The UK Independent newspaper has recently published a report to reveal the presence of the ever popular palm oil in food products in the country. The report does not reveal anything new. It has always been known that palm oil is widely used in numerous food products that we use or consume everyday . In fact, credit should be given to the UK for promoting the use of palm oil in food products since the beginning of the 20th century because the British were among the early pioneers to cultivate oil palm in the Far East and import palm oil to supplement the chronic shortages of oils and fats in the country.
What is new in the report is the vengeance with which the Independent took it upon itself to demonise palm oil with the accusation that this ever popular palm oil causes “catastrophic impact on the wild life of Malaysia …”,”…whose rainforests are being cleared to grow the crop”. Many other unfounded statements taken without close scrutiny for accuracy from NGOs environmental campaign reports are used by the Independent to justify its call on the food industry to stop using palm oil.
I actually analyse every sentence on the front page of the lead article:”An oil shock we cannot ignore” by the Independent on 1st May. Almost every sentence on the page is not true and therefore a lie. How is it that newspapers like the Independent are resorting to telling lies to make a sale nowadays. Is it that bad in the UK? True, these dramatic sentences were already mentioned by NGOs in their past reports, but that does not qualify them to be taken as truths.
We all know that the culture of lying was developed into a fine art by President Bush and PM Blair when they tried to make a case for invading Iraq. Look at where they are now after their own people rejected their brand of leadership. Unfortunately, the Independent sees it fit to propagate this new culture of lies, under the guise of going green. I can therefore predict that the Independent newspaper will soon loose credibility and go out of print for propagating lies. How long can one lie to the public even if they are vulnerable during these difficult times of gloom and doom.
Attacking the agricultural produce of developing countries using fabricated lies manufactured by the Greenpeace and other UK led environmental NGOs is uncalled for as our farmers have been growing oil palm on their legitimate agricultural land long before the Independent was established. Why it it that all of a sudden our palm oil that feeds billion of people round the world is projected as undesirable. Palm oil was not denied its role in the food industry when the British owned most of the oil palm plantations in Malaysia in the 1960s and 70s. Malaysia has not deforested its land in the way portrayed by the Independent. Our permanent forests are intact and protected by law and cannot simply be converted for oil palm cultivation. This is why we still maintain more than 55% of Malaysia under permanent forest cover compared to just 11 % of forest left in the UK. World deforestation is occuring at the rate of 10 million hectares per year. Oil palm is not to be blamed as the deforestation rate is totally uncorrelated to the combined oil palm area of Indonesia and Malaysia of only slightly over 10 million hectares created after being in existence for about 100 years.
We live in a world that is littered with half truths, many of which are propagated by intelligent people. Have they ever wondered on the implications of their actions which may affect the livelihood and families of oil palm farmers in distant countries. Many of these farmers are probably living from hand to mouth on a daily basis and struggling to feed their families with a sustainable source of decent income. Terrorizing the oil palm industry by publishing blatant lies can be likened to the Somalian pirates who live on immoral earnings by attacking defenseless ships passing their waters.
The writers responsible for the Independent controversial articles are either very ignorant about deforestation in Malaysia or they are simply cashing in on the readers appetite for dramatic stories even if they betray the public trust on them to report factual truth. We have often opened our doors by inviting the UK media and NGOs to dialogue but they resort to using the printed media to tell blatant lies on palm oil sustainability. For example, a palm oil sustainability seminar was held in London in March 2009, but the media and some relevant NGOs failed to show up despite many of them having registered to attend. I would encourage these misguided writers to be brave enough to visit a real oil palm plantation in Malaysia and tell our oil palm farmers why the palm oil that they produce is not as acceptable as the olive oil produced by the EU farmers.
In my assessment, oil palm plantations in Malaysia are anytime better farm models than olive plantations in Europe, or any large scale farm operations in the UK. Why must the Independent newspaper “attack” our well managed agricultural oil palm farms and not “attack” the inferior and subsidised farms operated in Europe. For example, olive plantation farms in the EU (I saw some in Spain and Portugal while on holidays) use too much water or need irrigation; they are proned to desertification and soil erosion by wind; they have almost no biodiversity, and contribute minimally in combating global warming. The olive plantations are so inferior in environmental sustainability compared to oil palm plantations in Malaysia that it is a shame that the NGOs and Independent newspaper decided to pick to denigrate palm oil and not olive oil.
If the argument is against deforestation that took place long ago to create these olive and other farms around the world including oil palm cultivation, let it be known that the land used for oil palm cultivation in Malaysia is only 0.09% of total world agricultural area. Surely 0.09 % of world agricultural land is not responsible for world deforestation or global warming; it is more logical to focus the blame on the rest of the 99.91 % of the world agricultural areas which reside mostly in the developed countries. What the Independent is doing is like blaming the Malaysians for global warming because we use a few cars when in fact the developed countries are the ones using cars more intensively and should be blamed for global warming.
The Independent article still talks of raising money in the West to give to Malaysia to help save rainforests and such a move apparently will be proposed at the coming climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December. It is a good idea if the West can “bail out” the rainforests (in addition to their banks and car firms in financial trouble) from being decimated especially for areas in the tropics where forests are truely being removed. But focusing on Malaysia as a location of deforestation is the wrong target and attributing the blame to palm oil is truely cruel as contrary to the allegations, palm oil is likely to help save forests by indirectly preventing clearing of forests for planting soyabean and rapeseed to overcome world shortages in oils and fats. This is termed the “deforestation avoidance” effect of high yielding oil palm when palm oil from Malaysia is imported to meet world shortages (see previous blog article).
It would be even better if the Independent proposes to promote reforestation to combat climate change by allowing more trees to sequester green house gases (GHG),and the UK is the best place to start the initiative as it is also the one with the least percentage of forest left and so far no effort to reforest is announced yet. I was also informed that the UK had only two species of frog left and yet the Prince Charles Rainforest Initiative is using the frog (toad) as an icon in the hope of saving frogs in the tropics. Could this be another wrong target of focus due to misinformation? (I will talk of the ‘frog trap’ set in Brazil in my next article in this blog).
Yet another relative (sister-in-law) of the present Prime Minister is reported in the Financial Times (May 6, 2009) to be secretely filming the Penans of Sarawak to raise Western sympathy to save rainforests from the logging industry. This apparently is setting the stage for supporting the Prince Charles Rainforest Initiative which was launched the previous day. Actually, the Penans have chosen to cultivate their land with oil palm (being the most viable agricultural crop as an alternative to rubber)and some are already becoming millionaires; why is it that Ms Rewcastle (The PM’s sister in law) is not keen to interview these progressive Penans and learn of their plans and aspirations. She should ask the Penans as to who among them do not wish to be wealthy like the successful (wellknown Penan millionaire) oil palm plantation owner.
I hope the Prince Charles Rainforest Initiative will stumble onto my Blog and discover that the rainforest destruction report submitted by unscrupulous NGOs are false generalizations, especially for Malaysia. The Independent newspaper may not want to publish counter viewpoints from Malaysia as they have editorial control over what can be published in their own papers and seem to monopolise the media. But with the Internet nowadays, one cannot stop other people from telling the truth, or pointing out the inferior standards of olive farms in the EU when compared to oil palm farms in Malaysia.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Malaysia …”,”…whose rainforests are being cleared to grow the crop” what about BRAZIL ,, what about WAFRICA,Ghana??
the truth …
The best way to mitigate climate change and gain food security is to support small-scale, ecological farming.
Organic and eco-friendly farming can feed the world “It is not necessarily about producing more food, but about producing more quality nutrition through less energy use and pollution,”
Climate change will affect smallholder farmers (who own less than two hectares of land) through increased crop failure, a rise in diseases and mortality of livestock, increased livelihood insecurity resulting in assets being sold, indebtedness, migration and dependency on food aid. Other consequences will be desertification and land degradation, rising sea levels causing floods, diminishing natural resource productivity and, in some areas, irreversible loss of biodiversity.Climate change is expected to put 49 million additional people at risk of hunger by 2020, and 132 million by 2050, according to IFAD. In sub-Saharan Africa, an additional 17 to 50 million people could be undernourished in the second half of the century due to climate change..”To feed the world, we will have to scale up productivity, but in an ecological way, by polluting less and making use of low-cost technologies,”Other strategies include soil conservation, incentives for sustainable production practices and payment for carbon reduction and avoided deforestation.
What a great term ! “Deforestation Avoidance” ! Actual situation well articulated but missed or ignored by the environmentalist. It can be developed further with Deforestation Avoidance Index to compare various crops.
Hello Sanchez! You don’t have to go far for that. An article in this blog same also explorer the issue with a nice graph. Just visit bellow :
http://www.ceopalmoil.com/de-linking-ngos-concerns-over-deforestation-and-palm-oil/#more-102
To the owner / writer of ceopalmoil. Nice article and continue the good work.
To green peace and world bull shitter, … …
Thank you Haris. I must say the graphs present the facts very effectively. I especially like You Tube videos on orang utan and plantations.
You are missing the forest for the trees.
Open your eyes and see what you are doing to the earth.
All the green-washing in the world will not save your soul.
Peace, Dr. Zaius
Talking about lies, the greatest lie ever is the new-colonialist era that Prince Charles is leading around the planet while using this hoax façade of “global warming” warrior and being “worried about the indigenous people”. Everything is a terrible lie! Many indigenous reserves have been planted in Brazil, and most of them have been strategically located along our northwest borders with Venezuela and Guyana (former British-Guyana). Little by little, these “reserves” are approaching each other, to the point where they are going to merge into one, and Brazil will then have lost a huge area of OUR Amazon Forest. We’ve been robbed and the conditioned world has been applauding, the fools. The last Brazilian “indigenous reserve” was created in March, 2009, the “Raposa Serra do Sol” reserve. It’s a vast area, larger than the entire Portugal country, and, “coincidentally”, the richest area, not only in Brazil, but also in the entire planet, in gold, diamonds, bauxite and uranium (the raw material of the nuclear bombs). Why do you think Prince Charles visited Brazil last March? He was certainly putting pressure on the votes of our Supreme Court on the continuous demarcation of the reserve. He isn’t any fool, fool are us, the rest of the world!
I hope some corageous influential people will have the guts to face the Prince against the crimes against humanity, against progress he has been doing. Many people are dying of hunger and diseases, while their countries are being transformed into “reserves”. I don’t buy that, these areas have been reserved as colonies, as land for the new British Empire! I care for the environment, but I care for people more. I can’t stand this nazi/eugenicist approach. Nothing has changed. Search about the foundation of the UNESCO, WWF, Survival International, and even the influence of the British monarchy on the UN decisions. There is something very evil behind what is happening in the world nowadays, and most people aren’t aware of that. Pay attention and be alert. The royal British family’s wealth comes mostly from diamonds and gold. How come Prince Charles is so worried about the environment, when his wealth mostly comes from an extremely anti-ecological activity like mining? And if he is so ecological as he says he is, how come the UK threw (and throws) depleted uranium bombs during the Gulf War and Iraq war, if these bombs are extremely pollutant of the environment?
Something is wrong, something is VERY wrong…
Take the time to read about the power of the British Commonwealth over the world:
http://www.womensgroup.org/THE-POWER-OF-THE-BRITISH-COMMONWEALTH-OVER-THE-WORLD.htm
And about the creation of the WWF:
http://www.isgp.eu/organisations/1001_Club.htm
Monica,you are absolutely right. Malaysia was colonised firstly for its Tin and Gold,then Rubber and later on Oil Palm and Cocoa.The British Conglomerates owned all these Commodities with labourers from China and India.The locals were employed in many lowly paid jobs in the Civil Service and the Police Force. After gaining Independence in 1957,the government had to fend by themselves. So they started land schemes to plant Oil Palm, Rubber and Cocoa for the landless to generate a revenue in order to manage the country well.Through good governance Malaysia managed to buy over most of the British Conglomerates.Do not blame Malaysia on what they were doing because they were only carrying on the British Legacy. Malaysia is far ahead in its awareness of Global Warming and the needs of its People. Malaysia is always Eco friendly. Dr Mahathir once told Prince Philip that he was willing to ship the insects and animals to Britain if he was too concern about them. I hope the West would stop focusing on us for the mistakes they had done to themselves. They should try to make their own house right, first.
A well written article. I must add, if the west has so much passion and concern that deforestation in Malaysia contributes to global warming, pls provide funds WITHOUT conditionality to Malaysia. With this, Malaysia does not need to expand her oil palm cultivation, issues of livelihood of the rural communities would not arise. And more importantly, I guess we don’t need the Kyoto Protocol. The greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced drastically and new commitments post 2012 are not required by the developed countries. UNFCCC, NGOs and many consultants would also be out of job because Malaysia has reduced her deforestation rate and orang utan conserved while the Penan get poorer!
The term Oil Palm Plantations in Malaysia should be renamed as Oil Palm Rain Forest,for we still find elephants ,tigers,wild boars,snakes,rats,owls and many other exotic animals in them.Since Oil Palms are continuously bearing fruits all year round, surely they must consume more CO2 to remain productive.Harvesting Palm Fruits is not like harvesting wheat,where the field is left barren.Oil palm trees in Malaysia matures within 5 years after transfer from the nuursery.Then they will be planted between the old trees of 25+ years before they are chopped.Initially of course we must clear the forest,just like any Construction Works,the Oil Palm Plantations are also being utilised for cattle and goat farming.This thus shows that the Plantations are fully exploited for agricultural purpose in an effort to eradicate poverty in the third world.We have our own right to uphold our dire need to live in comfort rather then being subjugated by the West by negative findings that hurts us without any humane consideration as if we are fools not knowing what is right or wrong.
I find the comments by captaziz to be a bit misleading. To say that oil palm is a poverty eradication scheme is not correct. It in fact will increase poverty, as will all economic activity designed for cash profits. Realize that the best poverty eradication schemes are those which embrace citizens rights, decrease our dependence on the money economy, and increase our connections with the natural world.
Comment from Dr Yusof: We cannot exist with 100 % of our forest conserved. The country pledged to maintain at least 50 % of its land under permanent natural forest. This should be sufficient to meet the biodiversity, habitat and global warming mitigation requirements. Malaysia is a net sink country for co2 emission. Not many countries achieve that status. Putting 25 % of our land under agriculture is a very responsible use of land to sustain the need for food supply, job opportunities and income generation. If we compare our land use standard with that of other countries, we are far superior. In addition, oil palm which occupies 66% of our agricultural land is helping to supply the world with a vital food source which is in short supply. Is there a guide as to how much (%) forest to be conserved, given that we are a net co2 sequester country and have contributed our equitable share in mitigating global warming?
IF you have a way to stop the exploding number of Human in our earth is undeniable and unstoppable , IF not , something have to give way . currently 90% of the world population are poor people , If we stop cultivating cheap edible oil , billions of people will be starving . Where are the monkeys in the west now ? why are there miles & miles of wheat & corn plantations in the west ? where are the trees & monkeys there ? No more . If anyone should think of more solutions to save our wildlives, I am sure we will try our max to use it in the name of conservation .
Carbon & Global warming :
Similar to fuel oil coal . without which the earth would stand still & stop . Many complains about it but give no solutions . Yes , Complains , awareness are good . But solutions are better .
To : those of you who cares so much of deforestation :
a) is the very land that you now live on was a forest before ?
b) is the schools land that your children go to was a forest before full of trees ?
c) is the Churches you attend to ? was forest before ?
Talking about lies, this is a wonderful site debunking the overpopulation myth. Watch the two videos in this link:
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/pop101/
Welll, wild-wild west