Palm oil has become an ingredient in so many of our daily staples. But its link to deforestation makes it unpopular. Is it as bad as we are led to believe?
It's safe to say that palm oil doesn't have a cracking reputation. From the British supermarket ad about an orphaned and homeless orangutan alongside food and cosmetics products loudly labelled with "no palm oil" stickers, it is widely portrayed as the bad boy of the veggie oil industry.
That said, it meets about 40% of the current global annual demand for vegetable oil used in foods, animal feed, and fuel. And because it's so versatile, not to mention lucrative, more and more forested areas have been cleared to make way for places to grow it. And that is not exactly good for the environment.
In fact, it's disastrous. More than 90% of palm oil is produced in the regions of Borneo, Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, where the land being cleared is tropical rainforests.
So... when tropical rainforests are cleared, it destroys the habitat of many different species. In addition,trees and soil help us store carbon — essentially working as a carbon sink. And we need them to help absorb the abundance of CO2 we're still producing.
Sri Lanka did in fact recently impose a ban on the import of palm oil into the country, while also introducing plans to phase out its own plantations and replace them with rubber or other environmentally friendly crops.
But given the myriad uses of palm oil, getting rid of it altogether might be easier said than done. Far from just being the evil ingredient in our much-maligned chocolate spreads, it also sneaks its way into our cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, our industries, our favorite snacks and our cars.
In fact, Europeans use it as a source of biofuel more than anything else. And far from being a green alternative to fossil fuels, palm oil diesel actually releases up to three times as many emissions as its petroleum-based alternative. Not ideal.
A couple of years ago, the EU decided to ban palm oil as a biofuel. But within months, leading producers Indonesia and Malaysia had lodged complaints against the European directive with the World Trade Organization.
It's complicated. Even though cultivating palm oil crops has led to deforestation and to some instances of draining and burning peatland in Southeast Asia, oil palms (which confusingly are the trees on which palm oil fruits grow) have a relatively high crop yield. That means we get a lot of oil from a small patch of land.
If, however, that land were given over to other crops that don't yield as much, we would likely need a greater area on which to grow alternative oil-producing crops. Up to nine times as much, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). And that would potentially lead to even more deforestation.
Yes and no really. Instead of a blanket ban, the ideal route would be to improve planning of new plantations, to avoid eradicating tropical forest — which as mentioned, we need — while ensuring sustainable production of palm oil.
Back in 2004, to make this a thing, different stakeholders from the industry set up the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Conservation organization WWF is a member and has a note on its website saying the certification means the "palm oil was produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way.”
Not exactly. Though hundreds of companies have now been granted the right to stamp their products with the RSPO seal, environmental groups from around the world have slammed it as greenwashing. Among them is Greenpeace, which has described the RSPO as of no more use than a "chocolate teapot.” Which is clearly not much use at all. Even if said chocolate were palm oil free.
A recent Greenpeace report went further, highlighting "weak implementation” of RSPO standards, audit failures and a liberal understanding of membership criteria. Overall, the report said the certified oil cannot be guaranteed to be free of deforestation or human rights abuses.
The best question yet… And a difficult one.
Greenpeace and other environmental groups are pushing for government legislation instead of industry certification, which they say dumps the "responsibility to assess the quality for a certified product onto the customer."
In having official regulations, they reckon there is a greater chance that the products we eat and use will not come at the cost of environmental destruction and violations of human rights.
In the meantime, business owners can also do their bit by checking no-one along their supply chains is contributing to deforestation.
As for the rest of us, we can find out which of the products on our shopping lists contain palm oil, check out whether companies are keeping their promises. And we can make noise to push for greater transparency and cleaner products.
Additional reporting by Sarah Steffen.