Advertorial claimed that controversial oil business was 'green answer' and was important to alleviating poverty
Mark Sweney, guardian.co.uk 9 Sep 09;
A press campaign making environmental claims about the controversial product Malaysian Palm Oil, including that it is "sustainable", has been banned as misleading by the advertising regulator.
Palm Oil, which is used in a third of all groceries, has been at the centre of an environmental debate over its role in the destruction of rainforest in areas such as south-east Asia.
The press campaign, run by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC), made a number of claims, including that the product was the "green answer" and that palm oil is the "only product able to sustainably and efficiently meet a larger portion of the world's increasing demand for oil crop-based consumer goods, foodstuffs and biofuels".
MPOC also argued that the palm oil business had played an important role in the "alleviation of poverty, especially among rural populations".
The advertorial went on to claim that criticism of Malaysia's palm oil industry – including "rampant deforestation and unsound environmental practices" – amounted to "protectionist agendas" not based on scientific fact or evidence.
Environmental group Friends of the Earth, and two members of the public, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that a number of the claims made by MPOC were misleading and could not be proven.
The ASA said that a palm oil company sustainability certification scheme, through a body called the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and the certification of biofuels in general, was "still the subject of debate". Therefore making a claim that palm oil could be wholly sustainable, which cannot be substantiated, was deemed to be misleading.
The ASA also said that MPOC's attack on its detractors was likely to mislead. This was because MPOC could not prove that the production of palm oil did not, in fact, lead to deforestation or environmental damage.
MPOC's assertion about helping to alleviate poverty was also misleading according to the ASA, as there was "not a consensus on the economic impact of palm oil on local communities". The ASA said that some research had shown that biofuel production causes adverse social impacts including rising food prices and has a major short-term impact on the poor.
The ASA ruled that the ad should not be shown again.
Last year the ASA banned a TV ad by the MPOC on similar grounds.
Palm oil producers 'misled' over green claims
Martin Hickman, The Independent 9 Sep 09;
The palm oil industry misled the public by claiming production of the vegetable fat was sustainable and socially useful, according to an official investigation.
In a ruling today, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld four complaints against a magazine advert by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) intended to counter environmental and human rights criticism of its record.
Plantations producing palm oil for food, household products and biofuels have destroyed swathes of rainforest on the Indonesian and Malaysian islands of Sumatra and Borneo, evicting indigenous tribes and threatening orangutans and other endangered species.
In a magazine advert headed ‘Palm Oil: The Green Answer’, MPOC claimed the oil was the only global crop able to meet growing demand for food and fuel sustainably and efficiently. It claimed the industry followed high environmental standards and referred to its founding membership of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), “which defines standards and monitoring criteria for the sustainable production and use of palm oil”.
MPOC suggested that Western criticism of palm oil was motivated by a commercial desire to safeguard domestic oils. “A number of criticisms have been levelled at Malaysia's palm oil industry, from accusations of rampant deforestation and unsound environmental practices to unfair treatment of farmers and indigenous people,” it said.
“These allegations – protectionist agendas hidden under a thin veneer of environmental concern – are based neither on scientific evidence, nor, for that matter, on fact.”
Friends of the Earth (FOE) complained that the advert gave the impression that all Malaysian palm oil was produced to RSPO standards, challenged whether it was produced to high environmental standards and questioned whether biofuels helped local people and the planet. On development, it challenged MPOC’s claim that palm oil played an important role in industrialisation and alleviation of poverty, especially in rural communities.
Backing the complaints, the ASA said there was “concern” that palm oil production caused greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation and that its impact on the environment was contentious and difficult to measure. Although the ad had implied that all Malaysian producers were in the RSPO, only some sought certification and even then the scheme was controversial.
The suggestion that opposition to biofuels was wholly unfounded was unreasonable given that the Gallagher review ordered by the British Government had found that biofueld could hurt the poor by raising food price; there was a division of informed opinion on the issue, the ASA said.
It acknowledged that palm oil had diversified the Malaysian economy, but added there was no consensus on whether it was helping Malaysians.
A previous ASA investigation into a similar claim made by MPOC concluded that ‘the claim 'sustainable' was likely to mislead’. The ASA said: “We were concerned that MPOC had repeated the claim ‘sustainable’...”
In a series of articles in May, The Independent chronicled the impact of palm oil on forests, wildlife and tribes and revealed its widespread use in products on sale in the UK such as KitKat, Wrigley’s, Hovis and Persil.
According to WWF, less than one per cent of global palm oil production is certified by the RSPO. So far only Unilever, Sainsbury’s and the Body Shop have bought it in any significant quantity.
