It is not logical to state that Australia produces almost entirely extra virgin olive oil, and then argues in international forums that trade standards should be eased to allow ‘a significant proportion’ of currently non-complying olive oils to comply with extra virgin classification.
Non-compliance of Australian olive oils
The survey of Australian Olive Oil Cultivars to Determine Compliance with International Standards (RIRDC Publication no: 08/167) October 2008 (Survey on Compliance) casts doubt over the compliance of varietal Australian olive oils with the International Olive Council International Trade Standards.
The research was funded by the Australian Government and industry funds from the Australian Olive Association (AOA) and is available at www.rirdc.gov.au .
The survey reports that of 143 samples of olive oil tested over 2 years, 87 did not comply with one or more of the chemical tests required for extra virgin olive oil. The tests are directed at assuring quality and detecting adulteration with refined olive oils and other vegetable oils.
Of 143 samples of olive oil tested, 87 did not comply with one or more chemical tests for extra virgin olive oil
According to the Australian Extra Virgin Brand (the Brand) website ‘Australian olive oils are almost entirely extra virgin olive oil.’ (www.australianextravirgin.com.au)
This assertion will be difficult to substantiate with supporting data as not all Australian olive oils in the market undergo the full range of International Olive Oil Council (IOC) quality, purity and sensory tests required for classification as extra virgin olive oil to International Trade Standard.
In fact, so confident is the AOA that Brand olive oils are ‘almost entirely’ extra virgin, that it does not require the full range of tests to comply with international standards. Or could it be that the tests are not required for fear an embarrassing number of olive oils do not meet the extra virgin criteria. The survey on compliance shows that this is quite possible.
Or could it be that the tests are not required for fear an embarrassing number of olive oils do not meet the extra virgin criteria. The survey on compliance shows that this is quite possible.
Australia is vocal in the international olive oil standards scene in its attempts to broaden the Codex Alimentarius trade standards for olive oils. Australian delegates regularly attend the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils, the most recent was held in Sabah in February. On the agenda was “The proposed draft amendment to the Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils: Linolenic Acid Level”.
Australia features prominently in the ‘general comments’ of the agenda papers. Under discussion are; the linolenic acid limit of 1.0%, and campesterol levels in olive oils specified by the Codex Standard.
Australian delegates argue that there are regional differences in the chemical analysis shown by authentic olive oils which should be allowed for in the Standard. For example the papers state ’that a significant proportion of Australian olive oil samples do not meet the 1.0% limit for linolenic acid’. This comes from research presented by Australia that showed from crop years 2002, 2003 and 2004, of 754 samples of olive oil tested from all states, 4.2% were outside the standard.
The papers point out that during the testing period, Australia accounted for 0.07% of world production and no more than 0.05% of world exports. This begs the question of the futility of investing valuable industry money in trying to change an international standard which affects 4.2% of Australian production – when there is ample (95.8%) oil available to blend the high level down.
Perhaps more significantly, Australia also argues against a reduction to 3.5% in the allowable level of less than 4% campesterol as a percentage of total sterols in olive oil. Australia asserts that ‘Data on sterol content reveal that levels for campesterol are consistently high in a significant proportion of authentic Australian olive oils’. Campesterol level is one of the indicators used to detect adulteration with vegetable oils such as sunflower and canola.
Non-compliance of the Barnea Variety
The Survey on Compliance shows that the mean value of campesterol for the tested samples of the variety Barnea is 4.5%.
Technically, these oils cannot be called extra virgin – they may be authentic, but not extra virgin.
Technically, these oils cannot be called extra virgin – they may be authentic, but not extra virgin. The definition of extra virgin olive oil is ‘virgin olive oil which has a free acidity, expressed as oleic acid, of not more than 0.8 grams per 100 grams, and other characteristics of which correspond to those fixed for the category in this standard’. The ‘other characteristics’ include the regime of chemical testing.
If an olive oil does not comply with the chemical standards, it cannot be called extra virgin. In fact it cannot be called olive oil, according to the IOC International Trade Standards. And it cannot be refined as the chemical standards for sterols in refined olive oils are very similar to extra virgin and a level of campesterol above 4.0% of total sterols is unacceptable.
Herein lies a problem for the Australian industry. Many varietal oils with small variations from specification which do not comply can be blended with compliant oils to result in an oil that fits the standards. However, the report identifies the variety Barnea as one with high campesterol levels, an average across samples tested of 4.5%, where the standard is 4.0%. This means that to blend this oil into specification, at least an equal volume of an olive oil with a campesterol of 3.5% or less is required.
According to the website www.boundarybend.com, Barnea is the most common variety planted in Australia, representing 41% of plantings.
We know that several large investment groves in Victoria and South Australia planted large numbers of the Barnea olive variety. The report ‘Bigger is Better at Boort’ in the Weekly Times (April 15 2009) states that of the 997,000 trees planted at the Timbercorp Boort Estate olive grove in Central Victoria, more than half are Barnea. Boundary Bend also reports that Barnea is a variety planted in the large northern Victoria groves under its management.
Coincidentally, the Survey on Compliance reports that ‘Central Victoria was the highest in campesterol. This is of concern as the majority of cv Barnea trees are grown in Central Victoria’. The implication of this is that there is a large quantity of olive oil being generated which is not extra virgin and will need to be blended with at least an equal quantity of other compliant oils.
The implication of this is that there is a large quantity of olive oil being generated which is not extra virgin and will need to be blended with an equal quantity of other compliant oils.
If we assume that 41% of Australia’s olive oil producing trees are the variety Barnea, and that Australian production in 2008 was the estimated 12,000 tonnes (AOA), as much as 4920 tonnes of olive oil produced from Barnea with high campesterol levels may not comply with international standards for extra virgin olive oil, and cannot be labelled as such.
The solution to the problem is to blend. At best this will take another 4920 tonnes of olive oil with lower than 3.5% campesterol. For any producer with a large proportion of Barnea, this could mean buying in substantial quantities of oil for blending. It will also place a premium price on olive oils with lower campesterol levels – an important incentive to have one’s olive oils tested for sterol composition.
It will also place a premium price on olive oils with lower campesterol levels – an important incentive to have one’s olive oils tested for sterol composition.
If then add the 4% of olive oils that have high linolenic acid levels, and take account of all the olive oils that are downgraded for sensory faults and high free fatty acid or peroxide levels, we may be looking at over 50% of Australian varietal production not being extra virgin by international standards.
we may be looking at over 50% of Australian varietal production not being extra virgin by international standards.
Are smaller producers being disadvantaged?
We need more accurate data and less unfounded assertion if we are to manage the Australian olive industry effectively. Testing of olive oils requiring classification should be carried out to Codex Standards (which have been adopted by the IOC) at independent laboratories and the data collated and made publicly available. We can then make informed decisions on blending and the marketing of our products.
By establishing a Code of Practice and/or a trade standard that does not require full testing to IOC Standard, the Australian Olive Association may be favouring the larger producers who have substantial quantities of varieties that may produce non-compliant oil. At the same time, having a standard to accommodate local interests which is less rigorous than international standard risks the entire industry being discredited by international buyers.
By establishing a Code of Practice and/or a trade standard that does not require full testing to IOC Standard, the Australian Olive Association may be favouring the larger producers who have substantial quantities of varieties that may produce non-compliant oil.
The ‘Australian Standards’ may also disadvantage those that ‘have done the right thing’ by planting varieties that produce oil to international standard. And who should be getting a premium for their bulk oil if it is in high demand for blending.
The ‘Extra Virgin Olive Oil’ classification is an international brand mark with standards set by the International Olive Council. It is not logical to state that Australia produces almost entirely extra virgin olive oil, and then argues in international forums that trade standards should be eased to allow ‘a significant proportion’ of currently non-complying olive oils to comply with extra virgin classification.
It is not logical to state that Australia produces almost entirely extra virgin olive oil, and then argues in international forums that trade standards should be eased to allow ‘a significant proportion’ of currently non-complying olive oils to comply with extra virgin classification.
Survey short on options
The Survey on Compliance is a useful scientific analysis. However, it is surprisingly political coming from an independent government research laboratory. The only solution it seems to recommend is the changing of international standards, an unlikely political achievement given Australia’s insignificance by volume in the world market. It offers little to help producers in overcoming the problem while this attempt to change world standards takes its inevitable slow course.
The process of changing world standards will be a protracted one. It will involve:
1. Australia developing a new standard through Standards Australia with a lengthy consultation process.
2. Adoption of the Australian standard by Food Standard Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ).
3. Garnering support from other producing countries.
4. Persuading Codex Alimentarius to change the international trade standard.
5. Persuading the International Olive Council to replace the existing International Trade Standard with the new standard.
6. Allowing a moratorium period for producers to comply with the new trade standard.
In the meantime how does Australia dispose of potentially increasing volumes of non-complaint oils as groves planted with offending varieties reach maturity?
There are no suggestions of rooting out the offending trees that produce non-compliant oil – as was suggested with the large plantations of Manzanilla. There are no suggestions on ways horticultural practice could mitigate the problem. There are no estimates of the requirements for blending, or suggestions that more widespread testing of oils should take place.
The Survey does not canvass the impact of opening up the standard to the substantial amounts of non-complying oil produced overseas, thereby increasing then worldwide volume of extra virgin olive oil and lowering prices. The implication of softening the standards in the detection of adulteration with vegetable oils is not discussed.
The Survey does not canvass the impact of opening up the standard to the substantial amounts of non-complying oil produced overseas thereby increasing then worldwide volume of extra virgin olive oil and lowering prices
If Australia is to act unilaterally and develop its own standard, it runs the risk of discrediting its olive oil product in the eyes of major importers, and at the same time opens Australia up to the importation of products that comply with local standards but are outside international standards.
The singular approach of The Survey’s recommendations appears to be doing the AOA’s bidding and potentially legitimising the sale of substantial quantities of non-compliant Australian olive oil.
This singularity is reinforced by the statement ‘it may cost exporters large amounts of money to send oil outside the country, only to have it rejected as adulterated’. It could also say – ‘to avoid incurring large costs from having oil rejected as adulterated, we recommend that all oils for export are tested to international standard prior to despatch’.
‘to avoid incurring large costs from having oil rejected as adulterated, we recommend that all oils for export are tested to international standard prior to despatch’.
And –‘Oil with exceptional characteristics such as organoleptic quality and oxidative capacity is being blended with inferior oil to achieve compliance with inappropriate trade standards’. Which could also have said – ‘blending is common practice to improve the quality and shelf-life of olive oil and to ensure compliance’.
blending is common practice to improve the quality and shelf-life of olive oil and to ensure compliance.
There are many legal and economic implications of the use of the descriptor ‘extra virgin olive oil’ when an olive oil does not comply with standards. It is not good enough to say that there is no Australian Standard, and little better to introduce a standard that ignores key chemical specifications established to detect adulteration.
Australia should simply adopt the International Trade Standard promulgated by the IOC and then get on with solving the problem of non-compliant oils. Money being spent on delegations to Codex in the arguably futile and certainly protracted attempt to substantially change standards would be better spent in making it possible for producers to fully test their oils.
The Government should be establishing an independent monitoring and compliance programme not influenced by those that may be affected by planting the wrong varieties.
The alternative is to allow the sale of olive oils that are not extra virgin, thereby undermining all the rhetoric from the AOA claiming Australia produces almost entirely ‘extra virgin olive oil’.
