<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Dear All,

This is a very interesting debate and below we have two very intelligent but
opposed points of view.

Sodium argues from the point of view of the market place, Guido from the
point of view of the good of the industry.

I tend to side with Sodium on this one. I have no direct connection with any
of the oils that are so labelled, other than selling them, and I can assure
all producers of olive oil that the Australian and overseas consumers that I
get to see on a weekly basis are significantly more interested in olive oil
with flavour than with olive oil that tastes of olive oil.

I conduct regular tastings of up to 20 oils, mainly from the Hunter Valley
but also from other parts of Australia. All oils are labelled as "Extra
Virgin Olive Oil". About half of the oils we offer for tasting are "natural"
oils with no additions, the other half have additional flavours such as
lemon, lime, mandarin, garlic, herb & garlic, pepper and chilli. The
flavoured oils outsell the standard oils consistently.

This may be due to one of two factors - perhaps the natural oils are no
good?
Probably not, as several of the oils we offer are medal winners at Oil Shows
in 2003.
Perhaps the customers don't understand the subtleties of olive oil?
Much more like it. We do not have a sophisticated market capable of
discriminating between oils. Yes, most can pick a blatantly faulty oil, but
most of the subtleties are lost on about 85% of the buyers.

The public will buy the health benefits, it will buy the natural product
angle, it will buy locally produced products (as much as a souvenir as
anything else), but overall, the obvious flavours of a lemon oil will sell
itself.

Guido's point is (I hope I understand?) that in order to be labelled as
Extra Virgin, the oil should not have any adulteration, therefore by
definition an oil with any substance other than olives in it cannot be Extra
Virgin Olive Oil. This is the IOOC definition of exactly what Extra Virgin
oil is.

However, with the public being generally ignorant of what "Extra Virgin";
"Pure"; "Lite" & "Pomace" signify we as an industry have a major
re-education job on our hands.
Adding the confusion of trying to explain "ah yes, well it is extra virgin
oil but the European rules state that if we add lemons to the oil we can't
call it Extra Virgin any more, so we have to call it Fruit Oil" is not a
good idea, in my honest opinion.

To put Guido's mind at rest about the quality aspect of these flavoured
oils, the ones I am familiar with are oils that would have made the Extra
Virgin category in their own right, but were from young trees and ended up
as fairly bland oils. Not faulty, just boring. Hence the addition of some
flavours to help sales along.

Incidentally, I don't think that Australia is a member of the IOOC, is it? I
thought we were observers, not members?

Regards,

Mike Wilson.
Hunter Valley, NSW.



> "...it's not "infused". the lemons are added at the malaxer stage....
>
> and for the record, the lemon oil is capable of making just as much
> money as the EVOOs....
>
> a lot of growers are in for a rude shock when they take their oil to
> the market place and are are faced with the reality that these lemon
> oils are hugely popular and the public just seems to like them....
>
> it is outselliing (sic) all the other oil products by a country
> mile...."
>
>
>
> If I may add my ha'penny, the IOOC Definitions are quite clear on this
> matter, and designed specifically to prevent the adulteration of
> products labeled and sold as "olive oil" (incl. evoo, voo, etc.):
>
> "OLIVE OIL IS THE OIL OBTAINED SOLELY FROM THE FRUIT OF THE OLIVE
> TREE ..."
>
> (see www.internationaloliveoil.org - Trade Standards)
>
> Anyone is free to make whatever blend, admixture or joint extraction
> their market desires, but if the product is not obtained solely from the
> fruit of the olive, the product cannot be marketed as an "olive oil",
> less still an "extra virgin olive oil".
>
> There is specifically no provision for "*****-flavoured extra virgin
> olive oil", etc. Irrespective of relative font size. Once something is
> added to the oil (flavours, defects, other adulterants, etc.), the
> product is clearly no longer "olive oil" i.t.o. the definitions.
>
> As a member of the IOOC, I would imagine Australia would be duty-bound
> to stick to the abovementioned definitions in terms of its olive oil
> industry.
>
> My own experience is that it is normally the defective oils which are
> relegated to being flavoured by various extraneous flavours (in the same
> way that mediocre wines are used as the base for litchi-, mango-, kiwi-,
> etc.- flavoured alcoholic beverages aimed at a certain market segment).
>
> No one in their right mind would use a top quality wine for such a
> purpose. I imagine (and trust) that the same holds true for EVOO.
>
> Otherwise we are all on the wrong track!
>
> Guido Costa
> Paarl
> South Africa
</pre>
</td></tr></table>