<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>---Dear Mr. Chatterton,

Forgive my delay to answer, right now we are very busy, as you know.
It was nice to hear from you on this matter of "cold pressed olive
oil".
I know of the efforts made on three phase plants to introduce
extracted vegetable water back to the decanted in order to reduce the
addition of fresh water. I did not know that it was refereed to as
2.5 phase. They reported 35 to 40% reductions on total volume on
discarded vegetable water and approximately 30% rise in total
polyphenol content in the olive oil. It is a huge improvement on the
quality of the olive oil produced by this system. I do not have a
problem with this. I object when the description of another
extraction system such as the "Cold pressed" is used to describe it.
Pressing extraction cannot be equated and identified with centrifugal
extraction. And if centrifugal extraction is the same or better than
pressing extraction, why they refuse so passionately to use any term
suggesting centrifugal extraction?

It is unfair to mislead the consumer and it is unfair to the
traditional olive processor because his product's differentiation is
taken.

Best regards
George




In OliveOil@y..., Brian and Lynne Chatterton <blchatterton@t...>
wrote:
> George,
>
> I agree about the water removing the flavor but have you
looked at
> the 2.5 phase centrifuge. We now have one in our local frantoio.
It uses a
> recycling system to put the extracted water back into the
centrifuge.
>
> Cheers Brian Chatterton.
</pre>
</td></tr></table>