One
of the questions I hear most often is:
“how
can a Panel composed by humans be considered an objective method of
classification when it comes to defining whether an Olive Oil is
Extravirgin, Virgin or Lampante (not fit for human consumption)?”
Actually
it was also one of the questions I used to ask during the courses I
attended.
In
the previous post I hinted to the effort of the IOC to standardize
the Organoleptic Sensory Analysis.
All
the conditions are standardized for all the members of the IOC. The
Tasting method of a Panel in Tunisia should be exactly the same as of
one in Italy or in Spain or in Greece ect.
However
… the Tasters are Human.
So
how can we be so sure about their objectivity?
This
is one of the reasons why the large industrial producers of olive oil
tend to be against the presence of the sensory analysis, whereas the
smaller quality producers tend to support it.
How
can we consumers trust the subjective perception of human beings??
This
is the main problem of the Panel Test.
Yet,
in spite of this weakness, to the present date the Panel Test (when
working correctly and when faithfully following the prescriptions
stated by the IOC), is still an accountable method of evaluating a
Virgin Olive Oil.
This
is why still today the Panel Test has not been replaced by other
methods, even though it is costantly put under attack by the GDO
Industrial Olive Oil producers, who see in it an enemy.
Infact
for my experience, often only through human taste a clearly rancid
(or with other defects) olive oil can be detected while at the
chemical analysis it is considered as fully fine.
It
is fairly easy for the industries to blend low quality olive oils
together with real extra virgin olive oils in order to reach a
product that at a chemical analysis respects all the limits of an
extra virgin, but appears fully defected (therefore not extravirgin
and often not even virgin) at the organoleptic analysis.
The
problem though is: how can a method that is based on human senses be
legally binding?
First
and foremost, the regulation of the Sensory Analysis of the Panel
Test contemplates a very low level of discrepancy among the results
of the single tasters in order to be valid. Moreover, each year all
the Panels have to undergo Ring Tests that assess their level of
accountability of the panels.
Every year 10 samples of virgin olive oils are analysed in 2
sessions by all the panels of the IOOC members.
These ring tests assess the capability of identifying defects and
positive attributes and they also assess the concordance level on the
intensity of the negative and positive attributes perceived.
These Ring Tests have the goal of guaranteeing and maintaining a
certain level of accountability of the panel tests around the world.
Today
the official panels (recognized and approved by the IOOC and by the
laws of the IOOC members) are composed by 9 persons + the panel
leader. A way of increasing the accountability of the panels would
be to increase the minimum number of members, for example from 9 to
19. In this way, the weight of the possible mistakes made by single
tasters would be considerably reduced.
On
the topic I believe that the most exaustive and objective information
come from the online magazine “Teatro Naturale”* and my opinion
fully embraces what Alberto Grimelli and his coworkers wrote along
time.
In
fact, as Alberto Grimelli writes, using the Panel Test to detect a
product that is faulted and therefore downgrading it, is actually a
way of using common sense. It is nothing else than setting the human
being at the centre of the attention.
The
organoleptic analysis is a protection that is placed between the
producer and the consumer in order to prevent that a product that is
seemingly clear, but in reality defected, can reach the client's
table.
Today the panel test is the instrument that can defend the
interests of consumers.
The real weakness in my opinion, is the regulation of the European Comunity that defines that a producer can commercialize an olive oil
that respects the chemical parameters and simply self assess that it
respects the sensory parameters. Then if an official Panel tastes the
product after that it has been bottled and put on a shelf, and if it
identifies a clear defect, the response of the GDO in court is most
often: it was fine when we sold it and it probably was not correctly
stocked by the seller this is why it lost its initial qualities.
The judges at the best, order the removal of the production lot from
the supermarket shelves and the story finishes with no responsabilty
from the producer.
If the sensory analysis were mandatory for all virgin olive oils
before commercialisation, the consumer would be certainly more
protected.
It is therefore very important that the consumers know
the difference in taste between a defected olive oil and a real
extra virgin olive oil or a real virgin oilive oil.
It also fundamental that consumers know how to distiguish between
a virgin olive oil that has certainly undergone the sensory analysis
of an officially approved panel (for example olive oils that have
obtained certifications of quality IGPs or DOPs) or olive oils where
the producers simply self assess its quality.
This
said, in order to compensate for the possible mistakes made by the
Panels it is fundamental that the consumers become aware of what a
quality real extra virgin olive oil tastes like and what it could
actually cost.
