Could Synthetic Palm Oil Displace Natural Palm Oil?

Major commodities supply chains have been disrupted throughout this year, causing extreme price oscillations and shortages in the availability of many food commodities. Among the most impacted is edible oils, with sunflower oil topping the list, given that Russia and Ukraine account for more than 70% of global sunflower oil production. Many prominent food manufacturers and distributors, particularly in Europe who had previously declared their commitment for “No Palm Oil” labels have sheepishly begun a journey that chooses now to revert to palm based formulations in order to help sustain their market shares. Critics who championed against palm oil as unsustainable and contributing towards global deforestation, have possibly taken a temporary back seat for now.

Those in the commodities trade can confirm that total tonnages of certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO) is abundant, yet its actual uptake is lagging. There is an oversupply of CSPO compared to its actual uptake. The accusations against palm oil remain much widespread and recently we witnessed a series of well-funded efforts that boast of possible synthetic alternatives to palm oil, supplemented by the tagline that these aim to save the world from palm oil’s harmful ways.

Well-funded academics are now claiming breakthroughs in the production of “synthetic palm oil”. The United Kingdom’s University of Bath collaborating with a British start-up, Clean Food Group, is the latest among these. They work on a yeast-based alternative to palm oil while claiming none of the adverse impacts on deforestation, biodiversity loss, or climate change. Nearer the South East Asian epi-centre of oil palm cultivation, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore collaborating with scientists from University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, are promoting methods to produce plant-based oils from microalgae with far superior qualities to those found in palm oil. 

These and similar claims are not new since various efforts have been brewing in petri dishes for a while now. No less than the investment arm of Bill Gates Breakthrough Energy Ventures, was previously reported to have sunk US$20 million into a start-up company, C16 Biosciences, to produce synthetic palm oil. Even much earlier, a Wisconsin, USA, start-up, Xylome, claimed the development of their microbial oils as a palm oil alternative.

These and many other efforts with various other agriculture produces are emerging from a range of synthetic biology start-ups, boasting breakthroughs in biofuel, fertilizer, animal feeds and even lab-grown meat replacements as potential solutions to solving the world’s environmental problems created by humanity’s ever growing greed and hunger in the face of a rising human population density.

For those employed diligently in the “natural” palm oil supply chain, this is something of a rude awakening indeed. Why should such start-up investments, mostly located in the Northern hemisphere, be seen as our saviours, at the opposite side of the globe where natural palm oil is cultivated, primarily 10 degrees North and South of the Equator? 

To begin with, it appears to rest squarely on these start-ups claiming they could overcome many of the negativity surrounding palm oil and its cultivation. After all, in our current food supply, more than 6 out of 10 products requiring a fat component are formulated with some proportion of palm oil. The world produces nearly 78 million MT annually which is almost 32% of all global oils and fats produced. Lest we forget and subscribe to the pandering of these start-ups, global oil palm cultivation in reality is produced on less than 0.4% of the world’s overall agricultural land. So already the numbers game is failing to support the start-ups claims. Imagine the footprint needed to construct massive processing facilities for voluminous and successful output of synthetic palm oil that could hope to produce just 25% of global palm oil outputs. Thus on-ground reality and viability appears starkly naked and contrasted when these production flowsheets are realistically evaluated. The actual carbon footprint and other process challenges for such yeast and microbial culture systems has yet to be defined and proven more environmentally friendly than current oil palm cultivation.

Nature has a very robust way of managing its mammoth garden and surrounding environment. Let us always be reminded about the sway that nature holds over all things and beings that take temporary shelter on the face of Mother Earth. In our assessment of these technologies, there are so many other intrinsic difficulties that will come with trying to copy nature’s palm oil. The likes of Xylome, C16 Biosciences, Clean Foods and the NTU teams should nevertheless be credited for thinking out of the box, but we do not necessarily agree that they will generate the global opportunity that could limit the use of or replace natural palm oil. Even if they succeed, given the very large odds stacked against such technologies, their impact upon natural palm oil supply chains will be minimal. The hype created in various media around this sounds like another feeble stabbing of palm oil.

For starters, imagine the investment that will be required for processing facilities that could say aim to address just 25% of the current 78 Million MT global palm oil output. What would be the costs, the carbon footprint of such processes and how would waste streams from such operations be accounted for. Many unknowns at this stage that are largely daunting and gigantically stacked against these start-ups achieving global scale-ups towards commercial reality!

Given the advances in synthetic biology and upgrading of technologies that facilitate the growth of the targeted yeast or microbe cultures, in our assessment these entities may actually succeed in generating the core straight chain fatty acid molecules that are the backbone of palm oil and indeed all oils and fats. But this alone may not be enough, knowing that science can also produce such carbon chain fatty acid molecules from various other more simplified processes and means. 

For example the intricacies and complexities of the natural triglyceride species patched to a glycerol molecule in all oils and fats and also present in palm oil through varied configurations, can hardly be fully duplicated by current synthetic biological technologies. Mostly, Mother Nature seems to be the sole patent holder for such successful permutations of these fat molecular triglyceride species. 

Let me also cite the case of saturated fats and human blood cholesterol response. In early 2000, American lipid specialists pushed the idea that saturated stearic acid was cholesterol neutral whereas palmitic acid found in palm oil was cholesterol elevating. They went ahead and created an artificial, fully saturated tri-stearic triglyceride through process technologies. The truth was that nature and human metabolism hardly tolerated too many of such molecules. A lot of money and hype from America was ultimately downplayed through a single Malaysian human dietary study (Sundram et al., Nutrition & Metabolism. 2007;4:3. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-4-3.) that demonstrated the wisdom of sticking with nature’s palm oil fractions versus the artificial fat concoction.

So when these start-ups hype about their yeast or microbial oils replacing palm oil in various food formulations and postulating improved nutritional functions from such products, I dare say it is a feeble wish list indeed. They seem to have conveniently overlooked the need for long processes in certifying these products as suitable for human consumption, safety and nutritional / toxicology evaluations and all sorts of other concerns associated with food safety and consumer acceptance. It will be a long road before the vision to replace palm oil with such “artificial designer oils” will ever be realized. Just take a step back and think of GMO foods. It is there, yet not all are comfortable having these on their plates. So do beware, their claimed solutions may turn out to be multi-pronged nightmares in reverse.  Question is, will these start-ups ultimately fall into a similar dead-man’s paradox? 

More astounding is that the funders of these technologies pursuing to replace palm oil may have missed the work that has already gone into such ideas. Take Malaysia’s investments into the future of palm oil. As a nation, Malaysia has led the scientific entrepreneurship in palm oil with several hundred million dollars already expanded into various R&D programs. These have often partnered some of the best research institutes from around the world. For example,  Malaysian Palm Oil Board scientists succeeded in mapping the oil palm genome and published their findings in Nature (2013, 500, 335–339, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12309). What this also means is that we are already empowered with the tools of the trade that should allow achieving accelerated progress in many fields unlike a start-up company. Indeed by the time these start-up technologies come to fruition, they may be competing against much higher oil yields per hectare of oil palm cultivated, making the yeast or microbial oils production economics even more suspect.

Let us however not belittle these scientific efforts which could still serve as future stepping stones and templates to help feed mankind. Personally, I think there is far better use for such funds. Why are the likes of Bill Gates and other Western venture capitalists and start-ups reluctant to work with people who know the subject far better? Actually this is not the first time. On a previous occasion, we were chasing a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program that proposed the use of natural red palm oil to overcome vitamin A deficiency in children from malnourished populations. This was backed by a hoard of studies in several developing countries and reviewed by eminent experts. We never got an audience with the Bill Gates Foundation despite their stated commitment to overcome Vitamin A deficiency that impacts millions of children facing onset of blindness. Is this an example of missing the boat in feverish attempts to discredit palm oil? 

Opportunities, nevertheless abound and we remind readers that if you visit the oil palm plantations, the actual oil (palm oil + palm kernel oil) output per hectare is just 15% of the mass balance turnover in the plantation. There remains 85% unexploited, mostly biomass that nature in its own wisdom has produced. Hidden nuggets of gold are yet to be found in these but which remain unexploited.

For researchers that included this author, identified and patented (U.S. Patent. No. 9,963,415, 2017) from palm oil waste streams, the active ingredient in Tamiflu vaccine that previously was sourced from Chinese aniseed. This was also a collaboration with MIT, USA. On hind sight, and faced with the current Covid 19 pandemic we could have pushed further for the development of possibly an anti-viral preparation based on this finding. But as a small developing nation, we lacked the resources to pursue this to a better conclusion. Here again may lie an opportunity for the likes of “Bill Gates Breakthrough Energy Ventures”.

Overall, we can only wish the best to the proponents of synthetic palm oil. Unlike the media hype, this is not yet seen as a threat to the natural palm oil supply chain particularly when produced under best agricultural practices and sustainability standards such as what is quickly becoming the norm for the key palm oil industry through various sustainability certification standards that also strongly advocate ZERO deforestation. 

Datuk Dr. Kalyana Sundram

Disclaimer: The views and opinions here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy and position of CPOPC.