Talk:Palm oil/Archive 2

Not the same as palm kernal

Oil palms produce two different oils, palm and palm kernal. So why does "palm kernal oil" redirect here. It is inaccurate and seems to connote that no distinction need be made between these two oils of different composition. -Robert Beverly —Preceding unsigned comment added by58.8.94.240 (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of Palm kernel oil should be expanded. Since they both come from the same plant, it isn't unreasonable to cover them both in the same article (environmental impacts, etc. likely to have much in common). But there definitely should be a section on Palm kernel oil, detailing its characteristics/uses/etc. as compared to palm oil. (More highly saturated, mix of oils, different extraction processies, etc.)

I removed the link to the redirect back here - since that is just confusing. Zodon (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Although palm kernel oil and palm oil come from the same plant (coconut oil does not, it comes from the kernel of another palm), they have very different nutritional characteristics, and should be treated separately. It certainly is not unreasonable to cover them both in the same article (environmental impacts, etc.), and there is no reason they should not both be mentioned, together with oil palm biomass, in the same article on the oil palm. But palm oil is not palm kernel oil, any more than coconut oil is palm kernel oil. I have removed the redirect back here and restored the separated article on palm kernel oil, which does indeed need to be expanded.     Jay L09 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed POV, etc.

The statement "Palm oil is a unique vegetable oil because it contains a balanced [reference included:] Agriculture Handbook No. 8-4 (1979) "Composition of Foods" US Dept of Agriculture, Science & Education Administration Washington DC [end of included reference] ratio of unsaturated and saturated fatty acids." has been removed because the reference says nothing about a "balanced ratio of unsaturated and saturated fatty acids," and because the reference says nothing about palm oil being a "unique vegetable oil." The statement is nothing but a POV masquerading as a published authoritative statement.71.218.33.87 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement "This misconception has led many to beleive that palm oil is 'unhealthy' for food," has also been removed, because it is also a POV. Much better explanations include the simple fact that coconuts come from palm trees (and that coconut oil is therefore a "palm oil" in the English language sense, if not in the jargon sense); the extensive media campaign waged against "tropical oils" (which palm oil, palm kernel oil, and coconut oils all are) by a certain wealthy victim of atherosclerosis; and the fact that the USDA regulations do not allow food labels to distinguish between different saturated fatty acids.71.218.33.87 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracy

I have been reading Peter Robb's "A Death in Brazil," he states that it was actually first used as a cooking oil in Brazil a hundred years earlier than Africans on page 183. Africans only used it as a means of oiling the skin. it was sort of transculturation in a transatlantic repressive slave trade sort of deal. I thought I'd just point out that this article might be biased towards the African origins over the Brazilian. --IamaMuncho (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are the largest buyers of Palm Oil?

Who are the largest buyers of Palm oil?
Nestle? Kraft Foods?
Nunamiut (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage stats needed

The article needs a table or graph of quantity of palm oil produced per year for the last, say ten years. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What room?

The article states that "Palm oil is (...) semi-solid at room temperature". But of what room is "room temperature" the temperature? Classically, the expression means something like 20°C, but under the warm climates where palm oil is grown and mostly consumed, a typical room temperature might more likely be 35°C.

The term "oil" seems incongruous for a solid or semi-solid substance. And the picture on the right of a bottle containing the product seems strange: how do they get it out? Do they heat the bottle each time? I suspect that actually, in the places where it is produced and mostly consumed, palm oil is, at a typical room temperature, quite liquid.

If I am right about this, then the sentence about it being "semi-solid at room temperature" is misleading, or, perhaps, ethnocentric.

David Olivier (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

David Olivier is correct in the post above regarding "room temperature". Simply quantify the term to remove ambiguity. In other entries in Wikipedia about oils such as trans fat and partially hydrogenated oils, this term repeatedly is used. This is probably due to bad language habits and cliche. Leafgreen (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, David Olivier and Leafgreen are both wrong. "Room temperature" is an idiom: its meaning differs from the sum of the meanings of the words in the phrase. Although the words suggest that it is the temperature in (any given) room, the idiom actually refers to a place (room) in which the temperature is controlled and is thus independent of both season and latitude. There is, however, some difference in usage depending on longitude: "room temperature" can mean 20°C or 25°C, depending on whether it is being used in American English or British English.     Jay L09 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "room temperature" is no more ethnocentric than the terms "gasoline" and "petrol."     Jay L09 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As an American living in Malaysia and having years of experience using palm oil, I can categorically state that the oil is always very much liquid at ANY ambient temperature I've ever seen it in, even in an air-conditioned room. Perhaps if you put it in the refrigerator, it would solidify, but even around 20°C, it's a free-flow liquid.

Palm oil comprises two oils that can be separated thermally to yield a liquid (palm olein) and a solid (palm stearin); thus precluding the need for hydrogenation. This may be the source of the "semi-solid" confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by175.136.236.29 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the NPOV dispute tag?

Nutriveg place NPOV dispute tag but does not specify which part of the article is considered "unacceptable". By saying last edits since Sep 7 messed NPOV is vague. How about offering scientific evidence to your point of view since you think the neutrality of this article is of dispute? Do list the "troubling" passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that can lead to resolution.BT119991 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is very unbalanced towards palm oil claimed benefits and preference over other oils (or no oil). Any section, or phrase, that presents "palm oil" that way without presenting another POV or giving undue balance to those POV is problematic.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think you should incorporate this study in your next edits.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

by jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by58.28.152.158 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article fails NPOV test. It appears to be biased towards the benefits of palm oil. Ex 1: "Malaysia recently in began turning up its campaign to fight misinformation against palm oil production" -- "misinformation" implies acceptance of Malaysian govt pro-industry POV. Ex. 2: The section on positive Social Impacts focuses only on countries where smallholder farmers predominate, but these are not representative of most palm oil production. Ex. 3: "Palm oil is under increasing scrutiny in relation to its effects on the environment" -- This is vague language that doesn't state impacts, it just avoids specificity. The big palm oil plantations are causing large-scale habitat loss (in Borneo especially) and contributing very significantly to Indonesia's top ranking as a GHG emitter. (Sharp11 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

This article is so non-neutral as to be laughable. It is simply a reiteration of the opinions expressed by Palm-oil industry propoganda publications and the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia. There is absolutely no discussion of Palm oil production's enormous negative contribution to global climate change(in the form of carbon-sink loss and CO2 release from burning rainforests) which has been duly condemned by the UN and the IPCC as well as a multitude of NGO's. Also conspicously absent are any mention of the unlawful appropriation of lands from indigineous farmers by Palm Oil plantation owners or the probable extinction of thousands of important plant and animal species (including one of humanity's closest relatives, the orangutan) If palm oil production continues at current rates. For the sake of credibility - not to mention neutrality- this article must give equal mention to these issues. Better yet it should be completely rewritten, as much of the text as it currently stands is exceptionally misleading or simply false. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your comment is older -- perhaps the page has improved since? It still looks a little POV and favorable to the palm oil industry, especially in light of the very prevalent controversies. But now it seems to have included more critiques,though several seem to be followed up with industry-apologist rebuttals -- in the "Social" subsection of the "Impacts" section, there is more text spent on rebuttal to the critiques than the critiques themselves. I understand that, in this case, these rebuttals figure into the social impacts, as reinvestment can be termed a positive impact, and also forms a rebuttal to the criticisms. But to just see that one little (though heavily cited) critical sentence at the beginning of the section, seems to be under-representing the more critical viewpoints of the social impact of the palm oil industry. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example is the sentence and reference discussed below under Red Palm Oil: A reference is used (well it was, until I removed it) to back up a sentence with a mistaken unit conversion, and the reference does not even address the major claim of the sentence! A close reading of the reference shows that, although it appears to be a valid scientific research article, it too is a laughable paen: it touts the superiority of highly saturated palm oil over fats containing trans fats because "Trans fatty acids are known to behave metabolically like saturated fat"; it claims that "140 million preschoolers are affected by subclinical vitamin A deficiency" (that is, a deficiency so slight that there is no effect); it uses an unusually low threshold for detecting an improvement in response to dietary fortification with palm oil because the usual threshold does not show a big enough effect. The author of the paper, published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutriton received financial support from the Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council to present the paper.     Jay L09 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The flow of Palm Oil Colombia-Europe, from a human rights perspective

If I may, I think this study (Mingorance Fidel, The flow of Palm Oil, Columbia Belgium Europe, a study from a Human Rights Perspective, HREV, CBC, November 2006.) should be incorporated in the "Impact" category. Mr.AdOcK (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Medical use" needs work

This paragraph is pretty inconsistent:

"Palm oil is applied to wounds, just like iodine tincture, to aid the healing process. This is not just done for its oily qualities; like coconut oil, unrefined palm oil is supposed to have additional antimicrobial effects, but research does not confirm this."

Who applies oil to wounds? For that matter, who still applies iodine to wounds? Certain traditions or locations? Some people doubtless believe it aids the healing process, but is there evidence for that? The second sentence first implies that palm oil has special healing qualities, then says research doesn't confirm that. Sounds more like two points of view not reconciled.

All in all, if the whole issue of "medical" use is even worth including in the article, then it needs to be spelled out a little more. If there is a substantial folk use, or use in some regions of the world, then that could be explained, and followed with evidence one way or the other (or both) about its usefulness. Otherwise, the paragraph contributes little. Mikeblyth (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/10/1/business/4808530&sec=business and[1]. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the materialmay be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

removed POV conclusion about health effects

Removed the following paragraph for POV. Aardnavark (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Palm oil's natural mix of antioxidants and balanced composition of fatty acids, makes it a safe, stable and versatile edible oil with many positive health attributes. The idea of which foods, nutrients and supplements are "healthy" is often being amended as new scientific data is presented and then simplified for the consumers. What was once perceived as a healthy diet is often no longer considered as such and vice versa. Dietary recommendations change with time and evidence available."

New York

What about the fact that palm oil is forbidden in NY? Why is it not mentioned in the article? --Little sawyer (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it? New York, NY, or the whole state? (If you have a reference, why not add it?) Jay L09 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not mentioned because it's not true. --Bridgecross (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Palm Oil

There is recent evidence that RPO and one of its primary components, Vitamin E tocotrienols, can prevent atherosclerosis and increase insulin sensitivity in mouse models. Wikidca (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)--Wikidca (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The RPO section has at least one factual error and I'm not experienced enough here to correct it. One teaspoon of anything is around 5ml, not 20ml. I tried to find the correct value in the linked reference, but there is no assertion in the study about regular use by children supplying RDA of vitamin A, the nearest reference I can see is about correcting low vitamin levels with a month or so of 4g or 8g per day ("A place for palm fruit oil to eliminate vitamin A deficiency", P2: "Effect of red palm oil on vitamin A status of school children")

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by193.34.186.165 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the sentence and reference to this topic under Talk. One teaspoon is indeed not 20 mL, and the reference does not mention either one teaspoon or 20 mL of red palm oil. The reference seems to be mostly an advertisement for "Carotino baking fat," and made much of the dangers of "sub-clinical" vitamin A deficiency (that is, a deficiency so slight that it has no measurable effect). The author received financial support from the Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council.     Jay L09 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The removed sentence and reference are:

One teaspoon (about 20 ml) a day of red palm oil supplies children with the daily recommended amount of vitamin A.

Jay L09 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the following statement and its associated reference (with the dead link corrected):

This has made it a valued resource in the treatment of vitamin A deficiency.

The fact that a poster about research was presented at a conference hardly constitutes a scientific consensus that red palm oil is a "valued resource..."     Jay L09 (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the following statement and its associated reference.

Nursing mothers, by adding red palm oil into their diets, can double or triple the amount of vitamin A in breast milk.

The reference does not support the statement, although it mentions another paper as showing "significantly improved" (not doubled or tripled) β-carotene (not Vitamin A) levels in breast milk.     Jay L09 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed a sentence saying that french fries cooked in red palm oil have an attractive color, not really relevant or helpful.BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Updates

The update tag refers to 2007 articles about Malaysian usage and 2008 changes. Make the article reflect the current state of play. Lfstevens (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - Health yet again

The section needs a complete rewrite from WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

ITC external link to trade data

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the specific product trade data held by ITC. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the trade database referring to the specific product 5) The addition of a link to reliable data could provide an appropriate contribution to the article, as the available links referring to international trade flows are quite outdated. Thank you for your attention.Divoc (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a tree

An oil palm (or any palm) is not a tree and should not be called so (subscript to photograph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcloesen (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Research

The research section states that "Porim (renamed Malaysian Palm Oil Board in 2000) became Malaysia's top research entity commercializing 20% of its innovations, compared to 5% among local universities" fails the NPOV. Firstly no citation is given to this statment, so it is impossible to ascertain how this was determined. Secondly, even if the statement is correct- commercialation is only one way to assess a research entity - a more commnon one (and one that can be independently verified) is the number of high quality research articles and a quick Publish or Perish search shows this statement to incorrect MPOB H score = 14, Uni Malaya H score = 40.Sepilok2007 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Bar chart colours

I've changed the colours of the bar chart only because it seemed that someone not reading carefully might get the impression that the fats shown in red and orange are what gives the oil its colour. :-) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)