Proposed Australian-NZ olive oil standards – in a nutshell
admin | January 6, 2011A set of proposed standards for olive oils sold in Australia and New Zealand were released late in December 2010 and are open for comment until the 25th of February 2011. They are available on the Standards Australia website.
After a bit of a read through, here are the things that caught my eye. I’ve categorised some as “big ticket items” – those that if accepted will significantlly change how Extra virgin and other olive oils are labelled and marketed in Australia and New Zealand, and “smaller ticket items” – those that are important but will have less impact. I’ve made some brief comments on each of the items at the bottom of the blog.
The Big Ticket Items
1. The use of the term ‘cold pressed’, ‘pressing’ or ‘pressed’ on a label will be prohibited unless of course a producer actually uses a hydraulic press to extract the oil.
2. The terms ‘pure olive oil’, ‘light or lite olive oil’and even ‘olive oil’ will be forbidden. These oils will have to be labeled ‘refined olive oil’ or ‘refined olive oil blend’.
3. Best before dates will need to be supported by technical evidence, but cannot be more than 2 years after the oil was packed.
4. Most of the chemical standards reflect those of the International Olive Council.
5. The standard also broadly defines what type of containers should be used for the storage of olive oils. They must be appropriate for the stated shelf life, and must not affect the chemistry or quality of the olive oil contained within them.
Smaller Ticket Items
6. The standards recognise the use of processing aids in the production of EVOO.
7. Storage instructions that are necessary to achieve the stated best by date are required to be written on the label.
8. Two new tests not recognised by the IOC are included in the new standard. These are measurement of 1) pyropheophytin A and 2) % of 1,2 diacylglycerides.
9. The campesterol limit is higher than that of the IOC.
10. The level of linolenic acid is higher than limits elsewhere.
11. A lower limit for polyphenols are absent.
12. If a food contains “olive oil” as an ingredient then it must necessarily state what grade of oil was used (EVOO, Virgin, Refined olive oil etc).
Notes on the big ticket items
1. Terms as “cold extracted” will probably become the industry standard for EVOO’s
2. All of these are simply different incarnations of refined olive oil that has had a miniscule amount of virgin olive oil added to them Under the proposed standards they will have to be labelled to reflect exactly what they are – refined!
3. How best by dates can be objectively determined even given a raft of analytical parameters such as fatty acid profile and antioxidant level is unclear.
4. The high FFA and peroxide limits set by the IOC and reflected in these proposed standards are in my opinion a slap in the face to EVOO consumers everywhere. Reducing these slightly would force large producers to work harder at putting good quality EVOO on supermarket shelves – and the overall standard would quickly improve.
5. This is a major shift in philosophy compared with standards elsewhere as it goes beyond the olive oil itself and recognises that the qualtiy of the oil is only as good as the container that holds it. This has the potential to significantly affect the types of packaging used. Clear glass, spray cans whereby the propellant may taint the oil, and possibly plastic packaging could fall outside the standard. I wonder who will decide whether they do or not, particularly given the constant advances in packaging technology?
Notes on the smaller ticket items
6. These presumably include talc and enzymes. Both of these are widely used throughout the world, but to my knowledge no other standards acknowledge this reality.
7. Consumer education by legislation?
8. Pyropheophytin A is a compound formed when the green coloured chlorophyll degrades under heat. It is an indicator of the use of old oil in blends (a very common practice) and/or when an oil has been heated at any point during its manufacture or storage. These situations could include hot storage conditions or transport, or (the difficult to detect and illegal) practice of soft column deodorization.
1,2 DAG as a % of other DAG’s is an indicator of the general quality of the olives and their processing. Generally ‘suspect’ quality supermarket oils have low 1,2 DAG values around 30%.
9. Campesterol is a natural plant sterol found in EVOO and other seed oils, notably sunflower. It is actually good for your health and does not detract from the oils shelf life. However the occurrence of elevated levels in EVOO has been used as an indicator of adulteration with sunflower oil. However, like all limits, they are necessarily arbitrary. The higher proposed limit in the new standard presumably is in recognition of a substantial body of recent research showing that many olive varieties produce oils that naturally contain high levels of campesterol – often over the IOC limit. These include Koroneiki, Hojiblanca and (notably for the Australian industry) Barnea.
10. Linolenic acid is a naturally occurring fatty acid in olive oil. It is easily oxidised and therefore high levels are detrimental to the shelf life of EVOO. However other factors such as polyphenol levels, bottling conditions and packaging are also important determinants of shelf life.
11. There is an argument for a minimum level of polyphenols in an EVOO based on the fact that polyphenols contribute to the healthiness of EVOO and also to its shelf life. As someone who has done a few polyphenols measures myself it is worth noting that the accepted method of measuring polyphenols is somewhat unreliable due to the fact that it is impossible to extract all the polyphenols from the oil prior to analysis (most feel that +/- 10% error is about as good as it gets). This lack of reproducibility is particularly important when measuring polyphenols at the lower end of the spectrum which is where any limit for EVOO would be set.
So how will these proposed standards change after the review process? I guess only time will tell, but I bet there will be some pretty big interests who will furiously lobby in an attempt to have some of the big ticket items, and some of the new analysis removed from the standard. For the sake of Australian and New Zealand olive oil consumers I hope that the major thrusts of the new standards remain intact. They certainly are a big step in the right direction. But if you disagree, you can have your say until the 25th of February. I know I will.
[…] Follow this link: Slick Extra Virgin » Proposed Australian-NZ olive oil standards … […]
Hi Richard,
You noted,
"1,2 DAG as a % of other DAG’s is an indicator of the general quality of the olives and their processing. Generally ‘suspect’ quality supermarket oils have low 1,2 DAG values around 30%."
Now, that means that the draft olive oil standard for Australia and New Zealand of ≥35% 1,2-DAGs should cover the frankly defective oils, which I suppose is the primary objective. What makes me a bit crazy, however, is that not only is the cutoff a bit (arbitrarily, it seems) lower than the German DGF standard (≥40% — correct me if I’m wrong),* but that it seems to allow for some very, very old oil.
The DGF panel that established the justification for the German olive oil diacylglycerol standard says that "A fresh oil has more than 70% of 1,2-diacylglycerols. This amount is decreasing to about 60% after one year, with approximately 1% per month." All the research I’ve seen confirms this. The tests would be run on the freshly-bottled oil, wouldn’t they? So why the heck isn’t the standard held a lot higher — like, at least 60%, to give some ‘slop factor’ since the sample size of oils tested for 1,2-DAGs to date is small? Doesn’t this still invite a lot of back blending? Or is that the point …?
*Where the heck can one view the German olive oil standards, BTW? Everything I’ve seen is a secondary reference to one standard or another, not the full panel from an authoritative body.
Hi Michael
A very rational and cogent argument. I agree with you 100%. However, it is worth noting that the process of developing draft standards isn’t a rational process. A large number of parties with differing objectives get together and negotiate on the multitude of different points. If you look at the back of the standards document it reveals who were involved. A couple of note: The Australian Olive Oil Association (which represents importers and in most cases the interests of large volume EU producers), and the Australian Olive Association – representing the interests of the Australian industry.
The IOC has been big on ‘harmonising’ standards across the world – but harmonising means adopting their standards. The AOA has been trying to have new methods incorporated (these include the DAG ratio and pyropheophytins), which the IOC has been trying to discredit (if you go by their reply to the UCD study last year). As I see it, the proposed labelling standards (which are most important from a consumer perspective) are very forward thinking and by what I’ve seen elsewhere could be considered revolutionary as for the first time, olive oils will have to be labelled in such a way to reflect what they really are. However the proposed chemical standards are very disappointing. For a start, the FFA and peroxides should have been set much lower than the IOC’s if the consumers rather than EU producers were to be advantaged. But I can only speculate (as I wasn’t involved) that trade-offs on the chemistry were made in favour of labelling.
But you are invited to comment on the proposed standards by the 25th of February. I will be doing so, and will be commenting mainly on the lax chemical standards which have been proposed. As an individual I’m not sure how much difference it will make, but I think that the authors should be made aware that whoever pushed for these things were out of step with modern expectations of olive oil quality. The days of sweeping up olives off the ground and processing them after 3 days has no place in the new world of extra virgin olive oil.
Richard
I wanted to remind everyone that, as Richard notes, your chance to comment on the Draft Standard for "Olive oils and olive-pomace oils" for Australia and New Zealand is just about up: it expires this Friday, Feb. 25 (Australia time). This is a chance for lovers of high-quality olive oil and honest trade to tighten up the standards in the Australian and New Zealand marketplace, leading to higher quality for consumers, an improved reputation for Aussie EVOO, and leading the industry (especially the big players) to improve the quality of their oils in order to ensure continued access to the local market. Over time, inertia could drag up the quality of such producers’ oil overall, and eventually to move the IOC in the same direction, by gravitation and perhaps sheer shame.
Richard, I’ve asked you a couple of times what chemical standards you would set to improve on the lax IOC baseline, and you’ve so far demurred, except to say that "if the USDA standard for FFA was tightened even slightly over the existing IOC standard, say to 0.6% then the overall standard of EVOO widely available to US consumers would improve." but you do say above, "I will be doing so, and will be commenting mainly on the lax chemical standards which have been proposed." Would you mind either posting your comments, or a brief summary on the key standard changes you would want to see?
Hello,
The draft proposal falls substantially short of what it should do to ensure the quality of labeled "extra-virgin olive oils" in Australia and New Zealand. It is clear that the proposal is intended to mirror the existing International Olive Council standards, which are far too lax in light of known shelf life decay rates and relative to what is readily achievable in the early 21st century. New Zealand’s OliveMark (ONZ) had previously set internal standards that were higher than IOC’s, positioning Aus and NZ EVOO as industry-leading and a premium product; the official standard should follow that example, leading a move to higher standards and better quality product for consumers, rather than perpetuating lax standards rooted in half-century-old production methods.
Specific Comments
Clause Number S. 6.1, Table 5
Page Number 9,11
EVOO Standard:
Reduce maximum peroxide value to 15, as per OliveMark (ONZ). The Australian industry average is at present 9%.
Lower FFA maximum to 0.5%, per ONZ. The industry can easily hold the line at 0.3% [I should have added, but didn’t, the average FFA of oils exhibited in the 2009 Australian National Extra Virgin Olive Oil Competition was 0.18%, and even in the early days of 1997-2005, only a vanishingly small percentage of oils were >0.4% (Mailer, 2010)].
The standard on %1,2-DAGs is egregiously and incomprehensibly low! It does not even reach the already-laughable German DGF standard (≥40%), which itself is inadequate. The DGF panel that established the justification for the German DAG standard says that "A fresh oil has more than 70% of 1,2-diacylglycerols. This amount is decreasing to about 60% after one year, with approximately 1% per month." All the research I’ve seen confirms this, and indeed most fresh oils that I have seen have >90% 1,2 DAGs, as one would expect. Since the tests would be run on freshly-bottled oil, the standard should be set much higher — say, 60%, to allow some minor flexibility on use of slightly older stock into a blend.
Hi Michael
Firstly my personal thanks for taking the time and effort to comment on our antipodean standards.
I’m still writing my comments! Just tidying them up so they make sense. But I will make the deadline.
I’ve made quite a few comments on labelling. I think the committee got a bit overly keen at times. For example the standards call for all those who describe their oils on a back label to be able to justify the description based on formal taste panel assessment. There is no formal mechanism for this to be done on a large scale. IOC panels are trained to rate defects and overall fruit/bitter/pungency rather than write market friendly comments that are designed to provide a broader insight into the product rather than being definitive and scientifically valid. I don’t think that many people appreciate the actual cost of producing solid sensory profiles of a product. Anyway, a little bit of marketing flamboyance here and there that is designed to differentiate a product in the marketplace doesn’t really hurt anyone. Anyone that takes back label descriptions literally is probably still sitting in mummy’s supermarket trolley!
From an analytical point of view I’ve asked that the committee consider setting FFA at 0.5%, peroxides at 13 and DAG at 50 or 60%. I’ve tasted some horribly rancid oils recently with UV232’s at just on the 2.5au I limit. That should also be reduced. But I’m pretty well resigned to these not changing from the big EU producer friendly limits that have been proposed. But you never know, there could be such a loud chorus of dissent from commenters, those on the standards committee who supported tighter basic standards (I’m sure there were a few) might get a second wind and have another crack. Yeah right, I know.
I also supported the proposed 4.8% campesterol level on the basis that I have seen enough data from Spain, Greece and Australia to suggest that too many legimately made unadulterated oils would be unfairly relegated to ‘fruit oil’ status if the limit was set at 4%. The natural variation in Australian olive oils justifies the value selected. I also am yet to see the data set (indeed if one exists at all) that the IOC used to arrive at their 4% limit. Until I do, then I’ll go where the real data is.
I’ll post all my polished final comments in full here on Friday or Saturday morning.
Richard