
African palm oil expansion is bad news for the continent’s primates - okket
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/african-palm-oil-expansion-is-bad-news-for-the-continents-primates/
======
sailfast
I don't understand how an article focused primarily on demand figures for palm
oil does not even mention prices rising because of demand for palm oil.

Sure, I get that it's in Oreos and bread and toothpaste and a number of other
products but if the price doubles will it still be in those products? It's
used widely because it's solid at room temp, easy to handle, and helps with
consistency, but I find it hard to believe that demand will not drop at _all_
if demand is really that high. You can't exactly turn over 20 million hectares
in a year.

In my travels, I found this data to be useful:
[https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-
products-...](https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-products-
contain-palm-oil)

~~~
Smushman
An accurate observation.

Though I agree with your principle (ie this is not a complete analysis), in
the authors defense it is accurately titled "African palm oil expansion is bad
news for the continent’s primates."

Had it been titled "An analysis of the impacts of African palm oil expansion",
your argument would have been poignant.

~~~
sailfast
Yes and no. The Ars author cites a study that uses the highest possible number
(from another study 9 years old from Corley) plus another high number for
biofuels that does not take into account farming techniques or price
elasticity, and then indicates that because of this, maybe Africa's habitat
will be significantly eroded because it's "highly suitable" to palm oil based
on their study of the climate. No cost accounting, political geography, etc
discussed.

The original study from Corley seems quite measured in the Abstract
([https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290110...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901108001196#!))
and also indicates that a number of factors would prevent this from happening
due to substitution.

"Alarmist habitat erosion is good for clicks" is not a good reason to
perpetuate hypothetical land use when there is plenty of actual non-
hypothetical discussion to be had around the industry.

Do I need to go to the mat on this? Probably not, no, but it is symptomatic of
a larger issue that I have trouble abiding: Oversimplified article associates
two things together in the mind of information consumers who do not fully
understand the problem. That association is for life. The correction / nuance
never comes. Best to try and get to that nuance up front if at ALL possible,
otherwise it's irresponsible.

------
adrian_mrd
Worth noting that in many countries - including Australia and New Zealand -
that it is not compulsory (legally mandated) for food manufacturers to label
the oil that they use as Palm Oil. They can just state Vegetable Oil, thus
hindering many consumers in these countries from determining which products in
their local supermarket use palm oil - just by looking at the label directly
on the product.

A poor outcome for consumers in these markets.

~~~
giarc
Is there any literature that actually states labelling items with palm oil vs
vegetable oil actually makes a difference in consumer behaviour? In my small
window of the world, I feel like the issue with palm oil is not well known.

~~~
adrian_mrd
This isn't literature, but from Melbourne Zoo's Don't Palm Us Off campaign, a
campaign in favour of mandatory labelling of palm oil in Australia and New
Zealand, their argument goes:

"Mandatory labelling of palm oil will help put pressure on food companies to
start using sustainably-produced palm oil." [0]

There seems to be disagreement about what sustainable palm oil entails or how
sustainable it actually is [1], so would be good to see this claim backed up
with research.

[0] [https://www.zoo.org.au/get-involved/act-for-wildlife/dont-
pa...](https://www.zoo.org.au/get-involved/act-for-wildlife/dont-palm-us-off)
[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/10/nestle-p...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/10/nestle-
products-removed-from-melbourne-zoos-over-palm-oil)

------
jmulho
In the US, in 2006, the FDA started requiring that food labels list grams of
trans fat per serving. They were pretty vague about the legality of the
requirement ("this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable
responsibilities"), and they allowed for anything less than 0.5 grams per
serving to be reported as 0 grams [1]. Every label since then shows grams of
trans fat per serving. However, I have never seen any number reported other
than 0 grams. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, once ubiquitous on
packaged food labels, has practically vanished from them. For the most part it
was replaced with palm oil (I suspect there was also a lot of serving size
manipulation to take advantage of the 0.5 grams rule). It appears that the FDA
is going to ban the addition of partially hydrogenated oil to food altogether
by 2020 [2]. I imagine this (and perhaps similar legislation in other
countries) is leading to increased demand for palm oil. This is not good for
the environment nor Africa's primates. But how good is it for the primates on
all continents, namely the humans eating palm oil all over the world? I
suspect the answer is: way better than trans fats, but not very good.

[1]
[https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument...](https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm053479.htm)
[2]
[https://www.fda.gov/food/ucm292278.htm](https://www.fda.gov/food/ucm292278.htm)

------
vfc1
Its used in huge amounts in pastries, like donuts. It also makes for over 20%
of Nutela content (55% being sugar), and its present in many other processed
produts.

------
as301
This thread has too much argument for the sake of arguing. People are trying
to debate whether or not a nature vs. development dichotomy exists _in the
abstract_. Of course it doesn't, but why don't we talk about the particulars
of _this_ situation instead of turning the comment section into a high school
debate class? The article clearly states that it will be very difficult to
balance conservation of primate habitats with expansion of palm oil
harvesting. Given that information, and the fact that the continent is
desparately in need of economic development, I think the environmental losses
are justifiable if they lead to better livelihoods for Africans.

~~~
sitkack
I was with you until

> I think the environmental losses are justifiable if they lead to better
> livelihoods for Africans

I have been to Borneo, I have seen the future and it is bleak. The guy running
the Palm Oil Plantation has a car, AC in his house and a big screen tv. The
ground is poisoned forever (after less than 20 years of growing palm oil) and
ultimately the topsoil of Borneo will wash away into the leaving a lifeless
desolate bump sticking out of the ocean.

Nothing abstract about that.

~~~
adrian_mrd
Sounds like a horrible future for Borneons. But, it's obvious why many farmers
turn to palm oil.

It is a very effective cash crop (hence the big screen TV - possibly a Curved
100" OLED screen for "that guy" running the Palm Oil plantation ;) and the
demand is there worldwide.

Farming is often a very tough existence, so palm oil is very alluring for many
who would otherwise face relative or absolute poverty.

------
niftich
Although palm oil consumption (of RBD palm oil) by industrial food processors
has been rising for a while, a significant development was the scrutiny,
public awakening, and regulatory phase-out of trans fats that happened in
jurisdictions in the last decade or two.

Trans fats occurred in food as a side-effect of partial hydrogenation of
unsaturated vegetable oils, where the result had desirable properties for food
processing, performing similar to but remaining cheaper than animal-derived
solid-at-room-temp fats.

Palm oil performs similarly to partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and is
therefore readily available substitute for manufactured foods affected by the
trans fat phase-out.

------
rexpop
> African countries have the right to develop economically

Who owns the Palm Oil companies razing Africa? Are they largely African held,
or is this another extractive colonial project?

------
DoreenMichele
I imagine a contributing factor to this trend of palm oil being popular is the
many folks pursuing "alternative remedies." Palm oil is high in medium chain
triglycerides (MCT) and MCT oil is medically recommended for a number of very
serious conditions, including Cystic Fibrosis and stomach cancer. Coconut oil,
also high in MCT oil, was popular in an alternative remedy community I used to
participate in.

------
Sephr
Why increase production of palm oil when algae oil is healthier for you, more
sustainable, and cheaper?

------
h4b4n3r0
Africa’s main concern should really be the sustainable welfare of one kind of
primate: Homo sapiens. I don’t recall ever seeing a “made in $AFRICAN_COUNTRY”
label on anything. Theres a lot of economic potential there, but no one can be
bothered to even start doing anything worthwhile with it. Once Homo sapiens is
sorted out, the rest will come naturally.

~~~
notthemessiah
Humans depend on the rest of the planet on many ways. The frontier of drug
discovery come from plants in the rainforest at a time when conventional
antibiotics are beginning to fail us. Lots of carbon is locked up in peat bogs
in that same rainforest that we light on fire to clear land for palm oil
production. We also need to manage soil properly if we are to sustain food
production on this planet. Conservation is necessary regardless of whether
you're doing it for other animals or for us. Conservation is about not letting
short-term incentives thwart long-term sustainability, in other words self-
discipline over impulsiveness.

~~~
h4b4n3r0
Sure, but when people live in squalor and die of malnutrition and disease from
time to time primates do not even register on the radar of priorities.
Worrying about primate populations under these circumstances is an extremely
ivory tower position to take. It’s like if your children were dying of
starvation and you were agonizing over the carbon footprint of driving to the
grocery store.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Environmentalism can easily become neo-colonialism in which largely Western
countries impose their values and limit what developing countries do to better
their people.

The people living in the countries in question should be free to make their
choices regarding how they want to develop their country and economy without
interference from the West.

~~~
kazinator
Note that if we disrobe your statement of its developing-versus-West rhetoric,
we end up with:

 _" People in any country should be able to do whatever they want in regard to
environment without any interference from the international community."_

~~~
intended
Pretty much. yeah.

Frankly, us environmental hopefuls are trying to stop a tank rolling towards
them. We wont and we will be crushed.

There is just no Hope - Most of the world lives in absolutely mind boggling
scenarios. And they all hope to eventually have first world standards of
living.

Our models, growth projections and _debt_ depends on the world being able to
achieve that growth. Humanity has made a bet that the future will be better
for all - more consumption, more growth, more resources.

Except its just that our industries take advantage of unprotected commons.
Amazon deforestation, sea pollution, over fishing, air pollution are the
obvious big ticket examples.

Heck, many smaller economies go up the ladder because "regulations are far
more flexible" \- which is great for business, jobs and income. Want to dredge
that river for sand?

Simply: The world economy does not correctly price the cost of damage to the
environment in its transactions.

If it did so, costs would spike and a large number of transactions would cease
to be viable.

\-----

The illustrative example is plastic. I bet that 99% of the people reading this
have plastic touching them right now. 85% of you will have more than 2 pieces
of plastic on your person.

Plastic use is only going to increase; worldwide plastic use is VERY far from
its eventual peak - most of India and China have yet to reach first world
levels of consumption.

Now realize that plastic is hundreds of times _cheaper_ than alternatives. It
may also be LESS damaging than many alternatives like paper (chemical and
water use).

Plastic is immortal, and is never going to break down, and we arent anywhere
near how much plastic we will have to make before humanity leaves this planet.

If we stopped plastic tomorrow, our economy would crater. We would be back to
tinning food. That will mean costs and would go up only on packaging costs,
forget about cleaning and losses due to spoilage - thats just food. Forget
medicines.

\----

We arent going to get out of this by doing the right thing. We are going to
get out of this because someone will start a plan to pull carbon out of the
air and shove it into the core.

And then people will keep polluting.

\-----

Sorry its been frustrating.

------
drak0n1c
American expansion was "bad news" for the continent's bison. But that was a
net positive for the nation in the long run, as it allowed the US to become a
more self-sufficient country. Developing countries shouldn't be discouraged
from doing the same by aesthetes in the west who have already built their
industry and infrastructure.

~~~
ebbv
Nearly wiping out the bison was not a prerequisite to the US becoming self
sufficient. Nor is destroying their natural areas a prerequisite for
developing nations.

Additionally you’re presenting a false dichotomy of either we hold back
developing nations or we say goodbye to nature. That’s ridiculous. We can help
them to grow and become modern and raise their quality of life while
preserving their precious natural areas.

~~~
oh_sigh
Connecting the coasts via trains would not have been possible with the
millions of bison that used to inhabit the west. Either because of the bison
directly destroying track, or interaction with the Natives who hunted the
bison and were hostile towards Americans.

~~~
gliboc
Damn bisons destroying our fine tracks and bringing Indians with them; let's
wipe out their species!

~~~
oh_sigh
I don't know what point you think I'm arguing, but I am saying what happened
historically. The US would have had a much harder time maintaining their gains
from the Mexican-US war less than 20 years earlier(and may have ultimately
lost California et al back to Mexico) if they were not able to connect the
west coast to the east via rail.

