Errors, Omissions and Assumptions …

The World Health Organisation (WHO), in a recent article, turned its sights on the palm oil sector. The article is riddled with errors, omissions, assumptions and other evidence of bias. The fact that such bias exists is a major issue, but this is not the only problem.

The WHO takes issue with the palm oil industry for making use of ‘lobbying to the detriment of scientific evidence’. In doing so, the WHO itself regurgitates the talking points of anti-palm oil lobbyists, while ignoring voluminous scientific evidence on the benefits of palm oil. This lack of self-awareness is painful.

Are the WHO’s claims substantiated? Let’s start by looking at the issue of poverty.

The authors complain that the palm oil sector relies on ‘poverty alleviation arguments’. In this, the WHO is correct. Oil palm cultivation has lifted millions out of poverty by providing a regular income for small farmers and rural communities. It has helped Africans, Asians and others build better, healthier lives for themselves and their children.

Is the WHO saying that this is a bad thing? If so, it needs reminding that poverty is one of the most significant drivers of poor health. As the World Bank notes: ‘Poverty is a major cause of ill health and a barrier to accessing health care.’

Palm oil offers a unique dual benefit to producers and consumers, many of whom are based in the developing world. The producers include small farmers who can make a living and attain better quality of life. Consumers – including the poor – receive key nutrients including Vitamin E tocotrienols and tocopherols from consuming palm oil. In both instances, the main benefit is better health.

Lifting millions of people out of poverty has done more to improve global health than the WHO could visualise. But perhaps the real criticism is that palm oil producing countries ‘talk too much’ about poverty alleviation. In this respect, the Malaysian palm oil sector is guilty as charged.

For years, Malaysia has provided data, studies and articles that highlighted how the country has built successful rural communities and derived economic growth based on oil palm cultivation. Malaysia was able to reduce poverty from 50% to less than 5% within a few decades. As a result, its model of oil palm cultivation is being studied and replicated in many poor countries.

Surely, this should be celebrated by the WHO? Sharing knowledge on proven poverty alleviation efforts leads to better health conditions in poor countries. Instead, the WHO chooses to fall back on wearisome attacks on palm oil.

Repeat of allegations
The WHO next criticises palm oil in the context of trans fats. Just to be clear, trans fats have been universally condemned as deleterious to human health. In its natural state, palm oil has zero trans fats, while serving the required functions in food preparation. Again, the simplest answer is the correct one: this is a clear win for human health.

The WHO article ignores this positive as well. Instead, it asserts that ‘the palm oil industry may benefit from increased sales’. Are the authors claiming they would prefer lower health outcomes or a reintroduction of trans fats into the food supply chain?

The article moves on to adopt a copy-paste version of extremist NGO attacks on palm oil, even though these have been repeatedly debunked. If the authors had done basic research, they could have easily discovered the facts:

• On allegations of large-scale burning for land clearing: Malaysia imposes a strict zero-burn law.
• On claims linking oil palm cultivation to deforestation: UN figures show that Malaysia’s forest area is increasing, and remains far higher than that of most western nations.
• On analysis by the Harvard and Columbia universities linking transboundary haze to 100,000 premature deaths in three Southeast Asian countries in 2015: This was thoroughly discredited by the countries, including Malaysia.

The article is at least honest about its bias. Throughout, it quotes anti-palm oil rhetoric approvingly and at length, despite the absence of scientific verification. At the same time, it condemns published research with even the smallest link to the palm oil sector. This is a classic case of judgment based not on evidence, but on pre-existing prejudice (‘NGOs good; palm oil bad’).

Any balanced evaluation would conclude that the oil palm is a valuable crop. It uses less land (meaning more can be kept for conservation); fewer pesticides (which the WHO has acknowledged is a good thing); and less fertiliser.

The article compares scientific research on palm oil to studies sponsored by alcohol and tobacco companies to promote their products. When it is established, for example, that the tocotrientols in red palm oil provide essential vitamins to nutrient-deprived communities across the developing world, it is bizarre that the WHO lazily compares this to cigarettes or liquor. This would be laughable if it were not so irresponsible.

But if there is one saving grace, it is this: The WHO authors admit that ‘we need to better understand … palm oil products’. Yes, it is clear that they do.

Faces of Palm Oil

This is an edited version of a blog-post. Faces of Palm Oil is a joint project of the National Association of Small Holders, Federal Land Development Authority, Dayak Oil Palm Planters Association, Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority and MPOC. It advocates on behalf of Malaysian small farmers.