COMMENTARY

Post Date: December 03, 2004

Olive Oil and Ethics

by Dónal P. O'Mathúna

On November 1, 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that containers of olive oil, and certain foods containing olive oil, may add a health claim to their labels.¹ In essence, olive oil labels may now state that replacing saturated fats (SFA) with a similar amount of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) from olive oil may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

The announcement can be welcomed to the extent that it encourages better eating patterns and healthier diets. Coronary heart disease caused over half a million deaths in the US in 2001—about 20 percent of all deaths. While bioethics is known to address cutting-edge, life-and-death issues, more mundane decisions made in kitchens and restaurants around the world are contributing to crippling disabilities and thousands of daily deaths. The loss of vitality and life due to heart disease needs to be viewed through the lens of stewardship. Do our daily decisions respect the gift of life that we have been given?

Issues of diet and obesity have reached crisis stage. It may seem ironic that at the same time as obesity has become a bigger problem, studies report that Americans have decreased the proportion of dietary fat from 40% to about 32%.² What is often ignored is that the actual per capita consumption of fat and simple sugars has increased every year since 1975. Hence, the biggest concern about the FDA olive oil labels: Will people replace the SFA of butter and other sources with the MUFA of olive oil, or will they simply add more olive oil? The four "most persuasive studies" upon which the FDA’s decision was primarily based found beneficial effects specifically from replacing SFA with MUFA from olive oil.³

A second concern about the new labels arises from issues of scientific literacy. Until 2003, the only health claims permitted by the FDA on food labels were those for which there was "significant scientific agreement," like calcium’s role in preventing osteoporosis. Olive oil does not meet that standard, but has become the third product granted a "qualified health claim." The permitted health claim will read:

Limited and not conclusive scientific evidence suggests that eating about 2 tablespoons (23 grams) of olive oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to the monounsaturated fat in olive oil. To achieve this possible benefit, olive oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a day. One serving of this product contains [x] grams of olive oil.⁴

It remains to be seen what sorts of expectations of benefit people will have after reading such a claim. Regardless, the standard of evidence accepted by the FDA is relatively low. To support their petition, the North American Olive Oil Association submitted 88 publications. The FDA ruled that only 12 of these provided the required type of evidence to address the claim being evaluated. Of these, four met the FDA’s "most persuasive studies" criteria and eight were ranked as "less persuasive studies." The four stronger studies supported the claim, but only three of the eight weaker ones did. Not only is this a relatively small number of studies, each of them contained relatively few subjects (the largest having 58). In addition, 82 percent of the subjects were healthy, young men, raising concerns about whether the findings should be extrapolated to the general US population.

The problem this creates is whether people will appreciate the weakness of the claim that "limited and not conclusive scientific evidence" supports the cardiac benefits. If people think this means that olive oil will protect them significantly against coronary heart disease, they may be disappointed. If it leads them to be less diligent in reducing other risk factors, the consequences could be more serious. All of these issues point, yet again, to the importance of critically examining all health claims and raising awareness of the meaning of different types of scientific evidence.⁵

The importance of these labels lies more in the recognition they give to the health consequences of diet. They reflect the growing consensus that replacing certain fats with MUFA (found in olive oil and some other vegetable oils) can have health benefits. But lasting changes with the dietary problems of the Western world lie in deeper issues. Those needing to lose weight need to reduce calorie intake and increase energy output (i.e., exercise more). Those changes don’t come easy, and require developing self-control and postponing immediate comforts for long-term health. Ultimately those are spiritual issues that require a stronger solution than olive oil.CBHD

¹ Marian Burros. "Olive oil makers win approval to make health claim on label." Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/02/politics/02olive.html on November 19, 2004.

² Dónal P. O’Mathúna, "Low-Carbohydrate Diets and Weight Loss," Alternative Medicine Alert 7.12 (December 2004): 133-7.

³ FDA. Letter responding to health claim petition dated August 28, 2003: monounsaturated fatty acids from olive oil and coronary heart disease. Accessed at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qhcolive.html on November 19, 2004.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Dónal O’Mathúna & Walt Larimore, Alternative Medicine: The Christian Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001).

Dónal P. O'Mathúna, Ph.D., is Lecturer in Health Care Ethics in the School of Nursing at Dublin City University in Dublin, Ireland and a Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity..

Copyright 2004 by The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

The contents of this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CBHD, its staff, board or supporters. Permission to reprint granted as long as The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and the web address for this article is referenced.