Globally, food safety and standards are becoming stricter by the day, while consumers are becoming increasingly fastidious about food safety, food hygiene and health benefits of food. More often than not, consumers scout for hygienically-prepared safe foods. No wonder, packaged branded foods are becoming increasingly popular even in emerging markets, as a brand is often perceived as a symbol of quality assurance.

From time to time, we see scientific reports or reports from scientists either unduly eulogising the goodness of a food product or food ingredient, or running down some popular foods or ingredients.

The latter kind of report shakes up the entrenched notion of some food being safe. The recent report that castigates coconut oil as unhealthy and brands it as poison is one such instance. But it certainly will not be the last.

We have seen in the past how palm oil was attacked by certain sectional interests — suspected to be the soyabean lobby in the United States — in the late 1980s as being a tropical oil loaded with saturated fats and therefore unhealthy for human consumption.

That sustained campaign against palm oil surely impacted the market in the short run. However, the Malaysian palm oil industry then decided to catch the bull by the horn. It poured enormous amounts of research dollars to scientifically demonstrate that palm oil was certainly not unhealthy, and, if anything, was a better substitute to certain other oils.

It took long years, a sustained campaign and huge investments to disabuse the minds of wary consumers; in recent years, palm oil has become the dominant vegetable oil in the world market.

Scientists used by lobbies

It is also an example of how scientists are ‘used’, possibly by business interests, to promote or denounce a particular food or ingredient. It is also possible some scientists fall prey to certain vulnerabilities and compromise their integrity.

Now, the target seems to be coconut oil. Indeed, palm oil and coconut oil were clubbed together as tropical oils during the anti-palm campaign of the 1980s. But palm received all the attention and research support because of its large volume of production, while coconut oil received limited attention.

The latest scathing attack on coconut oil suspected to be with extremely limited scientific vigour raises the question: who is behind the so-called ‘scientific report?’ If the attack on palm oil years ago was part of a trade war to capture market share, coconut oil is hardly in that big league. World coconut oil production is just about 3.5 million tonnes and world trade is about 1.5 million tonnes, too small for any major oil to feel threatened.

‘Scientific temper’ simply means keeping an open mind to ideas and views however unpalatable they might appear to be. The stakeholders in the coconut oil industry across the Asia-Pacific — where it is extensively produced — must now seize the opportunity, produce sufficient genuinely scientific literature to demonstrate the goodness of the oil and its health attributes, and communicate the findings effectively.

It is not enough to just denounce the latest report attacking coconut oil; you must prove it wrong. once and for all the issue can be settled.

The author is a policy commentator and global agribusiness specialist. Views are personal.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW