Questions About Quality of Extra Virgin Olive Oil

[Raoul Duke]

A new report has just been published by the University of California at Davis in collaboration with the Australian Oils Research Laboratory. A long, scientific based study that sheds light on the validity of claims to oil being extra virgin.

https://www.templateroller.com/template/2129651/report-evaluation-of-extra-virgin-olive-oil-sold-in-california.html

[Chris Hennes]

In particular, from the executive summary:

Tests indicate that imported “extra virgin”olive oil often fails international and USDA standards

Our laboratory tests found that samples of imported olive oil labeled as “extra virgin” and sold at retail locations in California often did not meet international and US standards. Sensory tests showed that these failed samples had defective flavors such as rancid, fusty, and musty. Negative sensory results were confirmed by chemical data in 86 percent of the cases. Our chemical testing indicated that the samples failed extra virgin standards for reasons that include one or more of the following:

• oxidation by exposure to elevated temperatures, light, and/or aging;
  
• adulteration with cheaper refined olive oil;
  
• poor quality oil made from damaged and overripe olives, processing flaws, and/or improper oil storage.
  

Our laboratory tests indicated that nine of ten California samples were authentic extra virgin olive oils, with one California sample failing the IOC/USDA sensory standard for extra virgin.

The interesting thing to me is the fixation of the public on the implied quality distinction between "virgin" and "extra virgin": it is often assumed that "higher quality" olive oil must taste better. But it turns out that this is not the case: from the Cooking Issues blog:

In 2006 Cook’s Illustrated published an article rating extra virgin olive oils. Alexandra Kicenik Devarenne, an olive oil expert and instructor at UC Davis, read the article and was surprised by the results. She convened an expert olive oil tasting panel and re-tested the exact same oils. The results were astounding. The oils rated tops by Cook’s Illustrated were rated defective by the trained testers. Oils that fared badly in the Cook’s test were highly rated by the trained panel. What the hell?

Many of the oils that had done poorly in the Cook’s test, but were liked by professionals, were bitter. McGee told me that bitterness is an indication of polyphenols, a mark of quality — polyphenols prevent oxidation and rancidity. On the flip-side, many of the oils rated highly by Cook’s showed some rancidity. It turns out that we tend to like rancidity when we’re used to it.

It seems to me that this is like giving a Twinkie top marks in a dessert contest because it will last longer on the shelf: obviously, it's "higher quality"!

[Raoul Duke]

I think the bigger issue to consider here is the potential for adulterated oil to be life threatning for some folks. Let's just increase our production volume with some refined hazelnut oil, no big deal. What do you mean your wife went into anaphalatic shock after eating in our restaurant. Hardly a "twinkie". The second consideration is fraud. Is it OK to use a little unapproved chemistry in organic foods? A what point do we say it's fraud and treat it as a legal issue? Only when it's a little tainted? A lot? I think the study presents a lot of facts, but also a lot of questions.

[Dakki]

I don't think Chris meant to pooh-pooh the (very real) health concerns over adulterated olive oil, just the idea that Extra Virgin means Extra Good. I think most of the people in this forum are aware that the various gradings are distinctions of purpose rather than quality (would you fry in EVOO?) but the general public as a whole are probably not.

I, for one, feel that if the bottle says "Olive Oil" it should be 100% olive oil, unless of course it says "Blended" in letters just as large, and with a list of the oils it was blended with. Adhering to the international standards for POO/VOO/EVOO would be really nice too, but the other is absolutely necessary.

[Chris Hennes]

The study specifically points out that they are not concerned with adulteration with non-olive oils:

If any of the samples were adulterated, it is most likely that the adulterant was refined olive oil rather than refined nut, seed, or vegetable oils. Unless the adulteration levels were very small, the failed samples would not have met the IOC/USDA standards for fatty acid profile and sterol profile if adulterated with refined nut, seed, or vegetable oils.

So I am more concerned with the misleading marketing of the olive oil companies, on two fronts: one, that extra virgin is better in any conceivable sense, and two, that even when they label things extra virgin, they often are not, despite being priced accordingly. I agree that it is fraud to label something EV when it is not, but the definition of EV is not a taste-quality standard, but rather a shelf-life-quality standard. And so while I resent paying more for an oil that is not technically "extra virgin" in the end I don't really care if it's EV, if it tastes good. Which none of these studies are testing.

[nickrey]

I'm concerned over your quote:

"Many of the oils that had done poorly in the Cook’s test, but were liked by professionals, were bitter. McGee told me that bitterness is an indication of polyphenols, a mark of quality — polyphenols prevent oxidation and rancidity. On the flip-side, many of the oils rated highly by Cook’s showed some rancidity. It turns out that we tend to like rancidity when we’re used to it."

Rancidity is a flaw not a feature. Just because you are happy with store bought tomatoes because you are used to them doesn't mean that your world won't expand dramatically when you finally acquire a taste for sun ripened warm organic tomatoes.

[haresfur]

Aside from the obvious dishonesty of adulterated oils, I wonder about the oxidation. Is the issue of oxidation one of transport? Then it might be that the production is ok but the companies need to figure out better ways to ship halfway around the world. Or perhaps this is a case where locovorism is a good idea.

As far as the taste question goes, I'm far from an expert but the oxidation could cause a number of different changes, positive or negative and even rancid yak butter has its place. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, though, I'll go for fresh and fragrant.

[Dakki]

I'm concerned over your quote:

"Many of the oils that had done poorly in the Cook’s test, but were liked by professionals, were bitter. McGee told me that bitterness is an indication of polyphenols, a mark of quality — polyphenols prevent oxidation and rancidity. On the flip-side, many of the oils rated highly by Cook’s showed some rancidity. It turns out that we tend to like rancidity when we’re used to it."

Rancidity is a flaw not a feature. Just because you are happy with store bought tomatoes because you are used to them doesn't mean that your world won't expand dramatically when you finally acquire a taste for sun ripened warm organic tomatoes.

If the store-bought tomatoes tasted good and the sun-ripened organic tomatoes did not, then store bought tomatoes would be better than the other ones, no matter if they were locally grown organic cruelty-free heritage tomatoes grown by authentically smelly neopagan hippies on a communal farm using pre-Columbian farming techniques.

Assuming a taste for polyphenols can be acquired, is it reasonable to rate the quality of oil based on their presence, for a public that generally hasn't acquired it? That's what the trained testers were doing.

"Mmmmmm, good stuff, I can really taste the bitter natural preservatives in this!"

Rancidity is a word. We can call it oxidation, aging or whatever if it pleases us. If Cooks Illustrated panelists prefer oil that is slightly aged over absolutely fresh stuff then to the Cooks Illustrated panelists that's a feature, not a flaw.

On the opposite side if the Cooks Illustrated panelists dislike the bitter taste of polyphenols, then, to them, the presence of polyphenols becomes a flaw, not a feature.

The mark of quality anything is fitness to purpose, not adherence to abstract ideals of purity or freshness or whatever.

[Chris Hennes]

What Dakki said: there is no immutable law of the universe that says "all oxidized fats taste bad in any quantity." My argument here, and that used by the tasters at Cook's Illustrated (who, while I have my disagreements with them at times, are hardly random schmucks off the street: these are educated palates), is that "Extra Virgin" is pure marketing and has nothing to do with whether the oil tastes good or not. So I have a hard time getting riled up when it turns out to be even more meaningless than I had first assumed. The real crime here is olive oil producers attempting to convince consumers that bitterness is a sign of quality to be prized, when the fact is it simply doesn't taste very good, but lasts longer on the shelf.

[haresfur]

The real crime here is olive oil producers attempting to convince consumers that bitterness is a sign of quality to be prized, when the fact is it simply doesn't taste very good, but lasts longer on the shelf.

Ah, there's the rub. When does that huge tin of oil go from being slightly rancid but tasting good to past it's shelf life? I don't know, but perhaps it's better to start on the overly "fresh" side and not go bad.

Remember the trained testers (and the chemical analyses) are not determining whether an oil "tastes good" - they are identifying specific flavours that indicate certain properties of the oil. I'm not willing to assume that the Cooks Illustrated panel represents the tastes of the general public or my tastes. And bitter is pesky - I think we tend to taste bitter and think "bad" as an immediate response but once it sinks in it can add a satisfying depth as most cocktail lovers know. And maybe some of the other off tastes or missing good tastes of the lower grade oils are not picked up conciously by the less trained panel.

Another factor is the potential health benefits of unsaturated fats. For that reason, I would rather my oil not be rancid.

Your point is well taken that EVOO is not necessarily better tasting or a good value. It's a flaw in taking differences and turning them into rankings. Maybe a good analogy is maple syrup where many people prefer the grade B over grade A.

[nickrey]

I think we may be losing sight of the fact that extra virgin oils are the ones that are first mechanically extracted from the olives. When first produced, they have low acidity and a rich taste. It is purely and simply how olive oil tastes. If you are used to chemically treated or heat extracted pressings or old oil that has oxidised then so be it but please don't say that this is how olive oil should taste. Unlike wine, oil does not improve with age.

As far as the taste response on tomatoes goes. Let me expand my analogy. I used to chat with a grocer who sold organic products in the late 1980s. He bemoaned the fact that people would come to him saying that his tomatoes did not taste like tomatoes. The problem was that they had never tasted tomatoes that had been allowed to ripen naturally. The taste was unusual so they did not like it. I really think tomatoes that taste of tomato should be the norm rather than some caricature created by processes applied the mass food production industry.

Besides, who had the educated palates in this olive oil test? The Cooks Illustrated people or the trained testers? Years of tasting processed and aged olive oil and developing a preference for it doesn't detract from the fact that it was still processed and oxidised. There is no immutable law that developing a palate that perceives faults in a food as a virtue makes it what we should aspire to.

Perhaps we should add extra virgin olive oil to the thread on foods that you need to learn to like. I do and I dislike any hint of rancidity: it gives an unpleasant sensation of biting in the middle of my nose that transfers to my taste sensation.

[Lapin d'Argent]

Well this is all very interesting.

When I read the article, I wasn't sure what to think. It almost sounded like a marketing scheme for California olive growers.

We had been fairly happy, but not thrilled, with our current house EVOO, which was the 356 brand tested in the article. So I checked around online, and eventually ordered a couple bottles of Everyday California Fresh EVOO, from California Olive Ranch, one of the California brands tested. The oil was fairly reasonable - $16 for 750ml - and they were running a free shipping promotion, so I figured what the heck.

I'll let you know once I have a chance to compare and contrast with the bottle of 365 on my counter, which we use for everything, every day.

Actually, I'd be happy to find a source for US-grown olive oil that was tasty and affordable.

[nibor]

I dare say that most of us don't know what fresh olive oil tastes like. I didn't until a couple of years ago, when I visited the Lassithi plateau in Crete. The olive oil I had there was totally different than anything I have had in the US, and it was not bitter at all. I don't consider anything I have had before or since anywhere in its league.

[Dakki]

I think we may be losing sight of the fact that extra virgin oils are the ones that are first mechanically extracted from the olives. When first produced, they have low acidity and a rich taste. It is purely and simply how olive oil tastes. If you are used to chemically treated or heat extracted pressings or old oil that has oxidised then so be it but please don't say that this is how olive oil should taste. Unlike wine, oil does not improve with age.

As far as the taste response on tomatoes goes. Let me expand my analogy. I used to chat with a grocer who sold organic products in the late 1980s. He bemoaned the fact that people would come to him saying that his tomatoes did not taste like tomatoes. The problem was that they had never tasted tomatoes that had been allowed to ripen naturally. The taste was unusual so they did not like it. I really think tomatoes that taste of tomato should be the norm rather than some caricature created by processes applied the mass food production industry.

Besides, who had the educated palates in this olive oil test? The Cooks Illustrated people or the trained testers? Years of tasting processed and aged olive oil and developing a preference for it doesn't detract from the fact that it was still processed and oxidised. There is no immutable law that developing a palate that perceives faults in a food as a virtue makes it what we should aspire to.

Perhaps we should add extra virgin olive oil to the thread on foods that you need to learn to like. I do and I dislike any hint of rancidity: it gives an unpleasant sensation of biting in the middle of my nose that transfers to my taste sensation.

You're being disingenuous, playing the "unprocessed, closer to nature" card. It is virgin olive oils that are the ones first mechanically extracted from olives. They are not processed further, heated, chemically extracted or in any way further removed from the original fruit than extra virgin olive oils. Extra virgin olive oils are simply virgin olive oils. The "extra" doesn't imply a further degree of virginity, purity, closeness to nature, wholesomeness or whatever. It means it has been selected by the educated palates of trained testers, who are looking for a set of qualities desirable to the industry. These desirable qualities include the presence of bitter compounds that extend shelf life. The qualities desirable to the industry may be qualities undesirable to the final consumer. One of these undesirable qualities is the presence of bitter compounds that extend shelf life.

You may have been able to convince yourself that bitter olive oil tastes good, but please don't say it's what olive oil should taste like.

I dare say that most of us don't know what fresh olive oil tastes like. I didn't until a couple of years ago, when I visited the Lassithi plateau in Crete. The olive oil I had there was totally different than anything I have had in the US, and it was not bitter at all. I don't consider anything I have had before or since anywhere in its league.

Very nice! I've often wished olive oil bottles had a "made on" date stamp. We wouldn't even need to argue over whether preservatives make it taste good.

[nickrey]

It is virgin olive oils that are the ones first mechanically extracted from olives. They are not processed further, heated, chemically extracted or in any way further removed from the original fruit than extra virgin olive oils. Extra virgin olive oils are simply virgin olive oils. The "extra" doesn't imply a further degree of virginity, purity, closeness to nature, wholesomeness or whatever. It means it has been selected by the educated palates of trained testers, who are looking for a set of qualities desirable to the industry. These desirable qualities include the presence of bitter compounds that extend shelf life. The qualities desirable to the industry may be qualities undesirable to the final consumer. One of these undesirable qualities is the presence of bitter compounds that extend shelf life.

My understanding was that extra virgin olive oil came from the first mechanical pressing of the oil and typically has less than 0.8% acidity.

Virgin olive oils are still pressed or removed by mechanical means (eg. centrifuging) but come from subsequent processing after the first press. These typically have less than 2% acidity.

Perhaps Australian practice and terminology differs from what is used in other jurisdictions but the "extra" is not just a marketing gimmick.

It is my understanding that the US is not a member of the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) so perhaps what you say is true of what happens there.

Edited July 18, 2010 by nickrey (log)

[Dakki]

I don't live in USA, and I suggest you read this before continuing this discussion.

[Chris Hennes]

Besides, who had the educated palates in this olive oil test? The Cooks Illustrated people or the trained testers?

Who trained these testers, and what were they trained to test, exactly? It's sure not taste! The professional olive oil testers are essentially machines: they detect a chemical and say "I have been told this chemical is desirable" or "I have been told this chemical is undesirable." I'll take the Cook's Illustrated panelists any day, at least they are judging taste, if only their own.

[Dakki]

And here's another chart explaining what the different grades mean.

how to make olive oil - olive oil types

Most oil producing countries - with the exception of the United States - belong to the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) which defines the standards for olive oil as follows ...

extra virgin olive oil

The best quality oil, it must be made from the "first cold press", with acidity of no more than 0.8%. In other words, it must be derived from the first pressing of the olives. And cold pressed olive oil means the olive paste must be kept under 27C (80F) for, if too much heat is used, the oil's chemistry will change.

virgin olive oil

This oil still has a good taste and is a first-press oil, but an acidity of up to 2% is permitted. Very often, slightly riper olives are used in the production of virgin olive oil.

olive oil

A blend of refined and virgin olive oil with an acidity level of not more than 1.5%.

olive pomace oil

"Pomace" is the name given to the ground flesh and pits after pressing, and pomace oil is made by refining/processing olive oil pressings. Although fit for consumption, it has no real taste, is the least expensive type, and used primarily for deep frying.

lampante or strong oil

This olive oil is not suitable for consumption but for the industrial market.

The relevant bits from both links, in summary: Virgin olive oil is mechanically extracted, first-press oil. Extra virgin olive oil is selected virgin olive oil. That's it.

[nickrey]

It seems I'm not the only one who has the impression of multiple pressings. This link and this link are both to olive oil producers who talk about the same categorisations that I did. Other sites that I found stated that multiple pressings went out when mechanical/hydraulic presses ceased to be used. New technology means that there is typically only one press (as you state for virgin oils). However, I'm sure that amongst all of the olive oil producers around the world, not all are using new technology presses.

Even with first pressing, if you don't use the right mix of ripe and less ripe olives or include leaves and other contaminants, you will wind up with a flawed product. This is more virgin than extra virgin.

On Chris' original point about bitterness, this article in The New York Times by Harold McGee talks about judging EVOO and the effects of oleocanthal, which is responsible not only for the bitterness but also for the pepperiness that catches in the back of your throat. Although McGee says that this does delay the oil becoming rancid, to my mind this was not given as a prime reason for enjoying the pepperiness and definitely not some plot on the part of EVOO producers to skew our perceptions of what is a good oil.

Obviously taste lies with the individual experiencing the product. Personally I like pepperiness and freshness in olive oil so I find myself on the side of the professional tasters on this. I like some extra virgin olive oil and my taste tends towards the more peppery versions. I don't like all extra virgin olive oils; some are not to my taste and some would not meet the international tasting standards for extra virgin olive oil (which I think was the point of the original article introduced above). I don't like virgin olive oils as, in my view from the ones that I have tasted, all have some faults: rancidity is a fault to me.

As a final comment, the people who set the taste specifications for olive oil live and breathe this subject, let's give them some credit for developing sophistication in their own area of expertise.

[Raoul Duke]

Besides, who had the educated palates in this olive oil test? The Cooks Illustrated people or the trained testers?

Who trained these testers, and what were they trained to test, exactly? It's sure not taste! The professional olive oil testers are essentially machines: they detect a chemical and say "I have been told this chemical is desirable" or "I have been told this chemical is undesirable." I'll take the Cook's Illustrated panelists any day, at least they are judging taste, if only their own.

Tasters that certify olive oils for the COOC are trained by the IOC. My understanding is that the USDA lab on Blakley, Georgia will also provide chemical and taste analysis.

[OliverB]

interesting stuff! Be careful too when you buy, just because it says EVOO from Italy often means that it was packed in Italy, but contains oil from all over, often none from Italy itself.

I'm not too picky with oil for cooking, but for salad, dips etc, I only buy the more expensive good stuff, preferably from California as I live there. Costs about the same as imported, uses a lot less resources to get to my plate :-)

As for tests, I trust my own taste, any other tests are just opinions of people I don't know. I canceled Cooks Illustrated, the magazine no longer "speaks" to me and personally I found some of their tests disagreeable. (and the hokey editorial is just too much...) But tastes differ, make up your own mind. I use tests if at all, as a mere guide and probably will avoid the worst performers.

Edited July 18, 2010 by OliverB (log)

[AAQuesada]

For me it's all about freshness, I try to look for olive oils as close to harvest date as possible. And try to avoid those that don't give you that information.

From California I like Bariani who put dates on the FRONT of the bottle! (Yay)

http://www.barianioliveoil.com/catalog.php

Katz is really good. You can taste the freshness. Not sure harvest date is on the bottle, but it is listed on the website.

http://katzandco.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=133&osCsid=bdb531f3126c13a483017b7f8c0eec31

Valderrama (from Spain) First tasted this at the salon gastronomie in San Sebastian. Still a favorite.

http://www.valderrama.es/us/produccion.asp