For too long palm oil has been subjected to a well planned and cleverly coordinated trade war. Anti-palm oil interests recruited environmental NGOs to do their bidding and the less scrupulous of the NGOs were only too happy to oblige when they smell the opportunity to raise funds, launching broadsides against one of the most sustainable of oilseed crops accusing it, inter alia of deforestation, global warming and destruction of biodiversity.

However, there are signs that the public is beginning to see through the charade. As the public became more educated about palm oil and the issues surrounding it, they are more discerning on the issues and are able to see through the veil of deforestation, global warming and mass media driven hysteria.

The GLG Energy and Industrial Council of the Gerson Lehrman Group in a market intelligence report, shows that they are able to separate fact from fiction and counsels against taking too simplistic a view on the issue. The report takes a dispassionate look at the issue and suggests a solution. Could this be the beginning of a turning of the tide?

Deforestation Watch produces their report in full and unabridged form to enable readers to form their own opinions on the issue.

Whenever we discuss climate change, food supply and environmental issues, we become emotional - in tough times, human nature shows its face. We cannot afford to reduce complexity. Palm oil has surpassed soya and it is since 2006, the # 1 oil produced in the world  - 30 million tonnes/year. The tail is wagging the dog. 85% comes from Malaysia and Indonesia.

Palm oil has many uses - food ingredients, cosmetics and drugs, and biodiesel - mostly consumed in the first world. It is also the main economic driver of these two asian countries - it employees hundreds of thousands throughout its supply chain.

No one in the past cared about a branded shirt that was produced with infant labor in Cambodia - consumers would buy it in Fifth Ave, clueless about the implications. Not anymore.

In the midst of chaos in the world economy and in geopolitical order, there is positive change - consumers are becoming more responsible, more aware that they can make a difference. Large conglomerates became "vulnerable" to CSR reports and analysts, NGOs and social activism.

In Feb. 2010, Unilever canceled a US$ 30 million contract with the leading palm oil supplier of Indonesia - reason? They were burning (as they always did) the rainforest. The cry-out about using palm biodiesel in the UK has the same reasoning - and it is a correct one.

This brings us to an important ethical debate. The logic of the Indonesian government is one of protecting their labor market and securing economic prosperity - at the high cost of destroying the rainforest. The logic of European countries is to alleviate/reduce climate impact thru biofuel adoption. Both are right, in their own perspectives.

Is there a way out from this dilemma? Yes.

Brazil has 70 million hectares of suitable land for palm. And there  is NO need to deforest - a significant part of this area is already deforested (unfortunately). The law in Brazil not only prohibits deforestation, but also allows plantation in only 20% of any property in Legal Amazonian region (there is current debate in Brazilian congress and the 80/20 law should change to 50/50). Most people are not aware, but one can plant palm in Brazil with sustainable practices.

Instead of condemning palm oil, we should boycott harmful practices- after all, we are still buying (hopefully green/correct) branded shirts in Fifth Ave.THE END