Palm oil

[brimstoneSalad]

Maybe it was so around 2005 when the main recommendation was to boycott palm oil. But some progress has been made since then and now few agencies are still recommending that course of action. Better to get palm oil production right to avoid leaking the issue elsewhere to another commodity.

I don't think the issue, as it stands, can really leak to other commodities, though, because they grow on different land. I'm sure other crops CAN grow on such land, but oil palm is unique in its limited growing range.

When we're talking about Canola, we're talking about land across Canada, some of the U.S., Europe, and China. We're not talking about expanding production in the tropics.
And even when we're talking about something like coconut oil, we're talking about a broader growing region, and tolerance for sandy and even salty soils. These are just very different crops.

And palm oil is also uniquely unhealthy compared to alternatives like canola and coconut, and even soy, peanut, etc. oils. It compares only to hydrogenated oil and cocoa butter.

I'd say their interest is to increase total production with fewer costs, which is usually easier done by deforesting new land than by managing the plantations better.

Why? Is it more expensive, or is this a knowledge issue?
Is oil from "sustainable" farms inherently more expensive than oil grown from farms managed more carelessly taking into account the cost of land, management, etc?
If so how much more expensive is it?
Do farmers revert to the careless method if they can't sell it as sustainable?

If it's inherently more expensive, then the total yield must have the yield it would have had if it were managed carelessly subtracted and sold at that standard palm oil market rate, and then only the additional yield labeled sustainable and bearing all of the additional cost of production. If you don't subtract the baseline production, you're removing non-sustainable palm oil from the market too, which would make all "sustainable" palm oil at least 25% non-sustainable (and that's only if it's inherently more expensive to produce palm oil using these best practices, which in my limited experience is usually the opposite of the case, where efficiency yields savings).

I'm not buying a veggie burger that's 25% beef.

If there were a legitimate label for sustainability that factored in all of these matters, only marking sustainable that surplus which comes at an unacceptable market price and selling back the baseline amount at market rate for typical palm oil, and they could legitimately track this stuff, I could accept that (no need for this nonsense about land cleared before such and such year being OK but land after not being). But there's also a difficulty in communicating that difference to the consumer.

If you say "I only buy sustainable palm oil" that opens up the response "I only buy happy meat". The nuance is going to be lost on most people, and I don't think it's viable to give a lecture on economics in every passing conversation. Educating the consumer on what's legitimately sustainable is a monumental task. These organizations don't even seem to know (given their fixation on year of clearing the land), and I don't trust their knowledge or their execution (even if I trusted their motivations).

Farmers who follow the standards are actually pushed to increase their yields simply by not being allowed to deforest new areas (and by getting more support/revenue).

You can't stop them from doing this. If it's profitable, they still will. This isn't discouraging the practice since they can still sell the oil on the ordinary palm oil market to Asia and places that don't care.
And even if you somehow could keep track of and audit one farmer, then his "brother" does it instead (with his advice, investment, and oversight).
Businesses in the West skirt regulation by fragmenting their operations all the time.

Either we can physically stop them or we can't. If we can't, they're still doing it, even if it's technically a different entity doing it.
The only way to really stop them is to make the sustainable practices cheaper than the others so the entire industry switches to these high yield practices and there's no need to clear more land, since the majority of consumers will not care or switch to any kind of sustainable label. Or just boycott.

I think "fair trade" is a different certification. "Sustainable" is mainly about increasing yield on non-forest land (by selecting better breeds and managing the crops better) as far as I've seen.

Those I've seen kind of bundle all of these practices together.

If it's fundamentally more expensive to grow oilpalms on that land and it couldn't be dumped into the normal oil market due to higher cost of production

That + increased yields on already destroyed land.

Are you saying it IS fundamentally more expensive? I find it hard to believe that best practices wouldn't pay for themselves, even for the standard palm oil market, and that it's not more of an issue of education and training.

Why would companies spend more money on sustainable palm if the people who care about sustainability aren’t buying it and instead leak the issue to other oil generating crops?

Issue leaking is irrelevant here. Advocates of happy meat ask the same question: Why would companies treat their animals better if the people who care the most about animals (vegans etc.) aren't buying their meat?

What motivates companies to get higher yields? Profit.
I don't think I've ever seen best practices in agriculture (for yield) that don't pay off more than they cost. There's probably a point of diminishing return, but I don't think the palm yields you're talking about are there or beyond.

I think it still makes these companies more money to use better practices even without being able to sell it as sustainable. I would need evidence that it doesn't, because that's a bold claim.
I believe the low yield farms you're talking about are probably smaller farms, and the issue is ignorance and lack of investment in the infrastructure and bulk purchasing they need.

Before sustainable palm oil even looks possible, we have to establish that the extra yield really does cost more to get than it pays off in sales at standard market rates. Otherwise, the whole practice is backwards.

Even the land shuffling could be a shell game.

That's a possibility, I'll look into that. At first glance I found that Indonesia is planning to buy Australian cattle grazing land, which makes sense.

If land is being shuffled to places with less impact, that's good at least. Which is my point about most other oil crops.

But say we replaced our consumption of palm oil and therefore raised the demand for other types of oil above the amounts necessary to meet the demand for other by-products destined for human and animal consumption.

Then those byproducts find other uses. Proteins can always find their way into human food. Starches can be turned into bioplastics or ethanols.
If we still need more oil, then we're probably eating too much oil. More sustainable in that case would be eating these products more in proportion to what's produced.

We still end up in a situation where we need to grow a certain crop exclusively for the oil. And future GMO solutions aside, the most efficient yield atm is that of palm.

Also one of the least healthy, if it's something you're eating.

But again, it's where it's grown that's very important. Canola is probably grown in the best regions, and it has pretty good yield, AND it's the most healthy. That makes the most sense to me as a main replacement, along with olive oil for some applications.

If you really need saturated fat, coconut makes more sense to me right now because it's healthier (more lauric acid, win), its yield is only a bit lower (it's twice as saturated so you need half as much, and you can sub in other oils for the rest), and it also grows in wider regions and soil types. Unfortunately, I've never been able to find a lot of information on the ecological impact of coconut farming beyond those basic facts of soil type etc. which suggest it's more versatile. There don't seem to be as many large coconut plantations, and I've never seen anything about rain forests being cleared to grow them (since they can be grown in sandy or salty soils near the shore, it would make sense that they're grown in lower value soil, since that would yield better ROI).

The writer of the best answer here has had similar issues in researching the subject as I:
http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/palm-oil-vs-coconut-oil-which-has-the-smallest-ecological-impact

This is not a choice between buying palm oil vs buying no oil. The question is whether the fungibility issue can be resolved so that responsible palm oil can be considered better for the environment than other types of oil we might buy.

I know, but I don't know if it can be, and I don't have data on that. I'm convinced that it has not yet been, and that's enough for me to boycott it (as much as I can) until such a time as a better standard is developed and the sustainability can be proved.
These "sustainable" licensing organizations have some really dubious claims and licensing practices. I have no reason to believe them.

No. "Happy meat" still involves a breach of ethics, health concerns and even more environmental damage than with intensive farming. We can replace the nutrition we'd get from it with much better sources - from all three points of view.

That's just a slightly more extreme example. I think you missed my point, which is about the "consumer" argument. That we should continue to consume so we can drive the market instead of boycotting. It's a bad argument.

"Happy palm oil", on the other hand, would mean less environmental damage than the alternatives. And unless the other oil isn't hydrogenated (which is rare), we get the same health risk.

I don't know why you have trouble avoiding hydrogenated oil, I guess it has just not really been removed from your market.

I think I mentioned, I even saw some "Oreo" style sandwich cookies made with non-hydrogenated canola oil (no palm). Of course the sugar content is an issue, but the fat content was all healthy fat.

The food industry is catching up, and cutting down on saturated fat with new technology, and it's thanks to demonstrated consumer preference.

Daiya just removed palm oil from all of its products (I assume because of consumer demand). According to their FAQ, the only thing left is small amounts in the vegetable glycerin (which is from a mixed source that I don't think they can control):
http://daiyafoods.com/faq/

DO YOU USE PALM OIL IN YOUR PRODUCTS?
At this time, our Slices, Blocks, Cheezy Macs, Greek Yogurt Alternatives and Dressings are palm oil free. However, our vegetable glycerin contains small amounts of palm oil which is used in the following products: Shreds, Pizza, Cheezecake and Cream Cheeze Style Spread.

WHERE DID YOUR PALM OIL COME FROM?
All of the palm oil we used was sourced from Colombia. Our supplier was certified by Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

I'm not too worried about the trace in the glycerin, since glycerin itself is a byproduct.
So, there's that. People were concerned, and companies changed.

The point is, I think, that we don't need palm oil or hydrogenated oil. Except maybe in some kinds of soap (which makes up something like 20% of usage vs. something like 80% in food).
Let's drive the market to use mainly non-hydrogenated low saturated fat vegetable oils and limited amounts of coconut oil where necessary.

Mt point is this: conflict palm oil - probably more environmentally damaging than alternatives. Responsible palm oil - probably less environmentally damaging than alternatives (due to better yield).

I just don't think it exists now, and that by the nature of the plant and the market that it's hard or impossible to make it happen. Change need to occur elsewhere (investment programs, education, genetic modification).

We could arguably increase the production of olive oil by growing crops in areas less suited for it than the fairly limited Meditereean region, though I'm not sure.

China is expanding production; it has a number of suitable regions.
A significant part of the temperate world is suitable, supply can be increased massively.

As for cotton, I imagine the industry probably already produces as much cotton as the market demands. Producing anything more than that would mean farming cotton strictly for the oil, which makes little sense due to yields.

Cotton would remain a byproduct, and we'd start using the fiber more in packaging if the price dropped (as we used to). My point was only that we have to consider the whole plant, not that we should switch exclusively to one of these oils. If we demanded more cottonseed oil than was a byproduct of cotton production, the market would let us know because we'd see the price of cottonseed oil go up and the price of cotton go down.

Do you not see the advantage in terms of health?

Maybe we should start by breaking down the different advantages and drawbacks.

[inator]

I don't think the issue, as it stands, can really leak to other commodities, though, because they grow on different land. I'm sure other crops CAN grow on such land, but oil palm is unique in its limited growing range.

When we're talking about Canola, we're talking about land across Canada, some of the U.S., Europe, and China. We're not talking about expanding production in the tropics.
And even when we're talking about something like coconut oil, we're talking about a broader growing region, and tolerance for sandy and even salty soils. These are just very different crops.

Indeed, but lacking palm oil, we'd still need to very considerably expand the production of other crops, even if on lands with lower environmental impact.
If we need x times larger areas to produce the same amount of oil from other crops, how much more environmentally valuable must the land used for growing responsible palm be in order to make this worth it?

And palm oil is also uniquely unhealthy compared to alternatives like canola and coconut, and even soy, peanut, etc. oils. It compares only to hydrogenated oil and cocoa butter.

That's true. I'm only trying to question whether certified responsible palm oil is not overall better (health+environmental effects put together) than hydrogenated oil. Healthier options are of course always preferable and should be supported above anything else.
Alhough it does become more complicated when the lables aren't required to specify whether the oil is hydrogenated or not.

If it's inherently more expensive, then the total yield must have the yield it would have had if it were managed carelessly subtracted and sold at that standard palm oil market rate, and then only the additional yield labeled sustainable and bearing all of the additional cost of production. If you don't subtract the baseline production, you're removing non-sustainable palm oil from the market too, which would make all "sustainable" palm oil at least 25% non-sustainable (and that's only if it's inherently more expensive to produce palm oil using these best practices, which in my limited experience is usually the opposite of the case, where efficiency yields savings).

I'm not buying a veggie burger that's 25% beef.

In terms of expenses, I think it's more of a short-term vs long-term profitability type of question, because the initial investments in complying with the standards and getting the certification are considerable.

I understand the idea that the baseline production matches that of conventional palm oil that could be produced on the same land. But, again, we shouldn't be comparing the effects of responsible palm oil to the effects of producing no oil. That 75% percentage of oil you're referring to as "sustainable" entails exactly that - the percentage of oil that can be produced with no (additional) negative effects for the environment.
What I'm looking at instead is a production of oil that may be "more sustainable" than alternative crops. And the total yield of responsible palm oil has the potential to become much more sustainable than the total yield of other oil crops.

If you say "I only buy sustainable palm oil" that opens up the response "I only buy happy meat". The nuance is going to be lost on most people, and I don't think it's viable to give a lecture on economics in every passing conversation. Educating the consumer on what's legitimately sustainable is a monumental task. These organizations don't even seem to know (given their fixation on year of clearing the land), and I don't trust their knowledge or their execution (even if I trusted their motivations).

This is a good point, but not an insurmountable problem in my opinion. There is no need to give a lecture on economics in every conversation, because most people don't think as far as fungibility, certainly not in the moment.
The "happy meat" or "25% beef burger" comparisons are pretty weak though, because the issues at hand are very different. Producing conventional palm oil is not immoral in itself, because its negative effects are only different in degree to those of alternatives, but similar in kind. Producing meat raises very different questions in addition to the sustainability issue that also applies to plants.
I'm all for not giving carnists ammunition, but this seems like a step too far.

Either we can physically stop them or we can't. If we can't, they're still doing it, even if it's technically a different entity doing it.
The only way to really stop them is to make the sustainable practices cheaper than the others so the entire industry switches to these high yield practices and there's no need to clear more land, since the majority of consumers will not care or switch to any kind of sustainable label. Or just boycott.

The majority of consumers won't just not care about switching to sustainable, they also won't care about boycotting conventional palm oil.
The minority of consumers can either boycott all palm oil or just conventional palm oil, as long as fungibility is not a problem.
The aim, after all, is just to reduce the demand for conventional palm oil. We probably can't stop them altogether.

Making sustainable practices cheaper (long-term) for everyone could probably be done if local governments were more serious about enforcing their regulations. This is not something consumers can influence much, though.

Why would companies spend more money on sustainable palm if the people who care about sustainability aren’t buying it and instead leak the issue to other oil generating crops?

Issue leaking is irrelevant here. Advocates of happy meat ask the same question: Why would companies treat their animals better if the people who care the most about animals (vegans etc.) aren't buying their meat?

Issue leaking is relevant when the difference is only a matter of degree of effects across alternatives. Meat fundamentally raises different issues in addition to the problems of growing plants.

If land is being shuffled to places with less impact, that's good at least. Which is my point about most other oil crops.

Except that the degree of impact is not the only variable, but also the area of the land needed to produce the same amount of oil.

But again, it's where it's grown that's very important. Canola is probably grown in the best regions, and it has pretty good yield, AND it's the most healthy. That makes the most sense to me as a main replacement, along with olive oil for some applications.

True, canola is probably the best option if you can be sure it's not hydrogenated.

I don't know why you have trouble avoiding hydrogenated oil, I guess it has just not really been removed from your market.

Because not only has it not been removed from the market, but the labelling of hydrogenated oils is also optional.

Vegan grocey stores do label things better, I suppose because their target consumers are more interested in these details. But they also largely sell organic products.

I know, but I don't know if it can be, and I don't have data on that. I'm convinced that it has not yet been, and that's enough for me to boycott it (as much as I can) until such a time as a better standard is developed and the sustainability can be proved.
These "sustainable" licensing organizations have some really dubious claims and licensing practices. I have no reason to believe them.

I think RSPO and a few others have pretty good potential.
http://wwf.panda.org/?204548/Profitabil ... Production

DO YOU USE PALM OIL IN YOUR PRODUCTS?
At this time, our Slices, Blocks, Cheezy Macs, Greek Yogurt Alternatives and Dressings are palm oil free. However, our vegetable glycerin contains small amounts of palm oil which is used in the following products: Shreds, Pizza, Cheezecake and Cream Cheeze Style Spread.

WHERE DID YOUR PALM OIL COME FROM?
All of the palm oil we used was sourced from Colombia. Our supplier was certified by Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

I'm not too worried about the trace in the glycerin, since glycerin itself is a byproduct.
So, there's that. People were concerned, and companies changed.

You could also say that people were concerned and companies changed (or simply started out well) when Daiya chose to use RSPO certified oil over conventional palm oil.
What do they use now instead?

The point is, I think, that we don't need palm oil or hydrogenated oil. Except maybe in some kinds of soap (which makes up something like 20% of usage vs. something like 80% in food).
Let's drive the market to use mainly non-hydrogenated low saturated fat vegetable oils and limited amounts of coconut oil where necessary.

I can agree with that, those are the better options. Or also limited amounts of palm oil grown on already destroyed land. It would be nonsensical to not use that land at all.


I'm not particularly invested in either conclusion, because it's difficult to assess what's better and the difference is probably not that significant. I'm just not convinced that boycotting certified palm oil too is very helpful. I suppose the main debate is about where the burden of proof lies.

[brimstoneSalad]

If we need x times larger areas to produce the same amount of oil from other crops, how much more environmentally valuable must the land used for growing responsible palm be in order to make this worth it?

The land in question has very low environmental value by comparison, for a couple reasons:

1. It's not on peat; clearing it (by burning) for cultivation doesn't release the amount of CO2 that the tropical land palm is grown on does.
2. Due to lower rainfall and sun, these lands yield less of everything, including wild plants when left fallow and that act as carbon capturing factories.

Fallow land in Canada is worth much less environmentally than fallow land in tropical regions as a carbon sink.

Alhough it does become more complicated when the lables aren't required to specify whether the oil is hydrogenated or not.

Palm oil is frequently hydrogenated too, you can't trust it not to be. If you're in a region that doesn't label, and has no indication of trans-fat content... maybe call the companies to ask. And barring that, I'd say just eat whole foods.

The only oil very unlikely to ever be hydrogenated is coconut, because it's almost pure saturated fat naturally (and half of it being lauric acid, which may not be harmful and could even be beneficial, it's far better in pretty much every way compared to palm). Coconut doesn't beat non-hydrogenated canola, but at least you can trust it not to be hydrogenated.

In terms of expenses, I think it's more of a short-term vs long-term profitability type of question, because the initial investments in complying with the standards and getting the certification are considerable.

Which is why I think conditional loan programs would be more effective. Farmers probably want to increase their yields, they just don't have the money to invest in doing that in terms of infrastructure and education. I highly doubt that growing with best practices is really less profitable, even without the premium on "sustainable" palm oil.

You don't have to buy palm oil to support loan programs, and buying palm oil doesn't support these farmers in the way they need.

I understand the idea that the baseline production matches that of conventional palm oil that could be produced on the same land. But, again, we shouldn't be comparing the effects of responsible palm oil to the effects of producing no oil. That 75% percentage of oil you're referring to as "sustainable" entails exactly that - the percentage of oil that can be produced with no (additional) negative effects for the environment.

Right, but again, would we consider a veggieburger vegan if it contained 25% beef and was otherwise 75% vegan?

At the very best, these companies are marketing as "sustainable", implying negligible impact, something that's only 75% sustainable. That's like marketing a vegan burger that contains 25% beef. There's an inherent problem of dishonesty and consumer deception there.
I don't see any reason to find these organizations credible.

And that's only if it's actually true that those farmers would only continue to use best practices if they're being paid more, as a premium for "sustainable" palm oil.
I suspect that, once established, best practices stick because they are more profitable even without that premium. And if true, this favors supporting loan and education programs only, not participation in the market. We could stop deforestation by increasing yield of conventional palm oil for the conventional consumer without all of the sustainable marketing gimmicks, and there's no reason to compete with the typical palm oil consumer for that supply.

What I'm looking at instead is a production of oil that may be "more sustainable" than alternative crops. And the total yield of responsible palm oil has the potential to become much more sustainable than the total yield of other oil crops.

But by using any of that palm oil, you deny it (or at least 25% of it) to the non-sustainable market, thus fueling deforestation as long as demand continues to exceed supply.

It's like the freegan case I've mentioned before, where you're dumpster diving with a meat eating friend. You should let that meat eating friend have all of the freegan meat, because if you do not, that friend will buy meat instead. Taking that meat for yourself -- even though it was from the dumpster -- when your friend would have eaten it instead of buying meat has a consequence.

As long as the Asian market is happy with non-sustainable palm oil, you are furthering deforestation by removing some of the oil from that market (even if it only amounts to 25% of the oil you're eating).

This is a good point, but not an insurmountable problem in my opinion. There is no need to give a lecture on economics in every conversation, because most people don't think as far as fungibility, certainly not in the moment.

The simplest response "I avoid palm oil" saves you the most time and gives you the ability to talk about other things. Any lecture has opportunity cost.
If you mention sustainable palm oil, they'll mention happy meat, and then you have to spend more time on it trying to convince them it's not a valid comparison. If your "sustainable" palm oil is an argument to authority and if you question the credibility of happy meat, they're very right to question the credibility of your authorities too. And it is a valid comparison, really.

The "happy meat" or "25% beef burger" comparisons are pretty weak though, because the issues at hand are very different. Producing conventional palm oil is not immoral in itself, because its negative effects are only different in degree to those of alternatives, but similar in kind.

So is meat. Farming even beans results in some environmental effects and some animal harm; it's just very small by comparison. Carnists will be quick to point out animals killed in harvesting and storage of grains, and the massacre of orangutans in the case of palm oil (which is a much more emotionally weighty issue than field mice).

The majority of consumers won't just not care about switching to sustainable, they also won't care about boycotting conventional palm oil.

Which is why removing palm oil from the market that they would have otherwise eaten is a problem; they'll tear down more forest to make more.

The aim, after all, is just to reduce the demand for conventional palm oil.

Or increase the supply already available to them, by not eating "sustainable" palm oil, at least 25% of which will be siphoned out of that general pool.

Better to not eat a kilogram of "sustainable" palm oil at all, let that farmer revert to inefficient practices, so that the other consumers can eat that 250g of palm oil and be less motivated to destroy more forest.
Every bit you eat denies a quarter of it to other consumers, fueling deforestation to meet their demands.

Making sustainable practices cheaper (long-term) for everyone could probably be done if local governments were more serious about enforcing their regulations. This is not something consumers can influence much, though.

We'd have to circumvent government by providing direct loan and education programs. There's no need to eat the palm oil in the process, though.

Issue leaking is relevant when the difference is only a matter of degree of effects across alternatives. Meat fundamentally raises different issues in addition to the problems of growing plants.

What other issues? We have killing of pests and field animals. We have massacres of orangutans. The death per calorie ratio is just much lower. These are still matters of degree. Degree of harm to animals, degree of waste, degree of harm to the environment.

Except that the degree of impact is not the only variable, but also the area of the land needed to produce the same amount of oil.

It's not that much less efficient. The value of these lands is so drastically different, I don't think doubling or even multiplying the land needed by ten would make Canola come out worse.

What do they use now instead?

Coconut as the saturated component, canola and safflower as the non-saturated component.

It would be nonsensical to not use that land at all.

You can let the forests grow back and turn back into carbon sinks. Leaves fall and break down aerobically, turning into stable trapped carbon. It's a pretty decent system if you let it work. Fallow land in Canada is much less productive as a carbon sink.

I'm just not convinced that boycotting certified palm oil too is very helpful. I suppose the main debate is about where the burden of proof lies.

I would say it lies on the people trying to sell you palm oil (or happy/sustainable meat) to prove it is what they say it is.
The arguments they make are very poor, and they don't present numbers to back up their claims. I don't find them credible, and the fact that they're lying about at least 25% of the oil which is being removed from the standard palm oil market without substitution doesn't help.