AOA, ONZ and United States Extra Virgin Olive Oil Standards Compared
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recently published quality standards for United States (US) extra virgin olive oil which become effective in October.
The respective olive industry grower associations in Australia (Australian Olive Association - AOA) and New Zealand (Olives New Zealand - ONZ) have for two or so years been trying to establish quality standards for the extra virgin olive oil production of their members, in the case of the AOA, and the industry in New Zealand.
Standards are established for two basic reasons. Firstly, to ensure that the quality and integrity of a product are met and, secondly, as a marketing tool to differentiate a product from competing products. It can be argued that, for associations a third reason is to generate income as the custodian of the standards through certification and licensing fees.
It is timely to assess the new USDA and existing AOA and ONZ standards in the light of these three objectives.
Enforcing the Olive Oil Standards
The first major point of difference between the standards is the custodianship. In the USA, the standards have been developed by the independent USDA. The government department will also be responsible for testing, certification, and compliance. It appears that no income will accrue to the grower’s or other industry associations.
In Australia and New Zealand the standards have been developed by the respective associations which have assumed responsibility for monitoring, certification and compliance. Both the AOA and ONZ charge fees for certification and the use of brandmarks.
The testing for compliance in Australia can be undertaken by the independent New South Wales Government Oil Testing Service of the Wagga Agricultural Institute or by Modern Olives Laboratory Services – until recently a subsidiary of Boundary Bend Limited and now incorporated into Boundary Bend Olives Pty Ltd (a 100% owned subsidiary of Boundary Bend Ltd).
Both the NSW Wagga laboratory and the Modern Olives laboratory have certification from the International Olive Council (IOC). The IOC divides it laboratory certification into: ‘a) public or private laboratories that issue test certificates at the request of third parties; and b) laboratories belonging to olive oil companies that analyse their own oils’. The Modern Olives Laboratory Services is listed in the second category.
Boundary Bend Ltd is the largest producer and marketer of Australian olive oil and it is reasonable to question the independence of the testing function for certification and compliance of competing products granted by the AOA. The data collected through testing has commercial value and it is also reasonable to expect that monitoring and certification should be carried out by an independent third party.
The testing for ONZ OliveMark is undertaken by the independent AsureQuality Ltd, Laboratory Services which does not have IOC certification.
It is in the interests of all those who produce and/or trade in olive oil that any international standard or national standard is developed in consultation with the industry. Thereafter, compliance testing, certification and monitoring should be by an independent institution, preferably governmental, which has no vested or competitive interest in the product.
The USDA standard meets this criterion of independence. It also has the legislative and legal clout to enforce the standards. It is doubtful, considering their status and the cost, whether AOA or ONZ could withstand a legal challenge to their standards or certification – let alone take an active role in prosecuting non-compliance.
Testing for Quality and Purity
Olive oil standards should require chemical and taste testing that give the customers, be they traders or consumers, confidence that the product they are buying is what it is claimed to be.
The international olive industry, led by the IOC, has developed a set of taste (organoleptic) and chemical standards designed to ensure that extra virgin olive oil meets purity and quality criteria. These standards are reviewed regularly and published by the IOC as the ‘Trade Standard Applying to Olive Oils and Olive-pomace Oils’, they are also the standards used by Codex Alimentarius. They provide a legal reference point for international and internal trade in olive oil. The standards have been widely and successfully used in legal actions against producers and traders alleged to have adulterated or contaminated olive oils.
On top of these international standards, nations, regions and organisations have developed their own standards to differentiate their products in the marketplace. These standards are called Designations of Origin and include:
Protected Designation of Origen (PDO/POD)
Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)
Certificate of Specific Character (CSC)
They legitimately assure consumers of the origin of the product and quality criteria that are additional to the basic IOC Trade Standards.
Organisations such as the Italy-based Maestri Oleari have the High Standard which certifies that the extra virgin olive meets production, chemical and nutritional value well above the IOC standards for extra virgin olive oil.
Comparing the Standards in USA, Australia and New Zealand
The table below shows a comparison between the published standards for certification as Australian Extra Virgin Olive Oil by the AOA, the Olives New Zealand OliveMark, US Extra Virgin Olive Oil and the International Olive Council Trade Standard.
Comparison of the Testing Regime for AOA, ONZ, US and IOC extra virgin olive oil standards
| Test | Australian Extra Virgin Olive Oil (AOA) | Olives New Zealand OliveMark (ONZ) | US Extra Virgin | International Olive Council Trade Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Organoleptic Characteristics | Yes (by panel of 3 AOA accredited tasters) | Yes (by full IOC accredited NZ panel of 8 tasters) | Yes (by USDA accredited tasters) | Yes (by full IOC accredited panel of 8 tasters) |
| Free Fatty Acid Content | Yes (0.8%) | Yes (0.5%) | Yes (0.8%) | Yes (0.8%) |
| Peroxide Value | Yes (20) | Yes (15) | Yes (20) | Yes (20) |
| Absorbency in Ultra Violet | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Fatty Acid Composition | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Trans Fatty Acid | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Desmethylsterol Composition (% total sterol) | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Total sterol content | No | No | Yes | Yes |
|
| No confirmatory tests required | No confirmatory tests required | Confirmatory tests if linolenic acid values between1% and 1.5% and/or campesterol values between 4% and 4.5% | All listed tests required for all samples |
| ECN 42 Triaglycerol content | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Stigmastadiene content | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Erythrodiol and uvaol content |
| No | Yes | Yes |
| Wax content | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Content of 2-glyceryl monopalmitate | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Rancimat test | Yes | No | No | No |
The USDA standard comes the closest to the requirements of the IOC Trade Standard – the main variation being that 5 of the chemical tests for adulteration/contamination are only required if the olive oil has high campesterol or linolenic acid levels (above the IOC standard).
The Australian Extra Virgin (AOA) Standard does not require any of the tests for contamination/adulteration, nor does the Olives New Zealand Standard. The AOA organoleptic (taste) testing requires that three tasters that have completed basic AOA taste courses certify the oil – Olives New Zealand requires that this be done by the fully IOC accredited New Zealand Panel. Australia has an IOC accredited panel but the AOA does not insist on its use.
By not requiring testing for adulteration/contamination the AOA and ONZ standards could be misleading consumers and run the risk of certifying product that is not extra virgin olive oil. The associations could well be crippled by any ensuing legal action.
Their standards are more akin to ‘Protected Designation of Origin (PDO)’ certification – more about where the product is from and how it is produced, and less about the purity. The ONZ standard does require a free fatty acid level of less than 0.5% a peroxide value of less than 15, an attempt to ensure that the quality of oils carrying certification is higher than the IOC standard for these tests.
It would seem fundamental to introducing a standard in new olive oil producing countries to start with the internationally recognised trade standard and build regional differentiation on top. The integrity of the oil is then assured and the enhanced quality is then marketed.
The USDA has gone most of the way to doing this, and with the independent administration of the standard, has greater integrity than the AOA and ONZ standards. The cost of administration will also be borne by the USDA which has the clout to prosecute those that do not comply.
Despite the push by the AOA to have their standard adopted as the Australian Standard, it is unlikely that the AOA or ONZ standards will be adopted as national standards before they meet four essential criteria:
They are based on the IOC Trade Standard
They are independently administered by the appropriate government authority
The testing is carried out by independent IOC accredited laboratories and tasting panels
Membership of the AOA or ONZ is not a requirement for certification
For equity and confidence in trading extra virgin olive oil it is important to have national standards. It is equally important that consumers are assured that the olive oil product they purchase is the genuine article. In addition to this basic independent guarantee of quality and purity, it is an advantage for regions to have additional selling points such as PDO certification. The sooner Australia and New Zealand follow the lead of the USDA in achieving this, the better.
