The palm oil problem

[Dave Hounddriver]

4 hours ago, Joey G said:

Not the healthiest.... but I remember a time when McDonalds cooked their French fries in lard

I suppose it is a matter of opinion.  I believe there will be lots of opinions if people do some Googling, but I like this one:
 

Quote

Is lard healthier than vegetable oil? Yes. Animal fats like lard do not oxidize and cause free-radical damage in the body the way that vegetable oils do. Heated vegetable oils produce trans fats which have many health consequences.

 

[JJReyes]

4 hours ago, Joey G said:

Actually... Crisco has been made from vegetable oil since 1911 when it first came out... still on the shelves in my store.

I could be mistaken about the brand.  Checking the internet, the popular brands today are Armour, Goya and Farmer John.  The lard is sold in tubs and bricks.

[Mike J]

13 hours ago, Tommy T. said:

JGF... I respectfully disagree. Both L and I have tasted the palm/laurieate oil a few times when buying their Jollibee chicken. Definite taste of palm oil with fried chicken. One time the taste was so strong that I actually could not eat it....

 

Maybe you were there on days when the oil was too old/burnt/dirty?

Per Google "what kind of oil does Jollibee use".

<snip>All fried products are prepared in Sunflower Oil. <end snip>

[Mike J]

5 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

I suppose it is a matter of opinion.  I believe there will be lots of opinions if people do some Googling, but I like this one:
 

 

Thanks Dave. I was "sure" that lard was bad for you.  One of those "everyone knows that".  So I googled a bit also.  Turns out the oil better for you than lard is olive oil.  Now I just need to convince my wife.

Also found this article that tells the story of why folks stopped buying lard.  Kind of long but interesting reading.

https://www.mashed.com/324261/the-real-reason-why-people-stopped-buying-lard/

Spoiler

Fat has a long and sordid history in American food culture, especially in the last century or so. We love it and crave it, as evidenced by the skyrocketing popularity of greasy fast food cuisine. We also hate it with a fervor, as proven by countless diet programs targeting fat, and the rapid growth of the health food industry (via Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences). And among all the fats out there, there is probably none more contentious than lard. 

Rendered from the fattiest parts of a pig, lard was once a mainstay in pretty much every American pantry (via NPR). Fast-forward to today, and it's a safe bet that most of us don't have any lard lying around in our kitchens, nor would we want to. And why is that? How did lard go from being our go-to fat source to essentially a dirty word in the world of healthy cooking (via Slate)? Well, the answer is a little bit complicated — it involves a peek at the history books, as well as a look back at our scientific understanding of fats and health, plus a heaping dose of capitalism. Keep scrolling to find out the real reason people stopped buying lard.

Concerns about lard started with issues in the meatpacking industry
Library of Congress
If you're looking for a single person to blame for the fate of lard in American kitchens, look no further than Upton Sinclair. The muckraking journalist of the early 20th century made waves across the country when he published The Jungle in 1906 (via NPR). The novel, a fictional portrayal of immigrant factory workers, was aimed at highlighting poor working conditions among the poorest laborers in the U.S., but more than anything, it served to garner outrage and concern among Americans about the meat industry, and the unsanitary conditions in which their food was being produced for consumption (via New York Times and Constitutional Rights Foundation). 

The newfound scrutiny of the meat industry included lard, which was rendered in these factories. It didn't help that there was a particularly grim and gory section in the novel describing the dangerous work of rendering and cooking lard in pig factories. The Jungle wrote this of workers making lard: "their peculiar trouble was that they fell into the vats; and when they were fished out, there was never enough of them left to be worth exhibiting". With that terrifying image in mind, Americans were becoming primed and ready for a new kind of fat to cook with. It wouldn't be long until they got one.

Crisco stole the show from lard
Instagram
Around the same time that Americans were coming to understand the perils of the meatpacking industry, a growing soap and candle company by the name of Procter & Gamble stumbled upon a technological breakthrough that would completely change the fat game.

At the turn of the 20th century, Procter & Gamble was looking for ways to optimize their soap production, as well as do something with the company's huge supply of cottonseed oil, as the invention of the lightbulb led to a decline in demand for candles (via NPR). Proctor & Gamble invested in a new technology called hydrogenation, which turned cottonseed oil into the pearly, thick substance that we know today as hydrogenated vegetable oil. Proctor & Gamble dubbed it Crisco (via The Atlantic).

This was around 1910, just a few years after the release of The Jungle. As Procter & Gamble was looking for a way to market and sell this new product, the already growing skepticism around meat processing and lard consumption presented a perfect window of opportunity. Plus, during that time, health food claims didn't face the same regulation they do today, so Proctor & Gamble was also able to market their new Crisco product as being healthier than lard. It was an instant hit, and the rest, as they say, is history. Crisco remains a household name to this day (via The Conversation).

The price of lard in the early 20th century didn't help things
Shutterstock
On top of safety concerns and the rollout of Crisco, a supposedly healthier alternative to animal fat, the economy was another factor that led to lard's downfall. In the early 20th century leading up to the Second World War, lard became less and less affordable.

In 1929, the stock market crash kicked off the Great Depression in the U.S., and millions of people lost their income. This economic downturn caused prices of food and livestock (including pigs, and thus, lard) to drop drastically across the board as supply piled up (via PBS). In response, the government carried out "emergency livestock reductions" (yep, they killed pigs and cows) in 1933 to help decrease this supply and thus increase prices (via Living History Farm). 

A few years later, lard prices were affected again as rationing was imposed in 1943 to support America's efforts in World War II (via The Atlantic). It is also worth noting that government calls for excess lard and other fats to be used to make military weapons during WWII caused many cooks and bakers to turn instead to shortening (and the likes of Crisco) as an alternative, perhaps aiding in the cultural shift away from lard (via Soy Info Center).

Then there were health concerns surrounding lard
Shutterstock
By the time the U.S. had recovered from the Great Depression and World War II, a new threat against lard was emerging. This time it was science. NPR reports that in the 1950s, scientists really started raising alarms about the links between lard and heart disease, which was on its way to becoming the leading cause of death among Americans (via NIH). Specifically, researchers warned that saturated fats like lard contain high levels of cholesterol, which was thought to be the main cause of heart disease (via AOCS). 

In the last several decades, however, the tables have turned as health experts have come to new understandings about the fat and heart health. Scientists have actually found that the trans fats in vegetable shortening, like Crisco, can cause a range of health issues, including major heart problems (via Healthline). Meanwhile it seems that the saturated fat from animal sources, including butter and lard, is quite not as bad for our health as previously thought. On top of that, science has now shown that there isn't really a link between the cholesterol you eat and heart disease. 

The snowball effect of negative public opinion hurt lard
Shutterstock
Despite the fact that scientists have updated their thinking on lard, the public has been slower to catch up. By the time new research was published exonerating saturated fats, decades of negative public opinion and a bad reputation among health experts had pushed lard out of most American kitchens (via NPR). And while many are hopeful and pushing for lard to find its way back into our cooking repertoire, it may take a while for the public to see lard in a positive light.

For so long, lard has been thought of as no more than an artery-clogging grease and a derogatory insult (via Slate). For example, on Urban Dictionary, a "tub of lard" is referred to as "a person who is so fat and/or disgusting that the very sight of them invokes images of a giant vat filled with congealed animal fat." That's downright mean, and not just to the lard.

Marketing by the food industry only made things worse for lard
Shutterstock
Lard really started to face fierce competition in the market when Crisco hit the shelves in the early 20th century. Procter & Gamble launched an aggressive advertising campaign, propagating the purity of its factory-produced product, and marketing Crisco as healthier and easier to digest than lard (via The Conversation). Regulations on health claims for foods didn't really come around until the late 20th century (via Fooducate). 

This paved the way for increased marketing by margarine and vegetable oil companies to push their products as a better fat (via AOCS). Then, as America's "War on Fat" (as Time Magazine puts it) waged on throughout the second half of the 20th century, there was even more urgency to market animal fat alternatives as more heart healthy. The New York Times reported that during this time "an entire industry emerged to create fat substitutes." This mindset spilled across the entire food industry, with the steady rise in low or reduced fat food products, ranging from dairy to desserts, chips and snacks to even leaner meats, all backed by a major industry advertising push to "reinforcing the less-fat-is-good-health message." And the marketing worked ... to the detriment of our health. Of course, all of this was turned on its head amid new scientific breakthroughs around the turn of the 21st century, which would inevitably lead to a whole new set of healthy eating trends (via Vogue).

Safety and environmental concerns about lard remain today
Shutterstock
While lard consumption may not carry the same health risks it was once thought to, there are still major health concerns that remain when it comes to pork in general, for both people and the animal. For one, there is still a body of evidence that suggests links between pork consumption and a range of chronic health conditions, including diabetes and cancer (via ZME Science). And in more recent decades, research has shown an increasing percentage of food borne illnesses linked to pork (via Healthline). 

Other concerns causing many to turn away from pork include the ethical abuses associated with industrial pig farming and the environmental costs of mass pork production. Even though rendering animal fat in and of itself isn't necessarily harmful to the environment (and can help cut back on waste), high market demand for pig products in general has led to the rise of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, which are major sources of toxic pollution and waste (via US News & World Report).

Plus there are all kinds of healthier alternatives to lard
Shutterstock
Nowadays, it's easy to see why lard is such an overlooked or outcast fat. Just roam your local grocery store. There is a whole range of fats and oils to choose from on the shelves, from mainstays like butter, margarine, and olive oil to a variety of nut and seed oils that get the job done.

Thanks to our crazed rebellion against all things fat in the latter half of the 20th century, America has seen an explosion in supposedly healthier fat alternatives (via PhillyMag.com) — arguably none more pervasive than olive oil, which has become an American household staple since the 1980s (per Washington Post, New York Times). 

Today, the American Heart Association recommends using the following common cooking oils, which they say are better for your health (in alphabetical order, not any sort of ranking): canola, corn, olive, peanut, safflower, soybean, and sunflower.

But lard is definitely making a comeback in kitchens today
Wikipedia
As with many come-and-go trends in our diet and food culture, lard is starting to have a full circle moment. The San Francisco Chronicle explained in 2012 that "cooks seeking flavor, farmers advocating a return to more sustainable ways of raising animals and science's shifting thinking on dietary health are all helping to rehabilitate" lard's reputation and place in our food culture.

There is no denying lard has started making a comeback in our kitchens, thanks in part to renewed attention from chefs and foodies. It also helps that newer research has shown that lard may actually be better for your health than butter, containing more good fats and less bad fats than the dairy standard we so often turn to (via The Independent).

These days, the once maligned fat is garnering headlines like this one from The Daily Meal: "5 Reasons Why Lard Is the New Coconut Oil." Lard is being appreciated once again for its "versatility in the kitchen," (per Country Living). It's apparently the secret ingredient your gumbo is missing, as well was your biscuits, and it has a magical ability to create light and flaky pie crusts. And if you are interested in giving this old-school ingredient a try, there is no shortage of lard recipes all over the internet to lend some inspiration.

Read More: https://www.mashed.com/27063/15-mistakes-everyone-makes-cooking-eggs/

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Mike J

[BrettGC]

Trans fats are banned for commercial use in many countries.

[Tommy T.]

4 hours ago, Mike J said:

Per Google "what kind of oil does Jollibee use".

<snip>All fried products are prepared in Sunflower Oil. <end snip>

I see what they say in that quote. But both L (native Filipina) and I swear that we have tasted the lauriate or palm oil on occasion when eating Jolibee chicken. Sometimes it is stronger tasting than others, but no way is it sunflower or any other oil. Just our experience.

[Gator]

10 hours ago, Tommy T. said:

I see what they say in that quote. But both L (native Filipina) and I swear that we have tasted the lauriate or palm oil on occasion when eating Jolibee chicken. Sometimes it is stronger tasting than others, but no way is it sunflower or any other oil. Just our experience.

The AM and I were chatting about this. She told me when she was younger she briefly worked at a Jolibee’s in Cebu city. She said the night clean up crew would often cook their own food in the deep fryer. Some would cook enough to feed their families for a few days. So it’s quite possible the the oil got tainted as they cooked all kinds of things, especially pork and fish. 

[Lee]

Snippet from todays MT about the palm oil situation:

Quote

 

Palm oil, which I wrote about earlier this month ("The palm oil problem," April 20), is still in the news, and becoming an increasing source of tension between the European Union and the world's two largest producers, Indonesia and Malaysia. Both countries have reacted bitterly to the EU's recent imposition of new certification requirements aimed at curbing the palm oil industry's destructive practices of deforestation and conversion of peat lands, rules that will either put much of the existing industry in Malaysia and Indonesia out of business, or force expensive modifications to farming techniques and land use.

 

In a statement after the vote approving the regulations, Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Plantation and Commodities Yab Dato' Sri Haji Fadillah Bin Haji Yusof complained, "The regulation is a deliberate effort to increase costs and barriers for Malaysia's palm oil sector, including more than 450,000 smallholders. This ultimately would increase poverty, reduce household incomes and harm our rural communities — outcomes that stand in stark contrast to the EU's commitments outlined in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The EUDR (EU deforestation regulation) is unjust and serves primarily to protect a domestic oilseeds market that is inefficient and cannot compete with Malaysia's efficient and productive palm oil exports."

The Deputy PM added, "The Malaysian government, working alongside our partners in Indonesia, is considering an appropriate response to this regulation, given the importance of the palm oil sector and the clear intent to impose an unjustified trade barrier."

Indonesia's response has been even more interesting. In an op-ed piece for the online EU Observer, Indonesia's ambassador to Germany Arif Havas Oegroseno accused the EU of "trying to recolonize the Global South." The ambassador suggested that the EUDR was a form of spying, as it would make use of satellite monitoring of land use, and require farmers to submit their personal data to an EU database. He wrote, "As the Global South and its smallholder farmers are being targeted by the EUDR, the critical question is: Does EU want to recolonize them again with different ways and means?"

The great importance of the palm oil industry to both Indonesia and Malaysia, respectively the world's number one and two exporters of the stuff, makes their reactions understandable, if not exactly justifiable. The industry in both countries has been notorious for its level of environmental destruction and labor abuse for years, and while both governments have made efforts to improve things on both counts, it is a bit arrogant for them to demand that the rest of the world set aside their own standards.

What is more worrisome is the not-so-subtle indications from both Malaysia and Indonesia that they are willing to engage in a trade conflict with the EU over the palm oil regulations. At a time when global trade and the broader economy are still in somewhat tenuous condition, such an outcome would be harmful well beyond their borders.

But, as it turns out, Malaysia and Indonesia may have an option for peddling the palm oil that the EU no longer wants. In an article last Monday, Eco-Business revealed that an aggressive effort to build up a domestic palm oil industry in India, the world's largest importer, has completely collapsed. In the northeastern Mizoram state, the center of palm oil in India, the number of hectares under cultivation has plummeted since the support initiative began, from 26,730 hectares initially to just 3,400 hectares. Most of this decline seems to have happened in the span of about a year; according to the state's agriculture department, the number of farmers listed as palm oil producers dropped from 10,843 to 2,733 between 2021 and 2022.

The biggest reason for the failure was cited as poor infrastructure and excessive transport costs, making imported palm oil comparatively cheaper. With an annual consumption of more than nine million metric tons, India would seem to be a promising market for their Southeast Asian neighbors who are suddenly feeling jilted by their former best customers.

 

 

 

---

ben.kritz@manilatimes.net