Iceland's Banned Palm Oil Advert

[Dick Turpin]

Iceland had planned to run a previous Greenpeace video as their Christmas advert, rebadged,in support of their  palm oil free range, but it has apparently been banned on the grounds of (unsurprisingly) being politically biased. Being as it is such a politically charged issue, I wondered what folks here thought: It is very emotionally charged!

 

https://www.facebook.com/icelandfoods/posts/10156068917813137?__xts__[0]=68.ARByTxO4LnSosys9CVtFstuZlpoioNRXBTsFwoGPN1mPkhjQKBfo__wpkgFrhN9XNFK6TbS8ZDfKMjD6pWdEK6IafREjSf2BGkNhd_b9SNilExPZJC0ip-88n-Vrp3-0wpxyKQgM2vVOifc8CwWPplfsKZQjgb3QJl8d9c8xoxdqEgttmPOV1PUn30U_-BQcMh7jy6-JNvivJ4yuK1-9uRG3WPaSeXwaPIg8&__tn__=C-R

[polybear]

I'd run it.  I googled just how many foods etc. use Palm Oil - it's a b1oody minefield.  Me, I'd make it law that anything with Palm Oil in has to have a big red "P" on the front of the packaging.  Saves you having to check the ingredients lists next time you're in Tesco's:

Alternative names for Palm Oil

Acetic and fatty acid esters of glycerol (472a/E472a)

Aluminium stearate

Aluminium, calcium, sodium, magnesium salts of fatty acids (470/E470a; E470b)

Ammonium laureth sulphate

Ammonium lauryl sulphate

Arachamide mea

Ascorbyl palmitate

Ascorbyl palmitate (304)

Azelaic acid

Butyl stearate

Calcium lactylate

Calcium oleyl lactylate

Calcium stearate

Calcium stearoyl lactylate (482/E482)

Capric triglyceride

Caprylic acid

Caprylic triglyceride

Caprylic/capric triglyceride

Caprylic/capric/stearic triglyceride

Capryloyl glycine

Caprylyl glycol

Ceteareth (2-100)

Cetearyl alcohol

Cetearyl ethylhexanote

Cetearyl glucoside

Cetearyl isononanoate

Ceteth-20

Ceteth-24

Cetyl acetate

Cetyl alcohol

Cetyl ethylhexanoate

Cetyl hydroxyethylcellulose

Cetyl lactate

Cetyl octanoate

Cetyl palmitate

Cetyl ricinoleate

Citric and fatty acid esters of glycerol (472c/E472c)

Cocoa butter equivalent (CBE)

Cocoa butter substitute (CBS)

Decyl oleate

Diacetyltartaric and fatty acid esters of glycerol (472e/E472e)

Dilinoleic acid

Disodium laureth sulfosuccinate

Disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate

Distilled Monoglyceride Palm

Elaeis guineensis oil

Emulsifier 422, 430-36, 470-8, 481-483, 493-5

Epoxidized palm oil (uv cured coatings)

Ethyl lauroyl arginate (243)

Ethylene glycol monostearate

Ethylhexyl hydroxystearate

Ethylhexyl palmitate

Ethylhexyl stearate

Ethylhexylglycerin

Fatty alcohol sulphates

Glycerin

Glycerin or glycerol (442)

Glyceryl distearate

Glyceryl laurate

Glyceryl monostearate

Glyceryl myristate

Glyceryl oleate

Glyceryl polymethacrylate

Glyceryl stearate

Glyceryl stearate SE

Glycol distearate

Glycol stearate

Guineesis (palm)

Hexadecylic

Hexyl laurate

Hexyldecanol

Hydrogenated palm glycerides

Isopropyl isostearate

Isopropyl palmitate

Isopropyl titanium triisostearate

Isostearamide DEA

Isostearate DEA

Isostearic acid

Isostearyl alcohol

Lactic and fatty acid easters of glycerol (472b/E472b)

Lauramide DEA

Lauramide MEA

Lauramine oxide

Laureth

Lauric acid Lauroyl sarcosine

Lauryl betaine

Lauryl lactate

Lauryl glucoside (from palm)

Lauryl pyrrolidone

Linoleic acid

Magnesium myristate

Magnesium stearate

Mixed tartaric, acetic and fatty acid esters of glycerol (472f/E472f)

Mono-and- di-glycerides of fatty acids (471/E471)

Myristate

Myristic acid

Myristic Cetrimonium Chloride Acid

Myristoyl

Myristyl alcohol

Myristyl myristate

Octyl palmitate

Octyl stearate

Octyldodecyl myristate

Octyldodecyl stearoyl stearate

Oleamide MIPA

Oleic acid

Oleyl betaine

Palm fruit oil

Palm kernel oil

Palm oil

Palm olein

Palm stearine

Palmate

Palmitate

Palmitic acid

Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride

Palmitoyl myristyl serinate

Palmitoyl oxostearamide

Palmitoyl oligopeptide

Palmitoyl tetrapeptide-3

PEG-100 stearate

[EddieB]

I fail to understand banning the advert as “overtly political”, any more than if it dealt with over use of plastic bags, plastic pellets in wash gels or a host of other environmental issues. Having watched the advert, I found it cute, and quite moving.

 

For many years, I’ve actively avoided buying products that contain palm oil. To fly over Sarawak and see first hand the sterility of the huge swathes of palm oil plantations, where once was primary rainforest supporting a diversity of species, is to understand why there needs to be a wake-up call.

 

So I say, well done to Iceland. Their advert is getting a greater airing by going viral, than if it was sandwiched between the usual fare on commercial TV channels.

[QWILPEN]

Fully agree with the sentiment here the advert should have been allowed to run.

 

well done Iceland

[Torper]

Interesting.  But to say ALL palm oil is bad is wrong.  Yes, steer clear of the stuff from Indonesia, Malaysia and probably Asia in general.  But in Latin America and Africa (where there aren't any orangutans) some real effort is being put into the production of genuinely sustainable and indeed organic palm oil.  So if you are buying palm oil, try to find out where it's come from and if it is certified as being sustainable or, better still, organic.  That doesn't help, of course, where palm oil is but an ingredient in another product but even then some big companies, eg Unilever, are reacting to public dismay and moving towards a 100% sustainable palm oil policy.  Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of palm oil is consumed in Asia and the Middle East where, sadly, consumer demand for sustainable products and concern for the rainforests is negligible.

 

And that is the main problem with Iceland's advert - it condemns all palm oil with no regard to its source or method of production.

 

DT

Edited November 9, 2018 by Torper

[Steamport Southport]

What's it got to do with Christmas?  

 

 

 

They don't even sell orangutan. Probably tastes like ginger nuts anyway....

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[The Stationmaster]

As I've recently stopped buying a particular 'butter substitute' because it added palm oil to its content I'm wholeheartedly behind this ad although it would seem a bit odd for a Christmas ad (but they seem to be getting increasingly non-Christmassy in any case).  I certainly don't see anything 'political' with the ad and it's no different in that respect from various other 'green' or ecological ads.

 

In my view it is not down to a commercial organisation to decide this ad is 'political' but more properly any such decision should lie with the Advertising Standards Authority.  Whatever they might say about themselves Clearcast - who I understand to be the concern which has labelled this ad as 'political' - are a commercial concern.  Whether or not being a commercial company influences decisions made by Clearcast I really don't know but they might well be open to such influences depending on who their investors happen to be - for example several television companies including Sky have a stake in the company.  Equally 'political' might possibly mean 'not upsetting other tv advertisers' - for example Pepsico are involved in the growing of trees for palm oil in Indonesia.

 

But whatever the derivation of 'political' in this case I tend to the view that if anybody is going to rule on the suitability of this advert for our tv screens it ought really to be the ASA.  But fortunately in the meanwhile it seems to be getting excellent coverage and support on the wider internet.

[Dagworth]

I would imagine that Iceland knew exactly what they were doing, the publicity generated by the ban has probably resulted in the ad being seen by a far wider audience than if it had been allowed to run.

 

Andi

[LBRJ]

I thought the OP meant the country - not the cynical downmarket frozen food shop trying to reposition itself as something better

[polybear]

Here's the story behind the ban:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/09/iceland-christmas-tv-ad-banned-political-greenpeace-orangutan

[Torper]

As I suspected - it's a Greenpeace film.  The impression it gives is that Palm Oil is bad because it results from deforestation and the destruction of orangutan habitats.  That's largely true in Indonesia and Malaysia, but not elsewhere.  So imagine you're a small palm grower in Ghana or Ecauador; you haven't deforested anywhere to grow your palms, there are no orangutans on your continent, far less in your forest, and you've had your oil certified as sustainable and maybe even organic.  Or you're a British importer doing your best to import only sustainable palm - OK, it's a bit more expensive but it doesn't harm the environment.  They'e both tarred with the same brush that Greenpeace is using in this ad - palm oil is bad, palm oil results in deforestation and homeless orangutans.  Ty[ical really of Greenpeace - like so many eco organisations, it is just as guilty of misinformation and half truths to force through its agenda as many other global organisations and media outlets.

 

DT

[55020]

The scale of the deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia is astounding.  I spent 8 years flying in Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah about a decade ago, which provided a privileged view of the area.

 

Brunei do not allow deforestation and you can visually see the border between it and Malaysia.  Have a look in Google maps or Google earth.  Search for Kuala Belait and zoom out.  You can see the change of "ground" colour at the border, due to deforestation and in particular the farming of Palm Oil in Malaysia.  It is even more shocking when you are on the ground and driving through mile after mile of pretty barren land.

[phil-b259]

As I suspected - it's a Greenpeace film.  The impression it gives is that Palm Oil is bad because it results from deforestation and the destruction of orangutan habitats.  That's largely true in Indonesia and Malaysia, but not elsewhere.  So imagine you're a small palm grower in Ghana or Ecauador; you haven't deforested anywhere to grow your palms, there are no orangutans on your continent, far less in your forest, and you've had your oil certified as sustainable and maybe even organic.  Or you're a British importer doing your best to import only sustainable palm - OK, it's a bit more expensive but it doesn't harm the environment.  They'e both tarred with the same brush that Greenpeace is using in this ad - palm oil is bad, palm oil results in deforestation and homeless orangutans.  Ty[ical really of Greenpeace - like so many eco organisations, it is just as guilty of misinformation and half truths to force through its agenda as many other global organisations and media outlets.

 

DT

 

But doing something is better than nothing!

 

Given its usefulness, the market for Palm oil is not going to 'disappear' overnight wherever it comes from.

 

The point of adverts / campaigns like this is to get people talking and put pressure on big cooperation's to change.

 

Torper highlights the action Unilever is taking - but don't kid yourself, thats only happening due to public pressure from their customer base in Europe and parts of North America etc.

 

Perhaps folk need to have a look at how pressure over the way Coffee and Coco beans were sourced led to the rise of the 'fairtrade' and 'ethically sourced' strategies by manufacturers - if it can be done with those commodities, then it can be done with Palm oil.

Edited November 10, 2018 by phil-b259

[Mike Storey]

Things are beginning to improve here in France. Where once there was just one brand of "palm oil free" butter substitutes on the shelves of Intermarche and L'Eclerc, there are now several. Despite being significantly more expensive than the alternatives, they are clearly proving popular (my usual brand actually ran out last week).

 

Small steps but it all helps.

[phil-b259]

Interesting.  But to say ALL palm oil is bad is wrong.  Yes, steer clear of the stuff from Indonesia, Malaysia and probably Asia in general.  But in Latin America and Africa (where there aren't any orangutans) some real effort is being put into the production of genuinely sustainable and indeed organic palm oil.  So if you are buying palm oil, try to find out where it's come from and if it is certified as being sustainable or, better still, organic.  That doesn't help, of course, where palm oil is but an ingredient in another product but even then some big companies, eg Unilever, are reacting to public dismay and moving towards a 100% sustainable palm oil policy.  Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of palm oil is consumed in Asia and the Middle East where, sadly, consumer demand for sustainable products and concern for the rainforests is negligible.

 

And that is the main problem with Iceland's advert - it condemns all palm oil with no regard to its source or method of production.

 

DT

 

 

The scale of the deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia is astounding.  I spent 8 years flying in Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah about a decade ago, which provided a privileged view of the area.

 

Brunei do not allow deforestation and you can visually see the border between it and Malaysia.  Have a look in Google maps or Google earth.  Search for Kuala Belait and zoom out.  You can see the change of "ground" colour at the border, due to deforestation and in particular the farming of Palm Oil in Malaysia.  It is even more shocking when you are on the ground and driving through mile after mile of pretty barren land.

 

Unfortunately this is sort of to be expected.

 

Go back far enough and you will find the UK only too happy to do the same thing with tea, sugar and other plantations. The big difference is that the UK had its big industrial revolution happen after lots of the mistakes had already been made - clearing away vegetation takes a lot longer by hand (even if you do have a load of Slaves) than it does with a large diesel powered Bulldozer!

 

Up till the early 1980s, many of these Asian countries were still true to their traditional way of life and culture - which did not consider nature / biodiversity / sustainability to be things requiring particular attention. Rapid industrialisation / urbanisation and a willingness of big multinationals (and Politicians / rulers) to take advantage of these somewhat backward attitudes means the scale damage being done far exceeds what the UK has done when it underwent its big change during the Industrial Revolution.

 

Its mirrored with the conflicts in the middle east - don't kid yourself the UK was just as tribal at one time, but fighting with Swords, etc is less devastating than AK47s, Suicide bombs. In other words from a cultural perspective they are several centuries behind what we now think of as 'Civilised Society' - but the tools they have are bang up to date.

[Torper]

But doing something is better than nothing!

 

Given its usefulness, the market for Palm oil is not going to 'disappear' overnight wherever it comes from.

 

The point of adverts / campaigns like this is to get people talking and put pressure on big cooperation's to change.

But people are doing something - that's why the situation is improving and, as you say, firms like Unilever are reacting to public pressure.

 

Where the advert went wrong was that it is misleading; if you watch it you'll gain the impression that all palm oil production leads to the ripping up of rainforests and the extinction of orangutans.  That just isn't true, not that the truth tends to stand in the way of Greenpeace propaganda (which is of course political).  If everyone in the west was to turn against palm oil that would largely serve to harm those smaller producers who are trying to farm palms in a sustainable and environmentally friendly, but more expensive, way - you can bet the big corporations would just continue to satisfy the Asian markets in the way they always have.  Certainly bring home the evils that are occurring in Indonesia and Malaysia, but at the same time make it clear that palm oil in itself is not bad and that sustainable palm oil is available (look out for the certification) and should be used instead.

 

DT

Edited November 10, 2018 by Torper

[phil-b259]

.... if you watch it you'll gain the impression that all palm oil production leads to the ripping up of rainforests and the extinction of orangutans.  That just isn't true, not that the truth tends to stand in the way of Greenpeace propaganda.  If everyone in the west was to turn against palm oil that would largely serve to harm those smaller producers who are trying to farm palms in a sustainable and environmentally friendly, but more expensive, way - you can bet the big corporations would just continue to satisfy the Asian markets in the way they always have.  Certainly bring home the evils that are occurring in Indonesia and Malaysia, but at the same time make it clear that sustainable palm oil is available (look out for the certification) and should be used instead.

 

DT

 

Only if you are foolish enough to believe everything you see!

 

An advert - is an advertisement! - its not a factual documentary.

 

Put it this way, I doubt most people who see the advert are going to be scanning the ingredients for Palm oil on everything they buy (let alone all the other names it has been marketed under) next time they go shopping, and thus not buy said products as a result of seeing the add!

 

Much as with other 'pull on the heartstrings' adds, - the plight of the Orangutan is being used for impact. A advert which spent its time lecturing folk on 'good' Palm oil producers and 'bad' Palm oil producers is simply boring and will not engage viewers in the way Greenpeace want.

 

As such there is very little chance that this campaign will have any effect on the sustainable small producers you care about - indeed if it pushes more big corporations to look more closely at where they purchase products then sustainable smaller producers should actually benefit! I repeat, rewind a few decades and look at what happened when consumers started to care about the plight of small coffee growers.

 

We only have one planet and this 'we musn't do anything that might affect small producers' rubbish doesn't wash. We are far to preoccupied with money in this country and pay far too little attention to the world we inhabit , thus 'shock' or 'sentiment' is frequently necessary to get folk to pay attention.

[57xx]

As I suspected - it's a Greenpeace film.  The impression it gives is that Palm Oil is bad because it results from deforestation and the destruction of orangutan habitats.  That's largely true in Indonesia and Malaysia, but not elsewhere.  So imagine you're a small palm grower in Ghana or Ecauador; you haven't deforested anywhere to grow your palms, there are no orangutans on your continent, far less in your forest, and you've had your oil certified as sustainable and maybe even organic.

Just checked out the bottle of palm oil in my kitchen cupboard, it's from Ghana. No Rangatans harmed in the production of my curries.

[Torper]

An advert - is an advertisement! - its not a factual documentary.

 

 

This wasn't simply an advert; it was a Greenpeace propaganda film, rebadged for Iceland.  It was made by Greenpeace with the specific intention of influencing people to stop using palm oil, any palm oil, and I have no doubt that Greenpeace meant people to believe every bit of it notwithstanding the fact that it only told half the story.  The more I think about it, the more I think that the TV company was right to ban it.

 

DT

 

PS  As one of Greenpeace's founders said: "“It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Edited November 10, 2018 by Torper

[jjb1970]

I think that you allow political adverts or you don't. I have no objection to this advert but if it is allowed then they need to amend the rules on political advertising as you cannot allow political advertising you happen to agree with and continue to ban advertising you don't agree with. As it happens I share a lot of Torper's concerns that the matter is nothing like as simple as Greenpeace want us to think.

[APOLLO]

Remove from your layouts immediately !!!!!!

 

 

Brit15

[EddieB]

The scale of the deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia is astounding.  I spent 8 years flying in Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah about a decade ago, which provided a privileged view of the area.

 

Brunei do not allow deforestation and you can visually see the border between it and Malaysia.  Have a look in Google maps or Google earth.  Search for Kuala Belait and zoom out.  You can see the change of "ground" colour at the border, due to deforestation and in particular the farming of Palm Oil in Malaysia.  It is even more shocking when you are on the ground and driving through mile after mile of pretty barren land.

In many ways this describes the crux of the problem - which becomes "political" because of the powerful vested interests behind the deforestation.

 

There is a fundamental difference in the way Brunei treats its little patch of Borneo to the way Indonesia (Kalimantan) and Malaysia (Sarawak and Sabah) treat their bigger bits.  To Indonesia and Malaysia, Borneo is an island whose resources are there to be exploited - first tropical hardwoods, then land for oil palm plantation.  The ownership and benefits have little to do with the indigenous peoples, who are poorly represented.  Where there is major environmental damage, there is usually a human cost hidden somewhere.

[spikey]

... The impression it gives is that Palm Oil is bad because it results from deforestation and the destruction of orangutan habitats ...

AFAIC palm oil's bad simply because (a) you don't need to eat the stuff but (b) if you do, it'll do an excellent job of raising your cholesterol level and cloggin' up yer tubes.

[The Stationmaster]

I think that you allow political adverts or you don't. I have no objection to this advert but if it is allowed then they need to amend the rules on political advertising as you cannot allow political advertising you happen to agree with and continue to ban advertising you don't agree with. As it happens I share a lot of Torper's concerns that the matter is nothing like as simple as Greenpeace want us to think.

 

The 'political' element of this interests me in that as I see the ad it is based on dissuading me from using products containing palm oil where there is an alternative (in this case as sold by Iceland). It doesn't as far as I can see directly make any 'political' point about the government of any country which grows palm oil so arguably might not be in breech of Section 321 of the 2003 Communications Act.

 

What does worry me about the way this has developed is that the ad has been 'banned' by Clearcast which is a private company partly under the control of three UK tv channels (Sky has a director's seat on Clearcast's board) which does make me wonder about conflict of interest in that UK commercial tv channels have shown in the past, and may show in the future, adverts for a large US company which is involved through subsidiaries in the palm oil industry in Indonesia (not that those ads have to my knowledge ever mentioned palm oil).  There is thus to my mind a potential conflict of interest when it comes to UK tv ads and I would have much preferred to see the basically independent Advertising Standards Authority rule on this advert rather than a private company where a conflict might possibly arise.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/321

[Mike Storey]

The interpretation of what is "political" should not be left to a private company, that much is very clear.

 

But it cannot be left to any government either.

 

So a totally independent review body is called for - whether the IASA meets that criterion is also moot, bearing in mind that a great deal of their decisions regard current legislation and much of that legislation is in the form of directives (i.e. not voted on by parliament) rather than objectivity.