For decades Popeye, the Sailor man, has pined for Olive Oyl. So, I bet he both is dismayed and crestfallen by a recent University of California at Davis study that indicates that "69 percent of imported oils and 10 percent of domestic oils sampled did not meet the international standards that define the pure, cold-pressed, olive oils that deserve the extra-virgin title."
All kidding aside, do the results of this study -- suggesting dishonesty on the part of many food companies -- surprise anyone? This from an industry that fought tooth and nail against nutritional labeling and efforts to strengthen organic standards!
But, before you go shaking your head too hard, there is another important aspect to this story: The problem of objectivity.
Whenever a study is released on almost anything, there are people who will claim it wasn't objective and, of course, the people conducting the study will claim that it was. In the case of olive oil, the study was funded, in part, by "California olive oil producers and the California Olive Oil Council, a trade group that works to promote locally produced oils."
Now, if we return to the results of the study, we see that the vast majority of the olive oil that does not meet international standards is from imported foreign oils. That seems rather self-serving, doesn't it?
On the other side of the ledger,
In reality, it's very difficult to conduct any study objectively. Studies cost money and somebody has to foot the bill. The people who finance the study have a perspective and this perspective wields influence implicitly or explicitly on the outcome. In the present case, it is not surprising at all that the folks promoting domestic olive oil would find deficiencies in foreign oil labeling and the folks who represent foreign oil importers would not.
About the ONLY way I would take either side at face value is IF the results were flip-flopped. When a group funds a study that nets a result AGAINST their own interests, I tend to put a bit more credence in their findings. That is NOT to say that I accept such results lock, stock and barrel. Sometimes the funder's self-interest is ever shifting and so it takes a bit of detective work to insure the outcome does not further some new or nefarious objective.
(That said, I do feel sorry for Popeye, notwithstanding.)
All kidding aside, do the results of this study -- suggesting dishonesty on the part of many food companies -- surprise anyone? This from an industry that fought tooth and nail against nutritional labeling and efforts to strengthen organic standards!
But, before you go shaking your head too hard, there is another important aspect to this story: The problem of objectivity.
Whenever a study is released on almost anything, there are people who will claim it wasn't objective and, of course, the people conducting the study will claim that it was. In the case of olive oil, the study was funded, in part, by "California olive oil producers and the California Olive Oil Council, a trade group that works to promote locally produced oils."
Now, if we return to the results of the study, we see that the vast majority of the olive oil that does not meet international standards is from imported foreign oils. That seems rather self-serving, doesn't it?
On the other side of the ledger,
The North American Olive Oil Association, which represents most olive oil importers, has conducted its own tests for years on the products it imports, and found problems with only one percent of samples, said its president, Bob Bauer.That seems rather self-serving too!
In reality, it's very difficult to conduct any study objectively. Studies cost money and somebody has to foot the bill. The people who finance the study have a perspective and this perspective wields influence implicitly or explicitly on the outcome. In the present case, it is not surprising at all that the folks promoting domestic olive oil would find deficiencies in foreign oil labeling and the folks who represent foreign oil importers would not.
About the ONLY way I would take either side at face value is IF the results were flip-flopped. When a group funds a study that nets a result AGAINST their own interests, I tend to put a bit more credence in their findings. That is NOT to say that I accept such results lock, stock and barrel. Sometimes the funder's self-interest is ever shifting and so it takes a bit of detective work to insure the outcome does not further some new or nefarious objective.
(That said, I do feel sorry for Popeye, notwithstanding.)
One of our beloved local newscasters in Hawaii who has a bit of a speech impediment, or possibly it's just a schtick (says things like "chemnicals"), recently said we must reduce our dependence on "important" oils.
ReplyDelete