans Fat Free unless hydrogenated.

Believe Malaysians intake of trans fat is mostly from margarine and shortening.

In related news, Indonesia's State Minister for Environment claimed that several plantation firms operating in Riau were behind the massive forest fires that caused dangerous levels of air pollution across the province last week and is planning on taking legal action. On the other hand, it was also reported that three Malaysian palm oil planters and major investors in Riau (operating a 180,000 hectare oil palm plantation there) have been asked to assist in preventing forest fires to reduce the haze situation.

i was intrigued from first seeing the promos on afc about how this "doco" would play out. i'm watching it right now and while i think y'all have a great debate going here, "good fat bad fat" was far from a "balanced" programme. it's utterly one-sided in favour of the palm oil industry, and contains glaring biases, inconsistencies and omissions.

i'd be very interested to find out where the funding came from to make it - sime darby perhaps?

keep up your informed and intelligent debate, but don't be fooled into thinking that this was an impartial production.

Its trully sad when media half truths make people believe facts that are not really true. If the palm oil industry does not address this issue, they are the only ones to be blamed.

On a brighter note, it was reported that Sime Darby, a major palm oil producer, donated RM 2.3mil to the Tabin Wildlife Reserve in Sabah.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/8/18/nation/4539822&sec=nation

Substituting cocoa butter in chocolate with vegetable fat is to lower manufacturing cost. Chocolate made with vegetable fat should be labeled by law as synthetic chocolate. Likewise, ice cream made with vegetable fat instead of dairy cream.

Here are a couple of clips from Alton Brown's show Good Eats about vegetable cooking oils. Although only one of them mentions palm oil as an example of a saturated fat, they explains some of the basic terminology involved when describing vegetable oils in a simple and humourous manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slnbO8S4P9I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1bKvLrz_lI

We've decided to do something about this. Have something planned but not firmed up yet. So watch this space.

Last month, the Malaysian palm Oil Council was criticised by the ASA for suggesting that oil palm plantations were good for the environment and local people.


http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46897.htm

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43763.htm

I wonder why they said that. Actually, Palm Oil is 11 times more environmentally efficient than its nearest competing oils. Anyway, this is a good time as any to say that we are doing a film festival around the subject of Palm Oil. Check out the website at http://www.palmoilshorties.com

An interesting article in the Star today on Palm Oil and how the media has been used for it.

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/10/1/business/4808530&sec=business
http://www.worldgrowth.org/palmoil/?subsec=67

Thanks for posting the article, Adly. Its interesting but I cant agree with it. I dont think the effeciency of palm oil as a crop has been questioned but its impact of its current rate and state of production on a particularly fragile ecosystem. If they wanted to debunk that claim, they would have to investigate on the ground as it were which they dont appear to have done. I also think the authors of the report have placed far too much reliance in the effeciency and reliability of Governmental regulatory controls and reports, something which most locals have long been disabused of. The fact that a piece of land is officialy designated as a "forest reserve" may have absolutely no bearing on what you may find at the land itself. I do agree with the general idea that forces against palm oil should be channeled towards promoting responsible and sustainable production of plam oil. Rather than boycotting the product in its entirety, identify (and I mean go down to the ground and directly identify) responsible producers and accept those. Thats how you force improvements in industry standards and practices.

The report also does make a point that Palm Oil is a very effective poverty eradication tool. In addition, it brings out the question on why should only Palm Oil be regulated and be sustainable? Shouldn't all other vegetable oil bearing crops be imposed with the same regulations.

There are important differences and factors to bear in mind. Palm oil production is affected by its use as a biofuel which means that its price is dependent on and fluctuates with the price of petroleum. If the price of petroleum fell, the price of palm oil would follow suit. This should be considered when conteplating the long term proverty eradicating effect of plam oil production.

In a fair world, perhaps there should be same regulations for all industries in all countries. Unfortunately, in the world that we live in things sometimes what is fair isnt what is right and vice versa. If we buy into a culture totally rooted in extraction and economic profit, the idea would be to make as much money as possible in which case there would be no argument but I do hope that this is not our defining characteristic and sole goal in this world.

I am not so naive to be ignorant that there are western powers cynically using the issue as an economic weapon against asian countries. Nevertheless just as this particular western NGO has made its report to speak against those western powers (presumably even to their own country's commercial detriment), I think we must also remember the courage to stand fast for what is right instead of what economically expedient.

[Note : This post was lost during migration, recovered and reinserted into this thread by the FriedChillies Forum Moderator. Apologies to asian-malaysian]

I understand the dilemma. The question is how/where do we draw the line between pure economic profit and and effective poverty eradication tool as we still must remain progressive and competitive in the global world?

Conversion cost of palm oil to biodiesel is about RM0.80 per liter. Without gomen subsidy, biodiesel from palm oil is not economically viable e.g. none of those biodiesel plants approved is in commercial production. It is unlikely EU, USA or Japan will subsidy foreign farmers for biodiesel production. Promoting biodiesel from palm oil is a hype to inflate palm oil price.

Converting food to fuel may benefit the planters but will increase food price universally, making food out of reach of poor population. Is this an effective poverty eradication tool?

I don't know about this though. Future contributions from Palm Oil is a small percentage compared to projected future consumption as a cheap vegetable oil. The World Bank has indicated the Palm Oil is an effective poverty eradication tool and in Malaysia poverty has decreased from 50% to about 5% partly due to this as well.

It is ironic that these 5% poverty are likely palm oil plantation workers.

I wonder why my earlier post didn't appear. But to put it simply, we're all being led by the noses here.

Oil palm plantation accounts for 1% of the worlds land use for agriculture.
Guess how much livestock industry uses? 70%. That's where the big bad carbon foot print is residing. That's where all those trees that should be around to retain our water supply should be at...

And which particular livestock has the majority of that 70%? Cows. Our nice and friendly dairy farmers. A multi billion dollar industry America won't give without a fight.

Put it simply, in terms of efficiency, land use for agriculture is better served with plants, even if it's a mono culture like palm oil. Because acre for acre, they produce more food than livestock.

So wag the dog all you like. All this fuss about palm oil has been nothing but a wool over our eyes. And ok, yes I do disagree with how we're using our land and all.

'Sustainable' palm oil campaign banned by ASA

A press campaign making environmental claims about the controversial product Malaysian Palm Oil, including that it is "sustainable", has been banned as misleading by the advertising regulator.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/09/asa-palm-oil-advert-banned

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46897.htm

Found a response from the Malaysian Palm Oil Council -> http://bit.ly/5Qsd7t

From ASA's ruling:

"We noted a previous ASA investigation into a similar claim made by MPOC concluded that "palm oil production in Malaysia was subject to public and scientific debate and ... the claim 'sustainable' was likely to mislead"; we also noted the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Green Claims Code stated the term "sustainable" should be avoided. We were concerned that MPOC had repeated the claim "sustainable" and concluded that, because there remained concerns about the indirect effects of biofuels and MPOC could not substantiate that palm oil could be wholly sustainable, the claim was likely to mislead."

I think the issue underlines the need to conduct credible peer reviewed research to substantiate or refute claims in the matter. For example, if youre going to claim that orang utans get their healthy shining coats from eating palm oil fruit there had better be some credible research to back it up.
Here's a news article on that point that I cant seem to link for some reason:
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0617-orangutans.html

So the issue here is MPOC needs to embark on credible research to validate their claims in order to convince more people. They same way they did when palm oil was accused for being unhealthy. Don't know how they are going to do that though.....