NOVEMBER 4 — At the 2026 Oils and Fats International Conference (OFIC), a paper laid bare a question that has long perplexed the industry: why does palm oil—the most land-efficient oil crop in the world—remain saddled with a negative label in Western public discourse?

The evidence says only about 2 per cent of global deforestation can be attributed to oil palm expansion. Yet almost no one talks about the other 98 per cent. When wildfires break out in the West, the default narrative is “climate change” and “global warming”; when fires and haze occur in Southeast Asia, fingers point squarely at palm oil companies.

According to research published in Europe PMC, forest conversion driven by oil palm expansion declined sharply after 2015—from an annual average of 342,000 hectares to roughly 80,000 hectares. Oil palm’s share of global forest loss fell from 12.2 per cent before 2015 to just 2.2 per cent after 2016. A 2026 study in Nature Food likewise found that, between 2001 and 2022, pasture expansion accounted for about 42 per cent of global commodity-driven deforestation. In terms of land-use efficiency, oil palm occupies just 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent of global oilseed crop area yet meets roughly 40% of global vegetable oil demand. If the world is looking for a way to produce the most oil from the least land, oil palm is virtually irreplaceable.

The problem is precisely this: the evidence exists, but the narrative is absent.

The industry has long been in a defensive posture rather than actively shaping the narrative. As Western media spent two decades bashing palm oil, the industry’s primary response was the promotion of certification schemes such as RSPO and MSPO. Certification matters, but it is a language of compliance, not a language of persuasion. For ordinary consumers and Western policymakers, a certificate carries far less impact than an image of an orangutan losing its home.

While the “2 per cent vs. 98 per cent” contrast is powerful, it requires a more sophisticated communications strategy. Saying bluntly that “livestock is the real culprit” is easily read in Western contexts as deflection. Effective communication requires first making clear what palm oil itself has improved, then introducing the comparative framework—not leading with blame-shifting.

The major palm oil producers are Malaysia and Indonesia, while discursive and regulatory power has long been concentrated in the West. When Western agricultural interest groups—soy, rapeseed, dairy—command stronger lobbying capacity and media channels, palm oil’s “silence” is not accidental. The EU’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) listed palm oil among its first regulated commodities while granting longer grace periods to beef and soy, which drive comparable deforestation. This selective “strictness” is itself worth questioning.

Harvard research has quantified the impact of climate change on wildfires in the western United States: between 1997 and 2020, warming directly contributed to roughly 65 per cent of burned area. Research in Science Advances further shows that without the increase in heatwave days, cumulative burned forest area in the western U.S. would have been about 37 per cent lower. These studies reveal the real dangers of climate change. But note the asymmetry: when Western fires occur, the starting point of discussion is “systemic climate crisis”; when Southeast Asian fires occur, the starting point is “the greed of palm oil companies.” The same fire, different attribution frameworks.

If “climate change” can explain California’s fires, why can it not also be a significant variable in Indonesia’s? The double standard lies not in “whether climate is mentioned” but in “whether climate factors are treated with equal seriousness.”

The palm oil industry needs to shift from “responding to accusations” to “actively setting the agenda.”

On communication, the “2 per cent” story must be told alongside “the silence of the 98 per cent,” but through data rather than emotion. There is a lesson from the tobacco industry: the most effective counter is not denying problems but acknowledging history, demonstrating improvement, and asking why other industries are not held to the same standard.

On policy, Malaysia and Indonesia can use the Asean framework to push for “symmetric sustainability standards.” If Europe demands zero deforestation from palm oil, should the beef and soy it imports be subject to the same standard? This is not confrontation; it is a demand for logical consistency.

On science, platforms like Mosta should more actively fund and publish cross-commodity comparative research, placing palm oil’s environmental performance in a reference frame alongside pasture, soy, and rapeseed. The evidence already exists; what is missing is the channel to bring it into mainstream discussion.

The problem facing the palm oil industry is fundamentally not “whether there is evidence” but “who is telling the story.” In an attention-scarce environment where narrative precedes fact, silence will not buy fairness—it will only let someone else’s version become the default version.

*Professor Datuk  Ahmad Ibrahim is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at ahmadibrahim@ucsiuniversity.edu.my.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.