How did "palm oil free" became a marketing term?

Firstly, what are the arguments against Palm oil?

It is cultivated on the cleared rainforest land.

So are most of the grazing or farmland in the western countries. I see demonising Palm oil because western countries can't grow them because of climate limitations. In the same rainforest equivalent land is cleared for Soy production. We never hear about Soy-free because the USA is the biggest producer of Soy. Soy and Corn are the biggest reason for the global obesity epidemic. Soy and corn in the USA alone are grown on 75 million hectares of land whereas palm oil is grown worldwide on only 27 million hectares. Palm oil is the most efficiently grown crop. It takes 10 times more land to grow the same amount of other oils as palm oil. Western society is the most hypocritical bunch ever. We don't think twice about buying things which we don't need with the money we don't have. Big houses, cars, electronics and whatnot? We don't care where the raw materials in these products come from. But we care about the fraction of land that was cleared for palm oil by living on cleared land.

It's Unhealthy.

I think Palm oil is the healthiest cheap oil used by the processed junk industry. Every other oil becomes trans fat except Palm oil.

There is no reason for the USA to cultivate corn or soy except for the huge government subsidies for these crops. And same can be said for many poisonous crops which are destroying our health in many countries. If western countries can grow Palm oil they would have it by now. We as humans fall for Ponzi schemes and marketing very easily. It's proven many times.

What do you think about palm oil?

Poll Options

  • 1
    Healthy and bad for the planet
  • 72
    Unhealthy and bad for the planet
  • 9
    Healthy and Sustainable
  • 2
    Unhealthy and Sustainable

Comments

  • -5

    I ❤️ ✌️ lather in palm oil in the 🌅 and before 😴.

    • +2

      There are better and more environmentally friendly lubricants available.

      • I don't like the feeling of petro products.

  • +8

    Think of the Orangutan's

    • +4

      and the pygmy elephant and Sumatran rhino.

      Didn't know they existed until now.

    • -6

      Isn't it a concerted attempt to malign and defame palm oil by western countries? As the majority of the rainforest is cleared for other crops which the western countries have no issue with.

      • Yes it is. It's a convenient focus for concern that causes little disruption to our own way of things. The same way we cry over a few whales but not the trillions of fish we kill every year, the way we cry over dogs slaughtered in various Asian countries but not the billions of other mammals we kill every year after keeping them captive their entire lives in filthy and unnatural conditions. It's all "what about you" ism.

        As the majority of the rainforest is cleared for other crops …

        Our own country is too. Pasture in Australia is a European import. It was all bush and scrub before we terraformed it to suit those animals we imported to farm. People these days gasp when they see an open cut mine in the Hunter Valley - do they not realise considerable damage was already done 150 years ago when they cut down the trees?

        • +2

          Orangutan's are literally humans.. show them some respect.

          • +1

            @Savas: Destroying the land and continuing to consume multiple times the resources that you actually need to by cycling them through "livestock" is about as disrespectful as can be, not just to all humans but to all sentient beings on this planet.

            Palm oil is a useful resource that if managed properly can bring humans benefits and have lesser impact on the earth than many other "staples." The fact it is handled by people and corporations that have no problem with wantonly killing other animals and destroying the earth's nature is the issue here, not palm oil itself.

            • +5

              @afoveht:

              Palm oil is a useful resource that if managed properly can bring humans benefits

              What benefits?? Why exactly do we need palm oil in ice cream, chocolate etc…

              • +2

                @Savas: It's highly calorific per unit area of land use and generally stable across a wide temperature range meaning it is less costly (both $ and enviro-damages) to transport and store. It makes a decent replacement for other fats where they might need to be used.

                No-one even needs ice cream or chocolate if you want to go down that path.

                • +4

                  @afoveht: I’d rather pay more and not have the orangutans go extinct.

                  • @Savas: Then do that. Or better, boycott entirely and pay nothing and maybe do even more.

                    Why are orangutans your fetish? Our species is destroying other species at large. The typical Australian pays to have over 100 terrestrial and 1000 marine animals intentionally killed per year. You can save orangutans and countless other animals right now by adjusting your consumption.

                    You talk about extinction rather than the lives of individual orangutans. To me this smells of a view of the natural environment where we seek to preserve a set of "natural parameters" that suit us rather than focus on the actual lives and experiences of individual sentient beings. It's utterly human-centric. "I want this to be here for my kids" rather than "I want these animals to have their own good quality of life free from my interference now and always." There's a difference,and IMO they play out differently in the long run.

                    • +1

                      @afoveht:

                      To me this smells of a view of the natural environment where we seek to preserve a set of "natural parameters" that suit us rather than focus on the actual lives and experiences of individual sentient beings. It's utterly human-centric. "I want this to be here for my kids" rather than "I want these animals to have their own good quality of life free from my interference now and always."

                      Yeah, it is human-centric for the most part, although sentience does play a part. We seem to care more about the orangutans than the cows, as cows are far less intelligent and not seen as sentient, whereas orangutans are.

                      And I agree with that - I'm far more comfortable with a cow dying so I can eat it than an orangutan dying so I can have some palm oil. Two reasons: one being the aforementioned intelligence/sentience, the other being the situation: one animal exists purely to be killed and eaten, the other you're killing so that you can grow a different food source, not to eat the animal itself. The animal (orangutan) also wasn't bred to be eaten, it's just an animal in nature that happens to be in the way.

                      Having said all that, doesn't mean I think it's the right course of action, but to be honest I haven't properly formed my own opinion here.

                      • @Chandler: If intelligence is a qualifier for some type of (moral) consideration then by that position pigs should be completely off and cats on the menu. Stupid and / or neuro-atypical people should be freely exploitable. People from 1000 years ago were less worthy of consideration than those today because they couldn't make silicon chips. If aliens arrived to earth you would be fine with them having free reign to exploit and kill us for their frivolities because they have the tech to travel the universe and create dyson spheres but we don't.

                        But in any event intelligence as you see it is a changing, human-centric idea in itself - all species possess the intelligence necessary for their own ends as is evidenced by the fact that they have evolved alongside us and are present with us. From an evolutionary point of view they are no less "successful" than we are. There's no doubt that human intelligence is remarkable, but if we do a more complete survey we can see that all species are remarkable in their own way. There is no direct correlation between sentience and intelligence - these are 2 very different qualities, as any classroom of students would demonstrate: the stupid ones don't necessarily have less capacity to suffer. If the aliens did finally make it here would that somehow simply render us unintelligent?

                        The animal (orangutan) also wasn't bred to be eaten

                        This is just an arbitrary categorisation. Yours, in line with the (cultural, religious) norms around you. In Australia we don't breed dogs or snakes to eat, others do. Some pigs are bred to be pets, others to be eaten. Who's right?

                        I'm far more comfortable with a cow dying so I can eat it than an orangutan dying so I can have some palm oil

                        That's you again, and that's fine. But you are missing the other 2 sentient beings involved here: the orangutan and the cow. The cow does not care and is not moved by what you think. Considering the cow has their own interests, including not wanting to suffer or die, why do you think you have a right to disregard those for no more than the pursuit of your own pleasure and impose such harms on the cow?

        • +3

          It was all bush and scrub

          No it wasn’t, that is not true at all. There were plenty of indigenous grasslands prior to European settlement.

          • -3

            @mapax: Yeah that too. And desert. And rainforest. Minus the hyperbole my point remains.

    • +2

      And the apostrophes

  • +5

    Sounds like palm oil it self isn't the problem.

    It sounds like the way people have gone about acquiring land, therefore the product gets a bad name.

    Random google source https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil

  • +1

    Every other oil becomes trans fat except Palm oil.

    Not sure about that
    https://www.aboutoliveoil.org/does-frying-with-olive-oil-cre….

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22668846/

    In the same rainforest equivalent land is cleared for Soy production.

    That doesn't make clearing rainforests for palm oil good. Both are not ideal. I do think it's a bit unfair for countries like Australia who have already cleared heaps of land to criticize developing countries for doing the same, but in reality these countries are trying to reduce forest clearing themselves. I think the anti Palm Oil people have just done a better job of publicity. Having orangutans as a mascot has to help.

    Anyway, I used to love Mamee Noodles made with Palm Oil but I think they are made with Corn Oil now - not sure if this effects the taste.

    For me, I would love to see the break down of vegetable oils listed on ingredients become mandatory (i.e. manufacturers have to say if it's palm, canola or whatever). At the moment it isn't. Some people want this for environmental reasons. I'd like to see it as I just want to know what I'm eating.

    • https://www.aboutoliveoil.org/does-frying-with-olive-oil-cre….

      Olive oil isn't cheap and isn't used by the processed junk industry widely. Cheap trans fats are Soy, Sunflower, Canola, Cornoil etc

      • +1

        That's true, but Palm Oil isn't the only oil that doesn't convert to trans fat. Also I thought it was partially hydrogenated vegetable oils that was the issue, not heating them. i.e. The method of extraction, not the oil itself.

        My understanding is that trans fat isn't as common in Australia as the US. I do think the type of oil and how it's extracted should be labelled to give consumers choice. https://www.choice.com.au/food-and-drink/nutrition/fats/arti…

        • -1

          It all started with cottonseed were making a valuable product (not necessarily healthy) from waste or less usable product. Now they extract oil from everything using heavy machinery and heat and a lot of processes like bleaching and deodorising to make it palatable. Palm oil, coconut oil and olive oil out of major oils don't go through such a process.

          My understanding is that trans fat isn't as common in Australia as the US.

          All PUFA will become trans fats and if it doesn't it is dangerous to consume because the nature of it getting oxidised very quickly. Many of the Carbon and Hydrogen bonds are unsaturated, where it enters the body they become free radicals.

  • +1

    When elephant habitat is lost through land clearing and deforestation, hungry elephants seek food in palm oil plantations or villages and fields. This creates conflict between humans and elephants and the animals are often harmed or killed as a result; for example, by falling into snare traps or being poisoned.

    https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-are-the-animal-w…

    a baby elephant trying in vain to wake its mother with its trunk. She had been poisoned, along with 13 other animals. Their carcasses were found over a period of four weeks on land controlled by Yayasan Sabah, the state wood and palm oil group.

    https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/905/malaysia-pyg…

  • +2

    You should stick it to Big Sunscreen by using palm oil on your skin.

    • You will realize this Sunscreen thing in the coming years. Wait for your turn of enlightenment.

      • Speaking of enlightened people with original ideas, can you explain your avatar to me? I see one half is Bill Gates, but I don't know the other man. Is it a computer OS thing??

        • -3

          One half is what's wrong with the world. And the other half is about how to live a better life

          • @[Deactivated]: Bill Gates conspiracy theories and Joe Rogan support? No wonder you're on top of things! Downloaded any other great ideas lately?

          • @[Deactivated]: By taking HGH?

            • @Cheaplikethebird: It's TRT not HGH. You can avoid that if you don't want. I don't take it personally but I have visible abs and am strong and healthy always.

                • -1

                  @Cheaplikethebird: Pick the right things he does and avoid the things which you think are not necessary. He changed my life and my outlook on my life. He is the one person I give credit to after my parents. I don't agree with 50% of the things which he says or does, but hey, no one is even close to perfect.

                  • +4

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    He is the one person I give credit to after my parents.

                    I don't have anything against Rogan, but surely saying something like this is a little much even for you? The 3rd person after your parents? That's approaching levels of cringe I thought were only reserved for the brainlets in the Jordan Peterson cult.

                    • @whatwasherproblem: Not really, There was a difference in my health and lifestyle, which I achieved from his motivation. You should see to believe it, and I am not even white. When a brown guy compliments whom the media considers as a right-wing nut case, there should be something wrong with the mainstream narrative. I don't know who Joe Rogan was until I listened to his podcasts.

                  • +2

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    He changed my life and my outlook on my life. He is the one person I give credit to after my parents.

                    Referring to the JRE. Can't make this shit up.

  • Oops..misread as Pamoil..

    • I’d be happy with Pamoil. Somehow I think she would protest and make a post about being treated poorly when being placed into the extractor press.

      We all know she can’t handle any form of pressure rofl

      • Appears to be into sustainability and recycling though 🤔

  • -1

    The problem is the land clearing happens every year.
    They clear the land, harvest the crop and then…
    clear more land.
    The cycle repeats annually.

    The old land is stripped of nutrient and the forest doesn't regrow.
    So as a result you have FAR more land cleared than for probably any crop and as a result your statement about land area cleared being the same is incorrect as for other crops the same block of land is replanted for decades/centuries.

    There is a Sustainable Palm Oil program, but only a fraction of farms operate that way. And that program only arose AFTER the clearing practices were made clear to the world by the beginnings of the anti-Palm Oil movement.

    • +1

      Then it should be case for every crop grown in every western country on every cleared land

      • +1

        Huh?? There is no comparison…

        Western countries do not clear land for cropping a single time and then move on to clear more land next year.
        ie a 1 hectare crop consumes only 1 hectare of land across a 50 year period.
        For Palm Oil, a 1 Hectare of crop will have consumed 50 hectares of land across a 50 year time period.

        I'm not against Palm Oil as a crop… but you can't endorse clearing new land every year just because it's cheaper than revitalising the soil on the already cleared block of land.

        I also wouldn't endorse Palm Oil as being "healthy", certainly not the way it's used in the West, largely as a filler in Junk Food.

        • …Palm Oil, a 1 Hectare of crop will have consumed 50 hectares of land across a 50 year time period…

          Is that correct? My understanding is that oil palm is a perennial crop with a > 25-year life cycle. The crops that I have observed seem to be substantial plants and apparently take up to 3 years to be productive.

          • @GG57: It was a while ago that I was at an Industry conference for a presentation on Sustainable Palm Oil, so I could well be wrong on the detail, but the overall outcome is similar…
            They harvest until the soil is barren and then they burn down more forest next door to replant cause it's cheaper (ie essentially free) to do that than replenish the soil they've depleted of nutrient..

            • @ESEMCE: If the plant is productive for 3-25 years, you don't expand your plantings on a yearly basis (apart from expanding for additional production) and walk away from your current crop. You farm your current crop (for ~25 years).

              I understand the cropping is destructive, but not as you describe "…a 1 Hectare of crop will have consumed 50 hectares of land across a 50 year time period…"

              • @GG57:

                If the plant is productive for 3-25 years

                "If" being the key word there…

                Like most fruiting crops, the Palm Oil Palm is a hungry plant.
                It pulls out nutrient from the soil and in a plantation, there's nothing contributing back to the soil without human intervention.
                If you've ever grown tomato's as home you might know that you can't replant tomato's in the same location year on year, cause the soil need rehabilitation.

                So after growing and fruiting for x years, the yield of the crop rapidly diminishes, rapidly making it unprofitable.
                Cheaper to burn down more forest and grow another crop than to maintain the existing crop.

                This is what I recall from an industry conference presented by someone from the RSPO - Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil..
                So they had something to sell, I can't find this anywhere from a quick search so maybe by brain is playing tricks on me, but it's also logical.

                End result, Palm Oil in Western Society is used almost exclusively in shit food.. I don't steer clear of Palm Oil for political reasons, I steer clear of it cause I generally don't need the empty calories in my diet… This holds even when the product is "Palm Oil Free".

                • @ESEMCE: The only info I can see (online) is that the plant is productive from about 3 years old, through to about 25 years. That could, of course, be shorter but it would be nonsensical to get a plant productive (after 3 years) and then remove / burn down the plantation, which is what would need to happen for your statement to be correct:

                  …Palm Oil, a 1 Hectare of crop will have consumed 50 hectares of land across a 50 year time period…

                  • +1

                    @GG57: They don't remove the plantation, they burn down more forest next to the plantation and let the old plantation rot away.
                    Eventually I guess the forest might re-grow, but more likely invasive species would regrow as the soil is no longer suitable for forest plants.

                    Yeah, my example may well be wrong.. Maybe it's only 25 hectares or 10..
                    It's still highly destructive and unsustainable, albeit more financially profitable to farm this way in the short term…
                    And it's still incorrect to compare Western Agriculture that re-uses land year on year. Note that if they invested in the existing planatation, the same way that Western farming does, they'd stop/reduce clearing forest and then at least on one aspect, comparison could start to be made, but then you'd also have to consider the fact that Palm Oil Palms wouldn't grow or be as productive if they could grow in Western environments (by nature of the fact that Western climates are vastly different) making any comparison Apples to Oranges anyway.

                    • @ESEMCE: I certainly don't disagree, only with the statement cited.

                      Beyond the points that you and others raise, there are also impacts on the local land owners who are enticed to sell or lease their land for a quick intake of $.
                      I've seen whole communities become very rich, very quickly, only to also see that wealth disappear on "unsound investments", with repercussions for generations and decades.

  • There's always someone against something.

    It's not about palm oil, but I saw this and I just shook my head. These people must sit there all day looking for a reason to be angry. Suuuuurely they have something better to throw their arms up over!

    • The use of gases in anaesthetics has long been a concern from a climate change point of view- anaesthetists have been adjusting use of and changing to lower emitting gases for ages- spend any time in an anaesthetics bay and you’ll see- there are dozens of new gases all designed because of this concern, it’s quite remarkable how concerned they are about it.

  • +2

    because the masses hear about one thing and get all uppity about it (BPA, Soy, climate, palm oil etc) and companies realise this and see an easy way to capitalise on it, as this type of customer generally doesn't research much beyond listening to some day / evening TV host tell them all they need to know about [current issue of the day].

    too many soccer mums with too much time to spare.

  • +2

    Recent studies suggest palm oil may be carcinogenic and genotoxic, and may potentially increase the risk of metastatic cancer.

    Don't kid yourself that you have identified a global conspiracy against palm oil.

    Palm oil sucks, and production of palm oil has nearly eradicated orangutans, which are one of the most beautiful and most peaceful creatures on the planet in my opinion.

    Sources discussing carcinogenicity of palm oil:

    (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/glycidol.…)

    (https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/process-contaminant…)

    (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/glycidol.…)

    (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/10/fatty-acid-f…)

    • 🍗 haters say the same thing about meat while trying to push fake 🍗 down people's throats.

      • Chicken drumsticks?

      • -1

        Or like that Harvard professor said that coconut oil is poison

        https://amp.theguardian.com/food/2018/aug/22/coconut-oil-is-…

        • +1

          Did you even read the article you cited?

          Here’s an excerpt:

          Last year, the American Heart Association reviewed the evidence on coconut oil among other foodstuffs. While three quarters of the US public considered coconut oil to be healthy, the review noted that only 37% of nutritionists agreed. The authors attributed the gulf in perception to the marketing of coconut oil in the popular press. “Because coconut oil increases LDL cholesterol, a cause of CVD, and has no known offsetting favourable effects, we advise against the use of coconut oil,” the review concluded.
          Other organisations have issued similar warnings. “Coconut oil can be included in the diet, but as it is high in saturated fats should only be included in small amounts and as part of a healthy balanced diet,” the British Nutrition Foundation said. “There is to date no strong scientific evidence to support health benefits from eating coconut oil.”

  • How did "palm oil free" became a marketing term?

    SlavOz came up with it.

  • What i was lead to believe from those old tv ads, corporations deforestation decimating orangutan habitat and leaving nothing in their wake

    What I found out the other day, they only use the seed pods, cut them off for processing then move to the next palm tree. No tree was cut down or killed in the process.

    seems pretty sustainable to me, parents had 5 out the front and 3-4 in the back, seems they were pretty much always seeding. Got rid of them at about 1.5-2 stories tall as its a pain to clean up and would be over 3 stories tall by now

    I used to go out of my way to avoid it, but its in so much stuff now you cant

    • Donate to Africa
      Save Panda
      Free Palestine
      Use pathetic music and people fall for anything without knowing the ground reality

  • In Victoria we will be ending native timber logging ( all replanted not clear felled for farming or housing) in 2030 and supposedly transitioning to plantation timber.

    The problem is there is not enough plantations in the ground as it's a long term investment that most people are not interested in. We currently import nearly 6 billion dollars worth of raw timber rainforest etc and the vast majority is not replanted this is going to dramatically increase after 2030. Australia is happy to feel good losing jobs here and damage the environment overseas.

    • Is there a link between your comment and this topic?

      • Sustainability perhaps?

  • +2

    /off_topic_start

    Palm oil … PALMOLIVE soap comes to mind … since childhood :-)

    /end

    • glad i'm not the only one :-D

Login or Join to leave a comment