Palm Oil and Health - European Symposium June 25, 2014

Albert J. DijkstraSpecialist in edible oil processing

PALM OIL, FATTY ACIDS AND

TRIGLYCERIDES AND THEIR COMPOSITION

Crude palm oil production(Courtesy I. Debruyne)

Production vegetable oil (m tonnes)

Seven oil seeds 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

total 396.7 444.1 455.7 441.4

Soya bean 211.6 260.2 263.6 238.7

Other 185.1 183.9 192.1 202.7

Nine plant oils

Total 133.4 140.8 147.8 155.7

Palm oil 44.0 45.9 47.9 50.7

Soya bean oil 35.9 38.8 41.3 42.4

Rapeseed oil 20.6 22.5 23.7 24.3

Sunflower seed oil 11.9 12.1 12.3 15.3

Lauric oils 8.7 9.1 9.4 9.5

Other (CS,GN,OO) 12.3 13.3 13.2 13.5

Vegetable oils compared with other products

(in million tonnes in 2012)

Vegetable oils 160

Olive oil 3

Wheat 675

Rice 672

Corn 868

Sugar 165

Milk 620

Mineral oil 3 735

Why has palm oil production grown so much?

1. Growth of world population2. Growth of per capita consumption of oils and fats

1. With growing affluence, food oil consumption increases2. Consumption of oleochemical products like detergents

increases

3. Growth of outlets for oil (e.g. biodiesel) exceeds growth of outlets for by-products

4. Palm oil provides solid fat without trans isomers5. Palm oil is the cheapest oil to produce

Relation of other oils to palm oil

• Oils can be by-product, main product, or sole product– By-products arise:

• when meal is main product (soya bean meal, fish meal)• during meat packing (lard and tallow)• when growing cotton (cottonseed oil)

– Oil is main product when by-products have low value• Sunflower seed and rapeseed (Canola) are grown for the oil but

also lead to meal production

– Oil is sole product when there are no by-products or by-products are toxic and can only be used as fertiliser

• Fruit oils have no by-products (olive oil, palm oil)• Meal of castor oil and Jatropha curcas cannot be used in feed

Market considerations (simplified)

• The feed industry (chickens, pigs) determines demand for meal and determines soya bean production– and thus soya bean oil availability

• The oil users (food, feed, biodiesel and oleo-chemicals) determine the total demand for oil

• Total oil demand minus existing oil availability (soya bean oil, sunflower seed oil, Canola,animal fats etc) determines how much additional oil has to be produced

• This additional oil is provided by palm oil since it has no by-products – (except palm kernel oil, 10% of palm oil production)

• So when oil demand outpaces meal demand, this means a growing demand for palm oil

Technical and historical considerations

• Originally, people used animal fats, olive oil, and butter• Shortage of butter lead to invention of margarine (Mège

Mouriès, 1869)– Used beef tallow as fat to provide consistency

• Shortage of beef tallow led to invention of partial hydrogenation of liquid oils (Normann, 1903)– This process converts liquid oils into solid fats– Also allowed use of fish oil and whale oil in hardstocks– Introduced trans-isomers into the hardstock

• Now solid fats for margarine and shortenings can be obtained from palm oil and its fractions– Palm oil and its fractions provide a hardstock without trans-isomers– The raw materials often require modification by processes like

fractionation and interesterification

R2

H

R1

H

H

R2

R1

H

cis trans

• Groups of atoms attached to carbon atoms forming a single bond can rotate freely

• There is no rotation possible when they are attached to carbon atoms that are connected by a double bond

• Therefore the cis- and trans-isomers have different shapes• They provide the fatty acids and their compounds like oils

and fats with different physical properties

What are trans-isomers?Geometry of double bonds

• Edible oils and fats are triacylglycerols• The systematic name of the above molecule is: 1-hexadecanoyl-2-

(9Z,12Z-octadecadienoyl)-3-(9Z-octadecenoyl)-sn-glycerol• Trivial name: 1-palmitoyl-2-linoleyl-3-oleyl-glycerol• Shorthand: PLO• Cis-double bonds cause a kink in the carbon chain as illustrated on the

right for oleic acid.• The linoleic acid on the left is even more bent.

O

H2C

C

H2C

O

O

O H

O

O

What is the chemical structure of edible oils and fats?

• For nearly all naturally occurring fatty acids holds:– Straight chains with– even number of carbon atoms;– Unsaturation has cis configuration– Methylene interruption in polyunsaturated fatty acids– Elongation at carboxyl end so position of double bond does not

shift with respect to methyl end (ω-6 remains ω-6)

C

O

OH

912

118

linoleic acid (9c12c-18:2)(9Z,12Z)-Octadeca-9,12-dienoic acid

Structure of fatty acids

• Produced during industrial partial hydrogenation– Elaidic acid (9t-18:1) 9E-octadecenoic acid

• Produced by ruminants during biohydrogenation– Vaccenic acid (11t-18:1) 11-octadecenoic acid– Rumenic acid (9c11t-18:2) 9Z,11E-octadeca-9.11-dienoic acid– Other CLA-isomer (10t12c-18:2) – Vaccelenic acid (11t15c-18:2)– Rumelenic acid (9c11t15c-18:3)– Iso-rumelenic acid (9c13t15c-18:3)

• This list is not complete since more isomers are formed during both hydrogenation processes by positional and geometrical isomerisation

Fatty acids with trans double bonds

Nomenclature of fatty acids

Systematic name Trivial name Notation

Octanoic Caprylic (palm kernel) 8:0

Decanoic Capric (palm kernel,coconut) 10:0

Dodecanoic Lauric (palm kernel, coconut) 12:0

Tetradecanoic Myristic (palm kernel,coconut) 14:0

Hexadecanoic Palmitic (palm) 16:0

Octadecanoic Stearic (tallow) 18:0

9-cis-octadecenoic acid Oleic (olive, palm, canola) 18:1ω9

9-trans-octadecenoic acid Elaidic (hydrogenation) 18:1ω9

9c-12c-octadecadienoic Linoleic (sunflower, soya) 18:2ω6

6c-9c-12c-octadecatrienoic γ-Llinolenic (evening primrose) 18:3ω6

5c-8c-11c-14c-eicosatetraenoic Arachidonic (meat) 20:4ω6

9c-12c-15c-octadecatrienoic α-Linolenic9 (soya, canola) 18:3ω3

6c-9c-12c-15c-octadecatetraenoic Stearidonic (GMO soya) 18:4ω3

5c-8c-11c-14c-17c-eicosapentaenoic EPA (fish oil) 20:5ω3

4c-7c-10c-13c-16c-19c-docosahexaenoic DHA (fish oil) 22:6ω3

Fatty acid composition of various oils

oil 8:0 10:0 12:0 14:0 16:0 18:0 18:1 18:2 18:3 22:1coconut oil 9.0 6.8 46.6 18.0 9.0 1.0 7.6 1.6palm kernel oil 2.7 6.0 46.9 14.1 8.8 1.3 18.5 0.7palm oil 0.2 1.1 44.1 4.4 39.0 10.6 0.3palm superolein 0.3 1.0 35.4 3.8 45.1 13.4 0.3palm stearin 0.1 1.1 49.3 4.9 34.5 9.0 0.2cocoa butter 26.2 34.4 37.3 2.1olive oil 12.6 2.9 74.6 8.4 0.7soya bean oil 11.0 4.0 23.4 53.2 7.8rapeseed oil 3.6 1.6 32.9 17.5 9.0 42.4canola oil 4.8 2.4 58.1 20.8 10.2sunflower seed oil 6.4 4.7 21.0 67.7linseed oil 6.0 2.5 19.0 24.1 47.4

N.B. Totals ≤ 100% because minor fatty acids have not been listed

Composition and properties of crude palm oil

COMPOSITION

• Glycerides 94%• Of which diglycerides 5-8%• Free Fatty Acids 3-5%• Unsaponifiable 1%

– Carotenoids (ppm)500-700

– Tocols 600-1000– Phytosterols 300-500– Squalenes

200-500

PROPERTIES

• Iodine value 51-53

• Saponification value 198-200• Melting point 35-

37°C• Fatty acid composition

– 14:0 1.0-1.4– 16:0 43-45– 18:0 4.0-4.6– 18:1 37-41– 18:2 9.6-10.6– 18:3 < 0.5

Fractionation =partial crystallization + filtration

Palm oil

Palm stearin Palm olein

Palm mid fraction Palm superolein

Triglyceride composition of palm oil and fractions (in %)

Palm oil Palm stearin Palm olein Superolein

SSS 6.7 (5.2-8.8) 29.9 - -

SSU 45.9 (43.3-49.1) 47.8 45.6 32.4

SUU 40.4 (38.6-43.5) 19.4 46.4 57.8

UUU 7.0 (5.8-7.7) 2.9 8.0 9.8

(S. Braipson-Danthine & V. Gibon, Eur.J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 109 (2007) 359-372)

Triglyceride Palm oil Stearin Olein SuperoleinLLL 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.7

PLL/MOL 2.1 0.8 2.3 3.2

MLP/MOM 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.5

OOL 1.9 0.9 2.2 2.6

POL/SLL 10.3 5.2 11.7 14.3

PLP/MOP 9.4 7.8 9.9 10.0

MPP 0.4 1.8

OOO 4.6 2.1 5.3 6.5

POO 25.0 12.8 31.1 36.0

POP/PLS 30.0 32.2 30.0 18.4

PPP 5.3 23.9

SOO 3.0 1.2 3.3 1.5

POS 5.9 5.4 5.5 3.5

PPS 1.0 4.8

SOS 0.4 0.3 0.4

• Food uses– Palm oil itself for cooking and frying– Palm olein for salad dressings, cooking and frying– Palm stearin as interesterification component for

hardstock for margarines and shortenings– Palm mid fraction for confectionery fats

• Oleochemical uses– Fatty alcohols, fatty amines– Greases and lubricants

• Biofuel use as fatty acid methyl ester (FAME)

Uses of palm oil and its fractions

2125 June 2014 Palm Oil and HealthBrussels

DIXI

(I have spoken)

THANK YOU

Jean GrailleConsultant for Lipid technology

FOOD USE OF PALM OIL

PRODUCTION (Million tons)

CIF US$/T May 2012 YIELDS kg/ha

2011/2012 2012 2012

PALM 51.58 1075 3589

SOYA 41.70 1278 367

RAPE 23.,60 1235 713

SUNFLOWER 14.63 1275 493

PKO & CNO 8.96 1200 421

ANIMAL FATS 42.43 LARD 1000 FISH 1880

Oil World 02/2013

Physical and economical data

Fatty acids composition

* Soft refined red oils

Minor Biomolecules

(ppm)

PO ElaeisGuineensis

RefinedPO

Elaeisoleifera

Hybrid (H)* Stearin (H)*

Oiein (H)*

Carotenes 600 10 2230 740 355 640

Carotene 310 0 1210 540 330 420

Tocopherols 800 900 850 200 400

Toco. Vit. E 240 170

Tocotrienols 850 650 200 400

Plastoquinones

Exceptional properties of palm oil

Palm oil and its fractions elegantly solve the problem of trans isomers and positional isomers

Deep frying

Margarines

Shortenings

Cocoa butter equivalents (CBE)

Source of value added biomolecules

GEOMETRICAL ISOMERISATION

POSITIONAL ISOMERISATION

CH3 CH10

COORCH9R

C

H

C

R'

H

R

C

H

C

H

R'

CIS

TRANS

Deep frying of chips

History

According to the wish of Napoleon III to develop a very cheap butter equivalent for working class

and navy, Mége Mouriès has patented the margarine process in 1869 with beef tallow and

skimmed milk as ingredients.Since this date, margarine became a very

common product in food production. Today, tailor made margarines match with human

health needs.

PO

PS POL

MF (Soft) Super olein

Medium F CBE

MO

I.iode = 34

II = 49

Palm oil fractionation

Refining reduces the bioactive compounds content such as carotenes, tocopherols and tocotrienols.

It would be advisable to make more place to red palm oil be it from common or hybrid oil palm.

Blending red palm oil with fluid oils (soya, rape, sunflower, etc…), should be a wise act to develop.

Situation today

The image of palm oil is tarnished for the consumer.

Up to date scientists and producers' associations must intensify their communication effectively

face to the demonization maintained by pressure groups. The RSPO is a suitable

approach but the public is not sufficiently informed.

Conclusion

The controversy over saturated fatty acids observed particularly in France, in Europe and on the American Continent has two origins:

It is due to insufficient scientific knowledge leading to ignorance of basic biochemical

mechanisms of digestion of human food intake.

the phenomenon affects university teachers supposed to teach the biochemical and biological

mechanisms known for over 50 years; it also affects managers of food industry and nutritionists

supposed to provide the best advice to consumers.These deficiencies lead to cast doubt among policy makers, managers of food industry and consumers

which have assimilated therefore ideas totally wrong.

The debate is also fed with politico-economic reasons like various protectionist manipulations based on

erroneous stereotypes described previously, to protect any national production.

The soybean oil producing countries of the American continent demonize palm oil as do the producers of

sunflower and rapeseed oil in Europe. Dairy lobbies have to be designated also.

This intellectual disorder leads to a simplistic perception of lipids by referring only to their overall fatty acid composition as if lipids were

merely free fatty acid mixtures. This trivial approach naturally leads to a misclassification in terms of "good and bad" fats for human health.

No oil is perfect and palm oil is no exception. They all have their advantages and

disadvantages; this is the reason why food industry performs smart assemblies to improve simultaneously physical, sensory and nutritional

qualities of finished products.

A 60% fat spread, composed of a blend of rapeseed, sunflower and palm is one of the

most elaborate example. It is therefore unnecessary to demonize palm oil and to want

to delete it because the food processing industry would be put in big trouble and the consumer

would lose a lot in terms of nutritional quality of foods involved.

THANK YOU

Guy-André Pelouze MDThoracic and cardiovascular surgeon and IRC founder

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, ATHEROMA,

SATURATED FATS AND PALM OIL

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES (CVD)

What are we speaking about?

CVD =mainly CHD and Stroke

Global Atlas on Cardiovascular Diseases Prevention and Control

CVD are chronic diseases which are underestimated


ATHEROMA, ATHEROSCLEROSIS, ARTERIOSCLEROSIS

What is the present theoretical framework of atheroma?

The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. — Karl Popper

From diet to CHD: multiple environmental factors and a complex genomics

Atheromatous plaque is an inflammatory lesion

Inflammation leads to plaque growth

Plaque rupture leads to emboli and thrombosis

Symptomatic carotid atheroma: endarterectomy for stroke prevention

Inflammation and risk of CHD

The American Journal of Cardiology (www.AJConline.org) Vol 97 (2A) January 16, 2006

SATURATED FATSSat fats culprit? Is it evidence based?

Risk ratios and 95% CIs for fully adjusted random-effects models examining associations between saturated fat intake in relation to coronary heart disease and stroke. 1Updated data

were provided by respective investigators (4, 5, 8, 18, 29, 35) or derived f...

Siri-Tarino P W et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91:535-546

©2010 by American Society for Nutrition

PALM OIL

Is palm oil atherogenous?Does substitution lead to lower atherogenicity?

PALM OIL1. Is palm oil a culprit is CVD?

HRs and 95%s of CVD risk according to quintiles of energy-adjusted SF from different sources (n = 5209).

de Oliveira Otto M C et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;96:397-404

Fatty acid profiles for dairy and meat products.

de Oliveira Otto M C et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;96:397-404


PALM OIL2. What happens when palm oil is substituted ?

Substitution by trans fatty acids: high atherogenicity

Partially hydrogenated oils and lipid markers

Industrial Trans Fatty Acids are atherogenic:

high level of evidence

Substitution by oils with a high content in linoleic acid

(W6)

Fig 3 Updated meta-analysis of effects of LA selective interventions and mixed n-3/n-6 PUFA interventions on risk of death from coronary heart disease.

Ramsden C E et al. BMJ 2013;346:bmj.e8707

©2013 by British Medical Journal Publishing Group

Substitution by carbs (1)

Mean (±SEM) effects of variation in dietary carbohydrate and saturated fat on LDL subclasses.

Siri-Tarino P W et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91:502-509


Substitution by carbs (2)

Substitution of sat fats by PUFA, Carbs, Olive oil

Conclusion (1)

Obesity is not only a matter of calorie

Fat consumption decreased and obesity increased

Macronutrients 1971-2000, USA menMacronutrients 1971-2000, USA women

Since 2000 no change in calorie intake or macronutrients but sedentarity still

progressed

Macronutrients in USA 1999-2000

Sat fats in USA 1999-2000

The framework of CVD

Canadian Journal of Cardiology 28 (2012) 642–652

Smoking, Sedentarity, central obesity are the main present

determinants of Atheroma

Canadian Journal of Cardiology 28 (2012) 642–652

Conclusion (2)

• Palm Oil is about 8-10% of sat fat intake of French people (85% are animal fat)

• Palm Oil consumption is not a significant factor of CVD in France and its suppression will not lead to significant changes in mortality from CVD

• In France sat fats are 15% of daily calorie intake (WHO recommends 7%) but the CVD mortality is the lowest of the Union.

• To improve our CVD mortality we should– Reduce smoking rate which is still high, reduce calorie intake especially

from sugars which lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome– Increase the intake of fresh foods prepared at home instead of products

• For people at risk with a high intake of sat fats (>20%) especially if they are diabetic a reduction in sat fat intake is mandatory. It should be more efficient by reducing fatty meats or fatty cheeses depending on patient consumption which represent 80% of the sat fats.

Trends in CVD mortality in EU


Smoking

TV advertising


Conclusion (3)

• Tax on fat were abandoned in Europe because of inefficiency

• Prevention is difficult because it needs education, prescription is easy because it’s « free »

• It is mandatory to educate patients toward a healthy way of life instead of focusing on their blood cholesterol level

Conceptual framework for population-wide cardiovascular risk behaviors change: the optimal health behaviors and factors, community settings, and public health interventions.

Pearson T et al. Circulation 2013;127:1730-1753

Copyright © American Heart Association

The 6S rule for CVD prevention both primary and secondary

• Quit Smoking• Quit Sitting• Quit Sugar

• Check your Scale • Check your Salt• Check your

Stress

THANK YOU

Furio Brighenti a

Elena Fattore b

a Department of Food Sciences, University of Parma, Italyb Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Pharmacological

Research Institute “Mario Negri”, Milan, Italy

* In Press, June 2014, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, DOI: 10.3945/ ajcn.113.081190

PALM OIL AND BIOMARKERS OF CARDIOVASCULAR

DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF DIETARY

INTERVENTION TRIALS*

Disagreement between scientific findings on hypercholesterolemic effects of palm oil

Disagreement about an “universal” potentially negative role for human health

Aim: to assess the effect of the substitution of palm oil to the other main dietary fats on the

main biomarkers of cardiovascular risk

Background

Sys. Review/meta-analysis RCTs

Rand. Contr. Trials (RCT)

Sys. review/meta-analysis NRCTs

Non-randomized, controlled trial (NRCT)

Sys. review/meta-analysis cohort/case-control studies

Cohort study/case-control study

Cross-sectional study

Case series/time series

Expert opinion

Decre

asing

bias

Hierarchy of evidence in evidence-based medicine

Search on three databases:

1. PubMed

2. Embase

3. Cochrane Library

Key words: “palm oil”; “palmitic acid”; “cardiovascular disease*”; “coronary heart disease”; “cerebrovascular disease*”; “acute myocardial infarction”; cholesterol; lipoprotein*; apolipoprotein*

Eligibility Criteriai) Original data from intervention trials

comparing palm oil or palm olein-rich diet with a fat-rich diet

ii) Estimate of mean values, and a corresponding measure of dispersion for:

i) TCii) LDL-C iii) HDL-C iv) TC/HDL-C ratiov) TAGvi) Apo AIvii) Apo Bviii) VLDLix) Lp(a)

iii) Conducted on humans

iv) Published in English language

v) Intervention duration > 2 weeks

Search Strategy

Methods

Flowchart of studies selection for the meta-analysis

Records identified through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library

searching(n = 902)

Scre

enin

gIn

clud

edEl

igib

ility

Iden

tifica

tion Additional records identified through

other sources(n = 2)

Records after duplicates removed(n = 725)

Records screened(n = 725)

Records excluded (title and/or abstract not relevant; studies

not satisfying the inclusion criteria)

(n = 619)

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility(n = 106)

Full-text articles excluded (reviews, letters,

commentaries, other fatty acids or markers, no enough

statistical information, no enough intervention duration)

(n = 57)

Studies included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis)

(n = 51)

Characteristics of the 49 Trials (51 studies) included:

1526 volunteers (1007 men and 519 women), age 16-70 years

16 in young/students, 8 in the elderly, 25 in mixed ages

15 different countries (18 in Europe, 14 in Asia, 8 in Australia, 7 in USA and 1 each in Canada, South Africa)

29 on normocholesterolemic, 9 mild-hypercholesterolemic and 11 on hypercholesterolemic subjects

Energy from fat in the intervention diets ranged between 28 and 53%

Results I

Results II

PO vs MUFA

PO vs PUFA

Biomarker N. studies WMD (95% CI) a

Heterogeneityp-value I2 (%)

TC (mg/dl) 21 13.77 (8.85,18.69) 0.043 37.6LDL-C (mg/dl) 20 10.75(6.60,14.89) 0.096 30.6VLDL-C (mg/dl) 9 0.01 (-1.36,1.37) 0.743 0.00APO B (mg/l) 8 60.97 (24.01,97.93) 0.6 0.00HDL-C (mg/dl) 21 1.54 (0.38,2.71) 0.936 0.00APO AI (mg/l) 9 22.72 (-15.54,60.98) 0.787 0.00TAG (mg/dl) 20 1.57 (-3.11,6.25) 1.00 0.00TC/HDL-C 5 0.02 (-0.1,0.14) 0.918 0.00Lp (a) (mg/l) 3 -1 (-44.84,42.84) 0.934 0.00



TC (mg/dl) 16 9.36(2.39,16.34) <0.001 75.5LDL-C (mg/dl) 14 7.27 (-0.15,14.70) <0.001 74.2VLDL-C (mg/dl) 4 1.34 (-0.57,3.25) 0.471 0.00APO B (mg/l) 7 50.73 (20.61,80.85) 0.743 0.00HDL-C (mg/dl) 14 1.82 (0.54,3.10) 0.649 0.00APO AI (mg/l) 7 76.74 (40.19,113.29) 0.639 0.00TAG (mg/dl) 15 1.17 (-8.58,10.93) 0.001 60.0TC/HDL-C 5 -0.19 (-0.43,0.06) 0.27 22.71Lp (a) (mg/l) 2 -17.0 (-138.9,104.9) 1 0.00

Results IIIBiomarker N. studies WMD

(95% CI) a

Heterogeneity

p-valueI2 (%)

TC (mg/dl) 8 14.15 (4.11,24.19) 0.02 57.72LDL-C (mg/dl) 8 10.83 (0.91,20.75) 0.003 67.45VLDL-C (mg/dl) 4 -0.35 (-1.74,1.05) 0.783 0.00APO B (mg/l) 3 97.08 (29.98,164.18) 0.631 0.00HDL-C (mg/dl) 8 3.73 (1.43,6.03) 0.869 0.00APO AI (mg/l) 3 142.45 (64.05,220.84) 0.66 0.00TAG (mg/dl) 7 5.02 (-3.03,13.07) 0.973 0.00TC/HDL-C 3 -0.12 (-0.4,0.16) 0.293 18.43Lp (a) (mg/l) 1 -29 (-119.1,61.1) 100


Heterogeneity

p-valueI2 (%)

TC (mg/dl) 11 -8.77 (-15,-2.53) 0.117 35.26LDL-C (mg/dl) 11 -4.7 (-10.28,0.87) 0.102 37.13VLDL-C (mg/dl) 6 -0.31 (-1.71,1.09) 0.866 0.00APO B (mg/l) 9 -25.15 (-58.77,8.48) 0.231 23.84HDL-C (mg/dl) 11 -3.7 (-6.26,-1.15) 0.063 42.95APO AI (mg/l) 9 -52.21 (-95.46,-8.96) 0.366 8.32TAG (mg/dl) 11 0.18 (-5.71,6.06) 0.99 0.00Lp (a) (mg/l) 2 -8.49 (-54.29,37.3) 0.72 0.00

PO vs. stearic acid

PO vs. myristic/lauric acid

Results IV

PO vs. TRANS



TC (mg/dl) 11 3.52 (-3.54,10.58) 0.003 62.76LDL-C (mg/dl) 11 1.07 (-7.51,9.64) <0.001 76.31VLDL-C (mg/dl) 3 1.13 (-1.04,3.3) 0.65 0.00

APO B (mg/l) 6 -57.83 (-98.44,-17.22) 0.418 0.00

HDL-C (mg/dl) 11 4.98 (3.51,6.44) 0.748 0.00

APO AI (mg/l) 6 103.92 (57.78,150.07) 0.852 0.00

TAG (mg/dl) 11 -3.02 (-5.09,-0.96) 0.97 0.00

TC/HDL-C 3 -0.45 (-0.58,-0.31) 0.599 0.00

Lp (a) (mg/l) 4 -33.99 (-81.26,13.28) 0.996 0.00

Results V

Effect modifications for TC and LDL-C in:

elderly population

mild/hypercholesterolemic vs. normocholesterolemic

studies with higher energy from fat

in studies conducted in Asia vs. other countries

Age-related physiological conditions and overall dietary habits are important determining factors for the effects on TC and LDL induced by

the main dietary fats

Stratified analysis and meta-regression models

Significantly stronger effects in elderly populations

TC/MUFA

LDL-C/MUFA

TC/PUFA

LDL-C/PUFA

Young

Mixed

Elderly

Young

Mixed

Elderly

Young

Mixed

Elderly

Young

Mixed

Elderly

group

Age

1.04 (-6.13, 8.20)

12.42 (7.32, 17.52)

29.11 (20.60, 37.62)

1.80 (-3.81, 7.40)

10.65 (6.06, 15.25)

24.45 (16.32, 32.58)

0.62 (-5.41, 6.66)

9.84 (-1.47, 21.14)

21.34 (11.29, 31.39)

-0.62 (-9.73, 8.48)

7.58 (-4.62, 19.79)

15.48 (5.59, 25.36)

WMD (95% CI)

1.04 (-6.13, 8.20)

12.42 (7.32, 17.52)

29.11 (20.60, 37.62)

1.80 (-3.81, 7.40)

10.65 (6.06, 15.25)

24.45 (16.32, 32.58)

0.62 (-5.41, 6.66)

9.84 (-1.47, 21.14)

21.34 (11.29, 31.39)

-0.62 (-9.73, 8.48)

7.58 (-4.62, 19.79)

15.48 (5.59, 25.36)

WMD (95% CI)

0-37.6 0 37.6

Significantly stronger effect in fat-rich diets

TC/MUFA

LDL-C/MUFA

TC/PUFA

LDL-C/PUFA

Less than 35%

35% or more

Less than 35%

35% or more

Less than 35%

35% or more

Less than 35%

35% or more

from fat

Energy

4.93 (-2.15, 12.01)

17.47 (12.31, 22.64)

3.58 (-1.68, 8.84)

14.25 (10.01, 18.49)

4.39 (-2.05, 10.82)

22.54 (2.92, 42.17)

2.44 (-5.23, 10.10)

17.03 (0.88, 33.18)

WMD (95% CI)

4.93 (-2.15, 12.01)

17.47 (12.31, 22.64)

3.58 (-1.68, 8.84)

14.25 (10.01, 18.49)

4.39 (-2.05, 10.82)

22.54 (2.92, 42.17)

2.44 (-5.23, 10.10)

17.03 (0.88, 33.18)

WMD (95% CI)

0-42.2 0 42.2

Conclusions

• PO differentially modified different cholesterol fractions (either “favorable” or unfavorable” in terms of cardiovascular risk) according to the fat substituted ;

• Increase in TC and LDL-C were generally matched by an increase also in HDL-C and APO AI for substitution of MUFA, PUFA and Stearic acid, with no evident changes in the TC/HDL-C ratio ;

• In comparison to myristic/lauric acid, PO decreased most lipid fractions.

• Worth noting that all the changes where “favorable” when PO substituted hydrogenated trans fatty acids.

• Increases of TC and LDL were strongly dependent from age and overall dietary patterns, and did not seem relevant for younger populations eating less than the average recommendations of energy from fat (i.e. 35% En) ;

• From this meta-analysis it emerges a need to better differentiate dietary recommendations about the health effect of fat sources substitution, especially when they are addressed to emerging countries with a overall low caloric intake from fats.

THANK YOU

Dr. Aseem MalhotraCardiologist

Science Director- Action On SugarAcademy Of Medical Royal Colleges Obesity Steering

Group Member

HOW DIETARY CHANGES CAN RAPIDLY REDUCE

CARDIOVASCULAR RISK BUT THE BAD BEHAVIOR OF BIG FOOD IS

DAMAGING YOUR HEALTH- TACKLING THE OBESITY CRISIS AND THE INCREASING BURDEN

OF DIET RELATED DISEASE

Scale of The Problem/ Why Does it Matter?

• 60% of the adult UK population are either overweight or obese

• 1 in 3 children in the same category –trends increasing

• Foresight report: If we do nothing 90% Of UK population overweight or obese by 2050

• Currently costing the NHS £6 billion/year > £50 billion

• Total cost of diabetes close to £20 billion; double by 2035

• NCDs (diet as a risk factor) have now overtaken under nutrition as the commonest cause of death worldwide – 35 million/year

• Is obesity just the tip of the iceberg?

The Obesogenic Environment

Processed, energy dense foods are EVERYWHERE!!

A quarter-pound cheeseburger, large fries & a 500 ml soda provide:

1,200 calories 50 g fat 95 mg cholesterol 3 g salt

Brownell & WarnerMilbank Quarterly, 2009

Snack Foods Are Everywhere

• Car washes • Book stores• Hardware stores• Gas stations• Office buildings (vending machines)• Health clubs/gyms• Video stores• Car repair shops

Toxic Hospital Food Environment

• Branding opportunity for the junk food industry ( thousands of visitors per week)

• Legitimises the acceptability of junk food ( fast food on site, vending machines)

• Hospital trolleys - loaded with junk• Education ineffective when food environment is working

against you- 50% of 1.4 million NHS employees overweight or obese

• Perpetuates the revolving door of health care

Obesity Is Rooted In The Food Environment

• “Food choices are often automatic and made without full conscious awareness” Theresa Marteau, Director of Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Cambridge

• Over supply of cheap sugary/energy dense foods

• Made worse by aggressive marketing by junk food industry- target children and

most vulnerable

• Fast food advertising in US alone $4.2 billion dollars

• The balance of power: for every £1 spent by the World Health Organisation in

preventing diet related disease, £500 spent by industry in marketing high calorie,

low nutrient foods

• School Food Trust Survey- 72% of parents felt junk food advertising contributed to

pester power

Food Industry Strategy That Hinders Progress for Public Health- The Corporate Playbook Of

Big Food

• Focus on personal responsibility as the cause of the nation’s unhealthy diet

• Raise fears that government action usurps personal freedom

Greatest public health successes: safe drinking water, seat belts in cars, smoke free

buildings happened through regulation. Voluntary agreements ; impression of minor

progress whilst detracting from more meaningful interventions.

• Corporate Social responsibility: Soft drink industry gave Children’s Hospital Of

Philadelphia $10 million whilst city was considering a sugary drinks tax.

• Vilify critics with totalitarian language characterizing them as the food police,

leaders of the nanny state, “food fascists”

• Criticize studies that hurt industry as “junk science”

The Corporate Playbook Of Big Food

• Emphasise physical activity over diet• Little change in exercise levels in the past 30 years whilst obesity has

rocketed (Pontzer H, Raichlen DA, Wood BM, Mabulla AZ, Racette SB, Marlowe FW. Hunter-gatherer energetics and human obesity. PLoS One 2012;7:e40503)

• Learn from History: 50 years from publication of links between smoking

and lung cancer before regulation because Tobacco industry successfully

adopted a strategy of planting doubt, denial, confusing the public and

even buy the loyalty of scientists- whatever it takes to protect their only

interest- profit

• CEOs of every major Tobacco firm went in front of US Congress in 1994

and swore under oath that they didn’t believe that nicotine was addictive

or smoking caused lung cancer

WHO Cardiovascular Disease -Key Facts

• CVDs are the number one cause of death globally: more people die annually from CVDs than from any other cause

• An estimated 17.3 million people died from CVDs in 2008, representing 30% of all global deaths. Of these deaths, an estimated 7.3 million were due to coronary heart disease and 6.2 million were due to stroke

• Low- and middle-income countries are disproportionally affected: over 80% of CVD deaths take place in low- and middle-income countries and occur almost equally in men and women

• The number of people who die from CVDs, mainly from heart disease and stroke, will increase to reach 23.3. million by 2030 CVDs are projected to remain the single leading cause of death

• Most cardiovascular diseases can be prevented by addressing risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diet and obesity, physical inactivity, high blood pressure, diabetes and raised lipids

• 9.4 million deaths each year, or 16.5% of all deaths can be attributed to high blood pressure. This includes 51% of deaths due to strokes and 45% of deaths due to coronary heart disease

Rapid Mortality Falls After Risk Factor Changes In Populations

• The underlying pathological process preceding most coronary and stroke events—normally takes many decades to progress

• Arterial stiffening can be shown in children who are obese, and aortic fatty streaks are visible in some teenagers and young adults (Strong JP, Malcom GT, McMahan CA, et al. Prevalence and extent of atherosclerosis in adolescents and young adults: implications for prevention from the Pathobiological Determinants of Atherosclerosis In Youth Study. JAMA 1999; 281: 727–35)

• Most cardiovascular events manifest after the age of 60• Perception of a process that will progress slowly and reverse slowly if at all is

WRONG!• Extensive empirical and trial evidence shows that substantial reductions in

mortality can occur within months of decreases in smoking, and within 1–3 years of dietary changes (Capewell S, O’Flaherty M. Can dietary changes rapidly decrease cardiovascular mortality rates? Eur Heart J 2011; published online March 2. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr049)

Rapid Mortality Falls Cont…

• Helena, Montana, USA- Smoke free legislation in 2002 led to 40% reduction in hospital admissions for Acute Coronary Syndromes following smoke free legislation within 6 months. Law was recinded and admissions for ACS returned to preceding levels

• Smoke free legislation in Scotland 2006, 17% reduction in hospital admissions within a year and 6% fall in out of hospital cardiac deaths. Meyers DG, Neuberger JS, He J. Cardiovascular eff ect of bans on smoking in public places: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54: 1249–55

Randomised trials show that changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease.

• DART trial- 2033 patients post MI, eating fatty fish led to 29% reduction in all cause mortality compared to control

• GISSI Prevencione trial- 11,323 patients with CVD randomly assigned to Omega 3, Vitamin E, both or neither. In Omega 3 supplement group mortality significantly reduced after 3 months, sudden death within 4 months and cardiac and stroke deaths within 6-8 months

Rapid Mortality Falls Cont…

CVD Prevention Policies

- are evidence-based

- are effective

“Upstream” “Downstream” determinants causes

Food Salt Blood Pressure ↑Food Trans Fat Dyslipidaemia

www.nice.org.uk/guidance/PH25

CVD causal pathways

http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/PH25


SALT POLICIES WORK average consumption

UK FSA voluntary policies: 9.5 8.1 g/day

FINLAND REGULATIONS: 14 10 g/day

Healthy Diet Policies are effective


IF UK salt consumption: 8.6 5.6 g/day

14,000-20 000 CVD deaths/year

130 000 QALYs gain

£350 million / year savings

BMJ 2011 343 d4044

Healthy Diet Policies are beneficial

Industrial trans fats 50% hidden in muffins, cakes, biscuits,

cookies & wafers 25% hidden in fast food, popcorn

Industrial Trans Fat POLICIES WORK

average consumption

UK FSA voluntary policy 2% 1% energy

DENMARK REGULATIONS 4% 0% energy

(now New York, Iceland, Sweden, Seattle, Canada, Austria, Switzerland...)


Healthy Diet Policies are effective


IF UK transfat consumption: 1% 0% /day

Eliminating industrial trans fats in UK

Prevent 5,000 deaths/year

Savings £230 million/year

& BMJ 2011 343 d4044BMJ 2010 340 c1826

Healthy Diet Policies are beneficial

PREDIMED RCT: Primary prevention of CVD with a Mediterranean diet. Estruch et al

NEJM 2013

• Mediterranean diet supplemented with – extra-virgin olive oil

• Mediterranean diet supplemented with– mixed nuts

• Control diet (advice to reduce dietary fat)

1portion

1portion

1% energy

2g /day

1portion

10% energy

3%energy

1portion

Results• 7447 persons enrolled (age 55 - 80 years); 57% women• good adherence (self-reported intake & biomarkers) • CVD events occurred in 288 participantsThe multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios • 0.70 (0.54 to 0.92) with Mediterranean diet & extra-virgin olive oil • 0.72 (0.54 to 0.96) (96 events) in Mediterranean diet with nuts • No diet-related adverse effects reported

Conclusions• Among persons at high cardiovascular risk, a Mediterranean diet

supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events ↓30% within 4.8 years


NEJM 2013

1portion

1portion

1% energy

2g /day

1portion

10% energy

3%energy

1portion


NEJM 2013

Mozaffarian & Capewell BMJ 2011 343 d5747

-90,000

-70,000

-50,000

-30,000

-10,000

Feasible changes

1portion

1portion

1% energy

2g /day

1portion

10% energy

3%energy

1portion

CVD mortality reductions with healthier US food policy options US 2006 baseline: 810,000 CVD deaths

Tom Frieden’s health impact pyramid

J A. Monroe AJPM 2011 41 (4) Suppl 3 S155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.015

“Downstream” preventive activities targeting individuals (eg 1:1 personal advice, health education, “nudge” or statins) consistently achieve a smaller public health impact than interventions aimed further “upstream” (eg smokefree laws, alcohol pricing or transfats regulations).

These policy-based interventions tend to be more effective, potentially reaching all parts of the population and not being dependent on a sustained individual response.

EFFECTIVENESS Hierarchy

Time For Action On Sugar?

• Intrinsic sugars present in food not an issue, glucose is necessary for life.

• The body doesn’t require any carbohydrate from added sugar! (Fructose component)

• Observational studies and RCTs have implicated SSBs with weight gain and Obesity

• Commonest cause of chronic pain in children is tooth decay- main dietary cause=sugar!

Elliot et al. Am J Clin Nutr, 2002Bray et al. Am J Clin Nutr, 2004Teff et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2004Gaby, Alt Med Rev, 2005

Le and Tappy, Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care, 2006Wei et al. J Nutr Biochem, 2006Johnson et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2007Rutledge and Adeli, Nutr Rev, 2007Brown et al. Int. J. Obes, 2008

Common wisdom: A calorie is a calorie, and “Sugar is just “empty calories”But:• Chronic fructose exposure promotes liver fat accumulation,

which promotes Metabolic Syndrome (toxicity)• Metabolic syndrome (3 of hypertension, dysglycaemia,

increased triglycerides, decreased HDL, and increased waist circumference

• 66% of those admitted with acute myocardial infarction have metabolic syndrome with 50% increased mortality or hospital readmission at 1 year

Fructose is not glucose

Obese (30%)

Normal weight (70%)

240 million adults in U.S.

72 million

168 million

“Exclusive” view of obesity and metabolic dysfunction

Obese (30%)

Obese and sick (80% of 30%)

Normal weight (70%)


72 million

168 million

Total: 57 million sick

“Exclusive” view of obesity and metabolic dysfunction

Obese (30%)

Normal weight (70%)


Normal weight,Metabolic dysfunction

(40% of 70%)

Obese and sick (80% of 30%)

57 million 67 million Total: 124 million sick

72 million

168 million

“Inclusive” view of obesity and metabolic dysfunction

“Beating obesity will take action by all of us, based on one simple common sense fact: All calories count, no matter where they come from, including Coca-Cola and everything else with calories…”The Coca Cola Company, “Coming Together”, 2013

The Fiction

The Science

• Some Calories Cause Disease More than Others

• Different Calories are Metabolized Differently

• A Calorie is Not A Calorie– Fiber– Protein– Fat– Fructose

Are All Calories The Same?

"It's extremely naive of the public and the medical profession to imagine that a calorie of bread, a calorie of meat and a calorie of alcohol are all dealt in the same way by the amazingly complex systems of the body. The assumption has been made that increased fat in the bloodstream is caused by increased saturated fat in the diet, whereas modern scientific evidence is proving that refined carbohydrates and sugar in particular are actually the culprits.“Professor David Haslam, Guardian, 24th January 2013

SSB’s and BMI-adjusted risk of diabetes in

EPIC-Interact (Europe)

Romaguera-Bosch et al. Diabetologia 56:1520, 2013

An international econometric analysis of

diet and diabetesOnly changes in sugar availability predicted changes in diabetes prevalence

Every extra 150 calories increased diabetes prevalence by 0.1%

But if those 150 calories were a can of soda, diabetes prevalence increased 11-fold, by 1.1% (95% CI 0.03 — 1.71%, p <0.001)-

Independent of BMI and Physical activity

This study meets the Bradford Hill criteria for Causal Medical Inference:

—dose —duration —directionality —precedence

Basu et al. PLoS One 8:e57873, 2013

Sugar Nutritional Labelling Guidelines

• WHO 2003- Added sugar No more than 10% of energy- Intrinsic sugars 10% (whole fruit, vegetables…)

• But current UK labelling references only total sugars as GDA – 20% of energy or 90g (22.5 tea spoons of sugar)

• In the United States sugar not considered a nutrient so no equivalent of GDA for sugar.

• Extremely difficult for consumers to determine how much sugar is added to foods

• In the United States 1/3 sugar from SSBs, 1/6 from Ice creams, chocolates etc. but half of sugar consumption from non-junk foods.

• US Department of Agriculture recently removed a published database for the added sugar content of selected foods stating “no method can analyse for added sugars so their amounts must be extrapolated or supplied by food companies, many of which are not willing to make public such proprietary information.”

Recommends reduction in sugar intake from 22 tsp/day to 9 tsp/day (males) and 6 tsp/day (females)

Circulation 120:1011, 2009

Recognition at the American Heart Association

Action On Sugar- Aims

• To achieve a reduction in refined added sugar intake in the UK and ensure it does not contribute to more than 5% of total energy intake. ( 6 tea spoons max!)

• To reach a consensus with the food manufacturers and suppliers that there is strong evidence that refined added sugar is a major cause of obesity and has other adverse health effects.

• To persuade the food processors and suppliers to universally and gradually reduce the added sugar content of processed foods.

• To ensure clear and comprehensive nutritional labelling of added sugar content of all processed foods and beverages, using the recommended traffic light system

• To educate the public in becoming more sugar aware in terms of understanding the impact of added sugar on their health, checking labels when shopping and avoiding products with high levels of added sugar.

• To ensure that children are highlighted as a particularly vulnerable group whose health is more at risk from high added sugar intakes.

• To ensure the body of scientific evidence about the dangers of excessive refined added sugar consumption becomes translated into policy by the Government and relevant professional organisations

• To conduct a Parliamentary campaign to ensure the Government and Department of Health take action, and that, if the food industry does not comply with the sugar targets, they will enact legislation or impose an added sugar tax.

eg. clean water, sanitation, pollution, immunization, seatbelts, smoke free…

SUPPORT: Implementation path for effective public health interventions

• SCIENTIFIC evidence emerges

• UNDERSTANDING spreads

• PROFESSIONALS accept paradigm

• PUBLIC & POLITICIANS become aware, then supportive

• OPPOSITION from vested interests is slowly Overcome

• REGULATION is introduced, often strengthened by

• TAXATION to reinforce regulations (eg Tobacco &

alcohol control)

Professor Simon Capewell UK Faculty of Public Health & University of Liverpool

“ Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there’s no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”John Kenneth Galbraith

Christophe DidionHealth and Consumers Directorate General

European Commission

REGULATION (EU) NO 1169/2011

ON FOOD INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS

Health andConsumersHealth andConsumers

Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers

Christophe DidionHealth and Consumers Directorate General

European Commission

Health andConsumers

Compulsory information

• in all cases:• Name of the food• Ingredient list• Allergens • QUID (quantity of certain ingredients)• Net quantity of the food

Health andConsumers

Compulsory information

• in all cases:• Minimum durability/”use by” date• Name or business name and address of the

Food Business Operator responsible for the food information

• Nutrition declaration• Allergens

Health andConsumers

Mandatory particulars accompanying the name of the

food• 'Defrosted'

• For meat products/preparation and fishery products• added proteins and their origin• added water if >5%• 'formed meat' / 'formed fish' when the food

gives the impression that it is made of a whole piece

Health andConsumers

Other mandatory particulars

• 'Packaged in a protective atmosphere'

• 'High caffeine content'

• 'With sweeteners' / 'Contains aspartame (a source of phenylalanine)'

• If >10% polyols, 'excessive consumption may produce laxative effects'

Health andConsumers


• For oils and fats

• 'fully hydrogenated', 'partly hydrogenated'

• origin

Health andConsumers

Health andConsumers

Improved legibility of labels

Minimum font size of 1.2mm “x”-height ( ) and of 0.9 mm “x”-height for packs less than 80 cm2

Health andConsumers

Origin

• Basic principle - origin labelling remains voluntary unless its omission could mislead the consumer

• New rules for the indication of the origin of the primary ingredient when it comes from a different place than the one where the last substantial transformation of the food happened

Commission to adopt implementing acts

Health andConsumers

Partial move to extension of mandatory origin labelling

• Mandatory origin labelling for:• Meat (pig, sheep, goat and poultry)

• Report on mandatory origin labelling for:• other types of meat • meat used as an ingredient • milk and milk used as an ingredient in dairy products• unprocessed foods• single ingredient products• ingredients that are more than 50% of a food

Health andConsumers

Mandatory nutrition declaration

• energy (kilojoules and kilocalories)• fat• saturates• carbohydrate• sugars• protein• salt (sodium expressed as “salt” equivalents)

Information related to 100g or 100ml Voluntary labelling per portion and/or per reference intake

Health andConsumers

Report on trans fat

• Levels of Trans fat in foods

• Trans fat intakes

• Impact of appropriate means that could enable consumers to make healthier food choices (information, restrictions of use)

By December 2014

Health andConsumers

Front-of-pack nutrition declaration

• Voluntary front-of-pack labelling for• energy alone OR • energy, fat, saturates, sugars and salt

Health andConsumers

Application of the new rules

13 December 2014

13 December 2016 for mandatory nutrition labelling

Health andConsumers

Anne BourduLawyer and Member of the SYNNOV

« PALM OIL FREE » : FROM CONSUMER INFORMATION TO DISPARAGEMENT

• Palm oil undergoes a smear campaign, especially by powerful NGOs, while a serious debate about its nutritional qualities and its conditions of production would be required.

• Up to now the negative impact of this oil on human health has not been demonstrated, subject to a non-excessive consumption.

• The EU Regulation n°1169/2011 of 25 October 2011 reinforces the information and protection of consumers by imposing essential, readable and understandable information affix on food products.

• From 13 December 2014, the date from which it will be compulsory implemented, indicating the presence of palm oil (most often currently identified under the name “vegetable oil”) and any other vegetable oil in a pre-packaged food product will be required. Thus, the presence of palm oil in a foodstuff will be known by the consumer.

The welcome improvement of consumer information

Article 18 : List of ingredients “Ingredients shall be designated by their specific name.”

Annex VII : Indication and Designation of ingredients

• “Refined oils of vegetable origin may be grouped together in the list of ingredients under the designation ‘vegetable oils’ followed immediately by a list of indications of specific vegetable origin, and may be followed by the phrase ‘in varying proportions’. If grouped together, vegetable oils shall be included in the list of ingredients […], on the basis of the total weight of the vegetable oils present”.

EU Regulation n°1169/2011 of 25 October 2011

• Food producers, facing the psychosis of “junk food” and by commercial interest, are seeking to join the “palm oil free” camp.

• Stigmatization of palm oil by the very apparent affixing of this statement on the products’ packaging that, for some, have never contained palm oil or have no reason to contain some.

Misleading and disparaging commercial information

Article L121-1 of the French consumer code describes the following as deceptive trading practices:

• creating confusion with another good or service, trademark, trading name or other defining hallmark of a competitive product or service;

• practices based on false allegations, indications or presentations or that are likely to mislead people about the existence, availability, nature or characteristics of a product or service;

• practices omitting or concealing important information or presenting it ambiguously.

Protection of consumerMisleading advertising 1/3

Example:

A company, by combining the term “label” with the mention “Quality Charter” and the mention “checked by an independent approved institution” changes the consumers' behaviour by making them believe that the products benefit from an official label (CA Lyon, Oct. 29th 2008).

Misleading advertising 2/3

• The mention “palm oil free” implies that such products own qualities and properties better than those containing palm oil.

• Article R.112-7 of the Consumer Code prohibits to make-believe that the foodstuff possesses special characteristics when in fact all similar foodstuffs possess such characteristics.

• So, this practice may be considered as a breach of Consumer law.

• Moreover, the statement “palm oil free” may lead consumers to believe that it is affixed pursuant a legal provision and then, that palm oil is objectively harmful.

Misleading advertising 3/3

• The commercial Court of Paris (2012.12.04), requested by an association of Ivorian palm oil producers, held that the commercial communication of saying that “intensive farming of palm oil destroys rainforests, increases greenhouse gas emissions and threatens endangered species” constitutes a disparagement for these producers.

• Judges considered that this statement leads consumers to believe that it is justified to remove palm oil from the foodstuffs’ composition and that it is beneficial for the environment to refrain from consuming food products containing palm oil.

Protection of fair competition Unfair commercial practice

This judgement complies with the case law of the French Supreme Court (2007.01.30) that sanctioned an advertising for a sugary drink which disparaged the sugar. “It can not be excused by the humorous tone of the film, and such advertising contributes to the degradation, in the consumers’ mind, of the sugar’s image that is de facto disparaged”.

Confirmation of previous « sugar case law »

Misleading advertising may lead to draw customers away from a competing undertaking. Then, misleading advertising may constitute an act of unfair competition.

The risk of emergence of new litigation relating to the massive reproduction of the statement “palm oil free” is important should palm oil opponents continue their marketing actions with a widespread even standardized communication disparaging palm oil.

Mention « palm oil free » / unfair competitive advantage

THANK YOU

QUESTIONS

THANK YOU

Palm Oil and Health - European Symposium June 25, 2014

Health & Medicine

Transcript of Palm Oil and Health - European Symposium June 25, 2014