They were wrong about jaggery; they’re wrong about palm oil

When a natural product is targeted, we should ask who benefits from the replacement and who pays the price.

There is a pattern, and it is old enough now to be recognised. A natural product, one that has fed, clothed or served humankind for centuries, is identified as the problem. A manufactured alternative appears, promoted as safer, more ethical, more modern. A generation adopts it. Then the data arrives.

They attacked wool. We got polyester. According to the European Environment Agency, between 2,00,000 and 5,00,000 tonnes of microplastics from synthetic textiles enter the global marine environment every year. A 2022 study in Environment International found plastic particles in the blood of 77% of human subjects tested. Wool fibres biodegrade in months. This was never a close comparison, environmentally or biologically.

They attacked leather. We got PVC. PVC production generates dioxins. Leather is a by-product of food production. It lasts decades. It biodegrades. They attacked dairy milk. We got oat milk. Whole cow’s milk provides eight grams of protein alongside naturally occurring calcium, iodine, vitamin B12 and phosphorus. A peer-reviewed comparison in the Journal of Pediatrics concluded it remains the best available source of fat, protein and micronutrients in its category. Oat milk provides roughly half the protein and virtually all its vitamins and minerals are added industrially. 

They attacked jaggery. Gur has been the sweetener of the Indian subcontinent for more than 3,000 years. It requires no chemical processing: sugarcane juice is boiled and reduced until it solidifies, retaining the molasses and the minerals the plant concentrated during growth. Refined white sugar, by contrast, is stripped of everything except sucrose. Jaggery retains iron, magnesium, potassium, calcium, B vitamins and antioxidants. Refined sugar contains none of them. India’s own national nutrition policy specifically recommends jaggery over sugar to address iron deficiency.

The displacement has been measurable and rapid. Per capita jaggery consumption in India fell from 15.2 kg per year in the 1960s to just 4.1 kg by 2018-19. The Global Nutrition Reportplaces India 170th out of 180 countries for women’s anaemia prevalence. Jaggery did not cause this. Jaggery was replaced when it happened.

Now they are attacking palm oil.

The critique follows the familiar structure: environmental destruction, health risk, irresponsibility. Palm oil, introduced in India in the 19^th century, has long been part of the country’s food basket. It is also the most land-efficient vegetable oil on earth. One hectare of oil palm produces roughly 2.9 tonnes of oil per year. Sunflower and rapeseed yield around 0.7 tonnes per hectare. 

From a health perspective, the case against palm oil is considerably thinner than its critics allow. The oil has served as a staple food in parts of Africa and Asia for thousands of years. It requires no hydrogenation, contains no trans fats and is a rich source of tocotrienols, a form of vitamin E being studied for its neuroprotective, antioxidant, anti-cancer and cholesterol-lowering properties.

The campaign against palm oil has a documented commercial history. In the 1980s, the American Soybean Association ran an organised effort claiming palm oil contained cholesterol,with the stated aim of restricting its imports into the US market. 

This aligns with findings from a study in Ghana, which showed that anti-saturated fat campaigns originating in the mid-20th-century United States were frequently influenced bycompeting commercial interests and that chronic diseases in West Africa were more closely linked to the “Westernisation” of diets, marked by increased consumption of ultra-processed foods and sugars, than to the use of traditional tropical oils.

In the case of India, the issue is not just health, but nutrition security. The country is the world’s largest importer of cooking oils and consumes over 27 million tonnes annually. This dependence exposes the country to price shocks, supply chain disruptions and geopolitical risks. It has also prompted initiatives like the National Mission on Edible Oils, India’s push towards self-reliance while diversifying its rich edible oil basket.

In each case the sequence is the same. The traditional product was nutritionally complete, biodegradable and efficient to produce. The replacement was industrially complex, often less beneficial for the body and frequently worse for the environment. 

India’s iron deficiency epidemic was not caused by jaggery and rising lifestyle diseases are not driven by indigenous oils alone. Those asking where things come from, how they are made, and what happens when they break down are asking the right questions. Most are simply asking them only about one side of the comparison.

The real problem is a repeating cycle in which manufactured crises serve the commercial interests of a replacement industry, exploit consumer goodwill, and leave behind health, nutritional and environmental consequences that take years to fully understand. It has happened before. It is happening again.

About Author