SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - EuropeUS edition | APAC edition

Content Provided by The Oil Palm

News > Fats & oils

This content is provided by The Oil Palm. Learn more

The opinions expressed within this Promotional Features article are those of The Oil Palm and not necessarily those of FoodNavigator.com

Promotional Features gives industry stakeholders the opportunity to connect directly with you, our readers. They can contribute to the conversation on industry topics by providing content on FoodNavigator.com

For more information on Promotional Features, contact us here

Is DG SANTE ignoring the science on trans fats?

03-Jan-2017 Last updated on 03-Jan-2017 at 14:26 GMT2017-01-03T14:26:38Z

The EU’s health policy should be aimed at improving the health of its citizens. That would normally be taken as a given. However, the European Commission’s recently released Roadmap on Trans Fats falls short in this regard.

Specifically, the Commission opposes replacing trans fats with palm oil as it could lead to ‘negative environmental impacts’. The evidence offered to support this claim is highly questionable. More pertinently for DG SANTE, there could be health implications.

Trans fats are accepted to be harmful. The US FDA has declared that trans fats can no longer be ‘generally accepted as safe’, and so trans fats will be phased out in the US. First Lady Michelle Obama has been a key figure in informing the public about the dangers of trans fat consumption – which include higher rates of cancer, heart disease, strokes and other potentially fatal conditions.

In Europe, too, these dangers are well-known. The Danish government, among others, has previously introduced limits, bans and reductions on trans fats in food. Palm oil is a potential replacement for industrial trans fats in food. According to most health experts, including from the University of Cambridge and France’s Pasteur Institute, palm oil can function as a replacement for trans fats, without the health drawbacks. It is a natural, balanced oil with 50% saturated and 50% unsaturated fats. It is also extremely cost-efficient, resulting in cheaper food, another benefit in which DG SANCO seems uninterested.

The US has recognised palm oil’s value in reducing trans fat consumption, as have food producers around the world who have voluntarily undertaken the replacement in order to benefit their customers.

Why, then, has the Commission taken a different position?

The environmental argument does not stand up. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization’s latest forest assessment shows that Malaysia – the world’s second-largest palm oil producer – increased its forest area over the past decade. Malaysian forest area is 67% of territory, higher than almost any EU Member State.

The Commission’s position is, unfortunately, part of a trend. The trans fats controversy recalls another recent misstep by the Commission where evidence was ignored. DG Energy Director Marie Donnelly said that when it comes to biofuels policy, the EU “cannot just be led by economic models and scientific theories we have to be very sensitive to the reality of citizens’ concerns, sometimes even if these concerns are emotive rather than factual based or scientific.”

This suggests a willingness to dispense with evidence-based policymaking, at at least as far as biofuels are concerned. Is the Commission now taking the same approach to trans fats? Both decisions affect 300,000 small farmers in Malaysia who cultivate oil palm. When governments act against evidence and facts, there are negative consequences.

Let’s be clear: misinformation on deforestation from palm oil has no place in the EU’s report on trans fats. The EU is advocating a position that is likely to result in poorer health outcomes in Europe, and will have negative social and economic outcomes in the developing world including Malaysia.

Evidence-based policymaking – not irrationality – is a mark of good government. The same principles should be applied to policy as they are to medicine: evidence and objective assessment. Not doing so is to live in an age of superstition or to be ruled, as the EU’s own official describes it, by “emotion”.

By basing palm oil policy on evidence, instead of such superstition, the EU can ensure amicable trade relations, good health outcomes and even good economic outcomes for consumers and producers. 

This article is written by/on behalf of The Oil Palm and not by the FoodNavigator.com editorial team.

Get in touch with The Oil Palm

Follow The Oil Palm

Facebook
Twitter