`UC Davis Study Questioned - Olive Oil Times

UC Davis Study Questioned

By Olive Oil Times Staff
Jul. 15, 2010 11:25 UTC

A key find­ing in a new report by the UC Davis Olive Center was ques­tioned ear­lier today.

The report stated 10 per­cent of California olive oil sam­ples labeled as extra vir­gin olive oil failed to meet the IOC/USDA stan­dards for extra vir­gin olive oil.” The 10 per­cent referred to a sin­gle sam­ple of Bariani extra vir­gin olive oil that was found by a lab in Australia to dis­play sen­sory defects. Extra vir­gin olive oil, accord­ing to IOC and USDA guide­lines can­not have such defects.

An Olive Oil Times arti­cle on the report pointed out today that, accord­ing to the report’s appen­dix, the Bariani olive oil that failed the sen­sory test­ing was bought,
and tested, well after the best before” date.

None of the other sam­ples tested in the study were past their expi­ra­tion dates, although a few had no dates at all.

Another find­ing of the study, namely that 69 per­cent of imported extra vir­gin olive oils tested failed to meet IOC and USDA stan­dards was not being chal­lenged.

The age of an olive oil can greatly affect its sen­sory char­ac­ter­is­tics and, con­se­quently, how well it scores in an organolep­tic analy­sis. In a recent arti­cle expert Paul Vossen, University of California Cooperative Extension farm adviser and senior fac­ulty mem­ber pointed out a fresh olive oil is crisp. It has a lot of zing to it, a lot of com­plex­ity and depth to it. Whereas old oils, they’re just kind of greasy and flat.”

Dan Flynn, direc­tor of the UC Davis Olive Center, later responded in an email to Olive Oil Times explain­ing that the lab­o­ra­tory that tested the sam­ples, the Australian Oils Research Laboratory in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, made a typo­graph­i­cal error and the January 2010 date entered as the best before” date on the sam­ple’s data sheet was actu­ally the bot­tling date. Flynn pro­vided an enlarge­ment of an image in the report iden­ti­fy­ing the Bariani sam­ple to sup­port the expla­na­tion and the report’s appen­dix was later cor­rected.

.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Related Articles