The International Olive Council (IOC) released a statement today in response to the much-publicized UC Davis Olive Center report that found most samples of imported extra virgin olive oils failed to meet international standards for extra virgin classification.
For its part, the IOC called the size of the sampling — 52 bottles and 19 brands — to be “not statistically significant.” The statement went on to say that the IOC conducts chemical tests on “some 200 samples of imported oils sold in the United States” each year and, according to IOC findings, anomalies are detected in less than 10% of the imported oils analyzed. Any irregularities are referred to the appropriate association for necessary action.
Other complaints about the Davis study in the statement included:
- Second, independent “check tests” were not performed to confirm anomalies
- The methods used in the study (DGF and Australian standards) were found to be unreliable by the IOC
- A correlation drawn between UV absorbance and sensory analysis in some of the samples lacked support
The IOC statement was the latest response to the Davis study that scrutinized 14 imported and 5 California brands of extra virgin olive oils bought at California supermarkets. The samples underwent tests in laboratories at the Davis campus and Australia. Of all imported olive oil brands tested only one, Kirkland Organic, was found to pass the sensory tests with all three regional samples collected. As for the California brands just one, Bariani, exhibited sensory defects sufficient to fail extra virgin sensory standards.
The report has received considerable media coverage as headlines like “Nothing Extra About Imported Extra-Virgin Oil” (NBC) and “Lab Tests Cast doubt on Olive Oil’s Virginity” (LA Times) have made for attention-grabbing copy. Hundreds of outlets have covered the story since the report was first posted here nearly two weeks ago.
The International Olive Council is the world’s only international intergovernmental organization in the field of olive oil and table olives. It was founded in Madrid, in 1959, under the auspices of the United Nations. It used to be known as the International Olive Oil Council or IOOC until 2006, when its name was changed.
I stand red-faced and corrected on the actual rejection of the additional German government and Australian industry tests, and apologize: that statement was very closely below the section I quoted, and I certainly should have seen it. I would be interested to have third-party oil chemists mediate this dispute and/or improve on the methodology or harmonize implementation, as in principle these are very useful tests.
The remainder of my critique of the IOC response, and of the article summary of their response, stands.
I think that this article greatly exaggerates the IOC’s critique of the Davis study. First, the article asserts that the IOC said that “The methods used in the study (DGF and Australian standards) were found to be unreliable by the IOC.” The IOC said no such thing. It said only that these methods “are not official chemical methods cited in international olive oil-specific food or trade standards” and that the IOC has not yet performed its own tests to validate their reproducibility and repeatability. The IOC statement goes on to note that “they have however been adopted by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).” And, of course, they have also been adopted by the German government and the Australian olive oil industry; even adding the “international” qualifier here is thus somewhat disingenuous. And indeed, the 1,2-diacylglycerol and pyropheophytin tests were adopted in large part because it allows chemists to detect degradation and contamination that the IOC standards fail to catch.
Again, the article says that the IOC asserted that “A correlation drawn between UV absorbance and sensory analysis in some of the samples lacked support”. Again, the IOC statement does not say this. It says only that “it would be necessary to ascertain the method used for testing and to corroborate the results obtained.” Ie, the IOC doesn’t know how the Davis group performed the testing and hasn’t corroborated it, not that it was unsupported.
Finally, it’s worth noting that even if “only” 1 in 10 olive oils fails to meet the minimum standards set by the IOC, that’s a pretty miserable track record, especially since many (including the German government, Australian industry, and many industry experts) would say are too weak to begin with. And the IOC doesn’t do random testing directly from supermarket shelves as the Davis study does, so their 10% is certainly a lowball estimate of what consumers are actually getting. Plus, they don’t name names of failed samples, unlike the Davis study, so this information is of little use to consumers.
There is extensive international documentation of defective and fraudulent olive oil; the IOC needs to stop being defensive of mediocrity and pull the industry up to a higher standard.
In response to your comment, First, the article asserts that the IOC said that “The methods used in the study (DGF and Australian standards) were found to be unreliable by the IOC.” The IOC said no such thing.
See the IOC statement that reads: DGF and Australian standards …were in fact presented to the IOC but were rejected after scrutiny because they were not reliable. This lack of reliability is the reason for their failure to be included in either the IOC trade standard or EU regulations, or consequently in the Codex Alimentarius standard.