Over the past few decades, there has been a growing concern among the public regarding the significant interplay between health and nutrient.  As fat plays an essential role in the human diet, vegetable oil in particular is the most vastly consumed fat. Amongst the various vegetable oils, palm oil contributes significantly to the globally increasing demand of vegetable oils as it “is able to produce up to 10 times more oil (per one hectare) than other leading oilseed crops” (Mba et al.). Thus, it is widely used in foods and manufactured product such as chocolates, ice cream, peanut butter, cereal, potato chips, etc. Nevertheless, a controversy over the use of palm oil had arose early this year as a study, released by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in May of 2016, suggested that palm oil may include high levels of contaminants such as glycidyl fatty acid esters, and 2- and 3-Monochloropropanediol, which could be carcinogenic. Furthermore, the EFSA also emphasized that “most vegetable oil/fats contain substantial quantities” of such contaminants (“Process contaminants in vegetable oils”). However, these contaminants are only present if palm oil was refined at temperatures above 200 degrees Celsius. As a result of this study, the media has developed this controversy even further as it shed a light on the consumption of Nutella, explicitly, since palm oil is considered a key ingredient of this chocolate-hazelnut spread. Based on this argument, certain viewpoints suggest that Nutella should be banned by the FDA. Even though recent studies argue that refined palm oil would cause cancer, palm oil should not be banned by the FDA since there are not enough studies to support that argument, but instead moderation should be considered as Nutella is consumed.  In addition to there being no health risks that encourages the regulation of Nutella production, there is also no longer environmental or illegal labor practices associated in the making of Nutella for it to be banned.    

The proposed report by the EFSA demonstrates how more research is needed by stating the report is a scientific opinion and by the lack of human research. First of all, one should know that the study proposed by the EFSA was based on an opinion. The first sentence of the abstract states, “EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on free and esterified 3- and 2-monochloropropane- 1,2- diol (MCPD) and glycidyl esters in food” (“Process contaminants in vegetable oils”). The term scientific opinion suggest that scientific research was done to develop a conclusion regarding a certain matter; however, this opinion does not necessarily hold true for all subjects, like humans and rats, or for various medical conditions. Thus, since the EFSA report was based on a scientific opinion, then this suggests that not enough research was made to authorize them in concluding that refined palm oil does indeed cause cancer (Knowledge Capsule). Furthermore, this scientific opinion was based on a research that concludes that glycidyl esters may potentially develop tumors in rats and mice. It is important to note that the physiological nature and the biological mechanisms in the human body does not exactly match that of a rat; therefore, such animal experiments are not completely sufficient. Cancer studies in rats and mice often do not accurately translate to humans because rats and mice seem to be more vulnerable to cancer (Patel). This statement can be proven with a research made by Aris Katzourakis and Gkikas Magiorkinis team at the University of Oxford, which have shown that smaller mammals, such as rats, are more susceptible to cancer due to the higher endogenous retrovirus compared to larger mammals like humans (Frand). Endogenous retrovirus is associated with cancer because these viruses invade mammalian genome and could cause an abnormality in cell division leading to cancer (Fang). Therefore, the FDA cannot regulate the production of Nutella based on animal experiments only, and once again, more research is needed.     

The scientific data regarding the anticipated contaminants found in refined palm oil show that these contaminants do not directly cause cancer. It is important to understand why the proposed study by the EFSA has classified glycidyl fatty acid esters, 2- and 3-Monochloropropanediol as carcinogens. 3- Monochloropropanediol was found to potentially harm “kidneys and male reproductive organs” in animal studies, but no further studies on humans were conducted (Patel). Hence, it is hard to conclude that 3- Monochloropropanediol is fatal to humans. In addition, a couple of researchers from Spain have released a study that explains the relationship between cancer spread, metastasis, and the consumption of foods that are high in saturated fats such as glycidyl fatty acid esters, which was one of the contaminants reported by the EFSA. The purpose of this study was to develop an antimetastatic therapy that inhibits the metastasis of cancer cells. Thus, the mechanisms that aid in the spread of the cancer cells were studied, and it was found that a protein on the outer membrane of cancer cells called CD36 initiates metastasis as it allows for the passage of fatty acids in and out of the cell (Dedman). In this study, researchers found that CD36 proteins are activated in the presence of palmitic acid: “Palmitic acid or a high-fat diet specifically boosts the metastatic potential of CD36+ metastasis-initiating cells in a CD36-dependent manner” (Pascual et al.). Palmitic acid is found in most vegetable oils, but specifically it is highly found in palm oil. Even though this research may seem to support the article released by the EFSA, it is important to make the distinction that the palmitic acid was found to possibly cause the spread of cancer, and not cause cancer. 

The FDA should not ban Nutella or other products containing palm oil because it may lead to the spread of cancer since cancer patients should be in a regulated diet anyways. As it is well known, cancer patients should follow a controlled diet that is low in fat, cholesterol, sugar and salt to help them in the treatment process and to prevent any complications. Dr. Benitah explains, “Fat is necessary for the function of the body, but uncontrolled intake can have an effect on health, as already shown for some tumours such as colon cancer, and in metastasis, as we demonstrate here” (Dedman). Also, to further support this claim, Professor Mancini and his group conclude that “some studies found that low-fat diet plays a protective role only in the tumorigenesis process with no effect on established tumor mass” (Mancini et al.). Thus, the findings of both studies should not affect a healthy consumer, and they also prove that the key ingredient of Nutella, or the palm oil, does not have a direct link to cause of cancer in consumers. 

Following the proposed report by the EFSA, some Italian supermarkets have started a move and boycotted all the food products that contain palm oil, and as a response, Ferrero defended themselves to the public. The aim of the move was to replace palm oil with substitutes such as sunflower oil. However, Nutella makers, Ferrero, were one of few companies that kept using palm oil after the boycott (Landini and Navach). Ferrero’s spokesman said, “Making Nutella without palm oil would produce an inferior substitute for the real product, it would be a step backward” (Landini and Navach). Based on this statement, opposing sides suggest that Ferrero is only concerned about the economic difficulties that could be caused to the company since palm oil is cheaper compared to any other vegetable oils. As Ferrero uses approximately “185,000 tonnes of palm oil a year”, and it is possible that any other “substitute could cost the firm an extra $8-22 million annually” (Landini and Navach). Ferrero did not respond to the projected claim. Instead, Ferrero launched an advertisement in European TV channels to defend themselves. In addition, Ferrero further defended themselves as they launched an advertisement on television to reassure the public about how safely palm oil is refined in their factories by specifying the temperatures at which palm oil is refined. The purchasing manager of Ferrero explained, “The palm oil used by Ferrero is safe because it comes from freshly squeezed fruits and is processed at controlled temperatures” (Landini and Navach). Ferrero stated that palm oil is refined at a temperature that is not higher than 180 degrees Celsius (Landini and Navach). It is necessary for Ferrero, and various manufacturing companies, to refine palm oil in order get rid of any unpleasant odors through an operation called deodorization, and to change its natural dark orange color to almost clear color through an operation called bleaching. Refining palm oil at temperatures lower than 200 degrees Celsius and at lower pressure minimizes glycidyl esters levels (Mba et al.). According to a press article posted on The Verge, “the EFSA declined to comment on the safety of lower-temperature processing, saying that it ‘was outside of the scope of the opinion’ published last year’” (Toor). Yet logically, it is clear that if the levels of contaminants increase with increasing temperatures, then lowering the temperature would also lower the level of the contaminants. Nevertheless, until more research is done on the refining process of palm oil at lower temperature and pressure, the FDA should not ban Nutella. 

  Nutella’s cancer threat may be exaggerated by the media; however, some opposing arguments that support the ban of Nutella and the ban of palm oil in general is due to the practices of palm oil plantations. The industry of palm oil plantation is linked to “deforestation,” habitat degradation, “air pollution, and illegal labor practices” (Toor). In fact, some of the people who started the move of boycotting companies that use palm oil were green groups, and they were concerned majorly about the environmental risks rather than its potential of causing cancer. However, Ferrero defended themselves as they clarified that “they buy palm oil certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which works with producers to reduce the negative impacts of cultivation on the environment” (Landini and Navach). Malaysia and Indonesia are the leading exporters of palm oil. As almost “half of Indonesia’s massive populations still lives on farms,” which include many of palm tree farms, several activists argue that illegal labor practices are taken place in such areas (Lucas and Warren). This claim does not hold true anymore as the Agrarian government was overthrown. 

Though it was proven by authors Lucas and Warren that illegal labor practices were diminished after the Agrarian Law. 

Authors Lucas and Warren proved that illegal labor practices were diminished after the Agrarian Law. The history of the Agrarian Law reflects how the people of Indonesia fought to overthrow the government due to illegal labor practices and to farmers’ stalled rights. In the book Land for The People: The State and Agrarian Conflict in Indonesia, authors Lucas and Warren encompass the main conflicts between the people of Indonesia with their central government that ruled them under the Agrarian Law, which include the conflict of the hindered rights amongst farmers. The Agrarian Law assured people to provide them farm lands for them to work on and make a living out of their farms. However, the Agrarian Law failed to provide the people their needs which caused a revolutionary war in Indonesia. The authors explain the Agrarian Law failure in providing the smallholder agriculture that lead to the revolution, “The number of disputes on farmer plantation lands that persist into the present is a legacy of this unfulfilled promise of agrarian reform, particularly with respect to the claims of smallholder peasants and farm laborers” (Lucas and Warren 12). One of the major plantations the people of Indonesia were aiming for is the palm oil plantations: “‘Indonesia now leads the world … and is set to become the number one palm oil producer, overtaking Malaysia by 2010, or even earlier’” (Lucas and Warren 152). The increased progress of palm oil planation in Indonesia is due to its high demands over the past years in food industries. Thus, illegal labor practices were occurring in Indonesia to supply palm oil to the market as peasants’ rights were disregarded in the Agrarian era. Even though illegal labor practices were occurring back then, this book emphasize that the Agrarian government were overthrown because of such conflicts. Therefore, now, farmers’ rights are being regarded and enforcement of laws on land owners are being imbedded to further ensure farmers’ rights.  

Unlike Nutella, the FDA should instead ban other products that have been proven to have health risks but are still in the market, but should perhaps should encourage moderation. An example of such products are cigarettes. Cigarettes are still being sold in the markets even though it had been scientifically and clinically proven to cause lung cancer. Also, excessive consumption of foods that are high in calories due to high content of sugars and fats are considered harmful. However, consumption of such foods in small amounts is not as harmful: “If you eat a diet of mostly unprocessed plants and animals, you’re fine. Carcinogens are everywhere; it’s the dose that makes the poison. But if you eat foods containing refined oils on a daily basis, especially high amounts of refined palm oil, you may want to lower your intake” (Patel). Nutella can also be related to such foods since it contains a high amount of sugars and fats, regardless of the type of fat used which is palm oil. Thus, the FDA should not ban Nutella yet perhaps could encourage moderation while consuming Nutella. 

In conclusion, based on the available research, Nutella should not be banned by the FDA. The report proposed by the EFSA was a based on a scientific opinion, and the experiments were done on rats, which cannot be taken for granted since rats are more susceptible to cancer. By understanding the science behind the claims made by the EFSA, one could conclude that there is no direct link between consumption of palm oil, or Nutella in this case, and cancer. The scientific evidence suggests that the palmitic acid that was found in palm oil may aid in the metastasis of cancer, however it does not directly cause cancer.  As certain supermarkets boycotted palm oil products, Ferrero, the makers of Nutella, defended themselves as they confronted to the public that their product is made with palm oil in which it was refined with controlled temperatures and pressures. In addition, Nutella should not be banned as palm oil plantation no longer has a negative impact on the planet, or uses illegal labor practices. Green groups that supported the move against palm oil products due to some environmental risks such as deforestation, and illegal labor practices were proven to be false by several sources. Finally, even though it was established that more research is needed to determine whether Nutella causes cancer or not unlike other marketed products such as cigarettes, it is recommended that consumers use moderation while consuming Nutella since it contains high levels of sugar and fats. The Swiss-German physician Philippus von-Hohenheim explains this claim as he once said, “All things are poisonous and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not poisonous” (Knowledge Capsule).  So, even though Nutella is not directly associated with cancer, not considering moderation while consuming Nutella might ignite other health risks. 
