Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:38:50.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Examining the trade-offs of palm oil production and consumption from a sustainable diets perspective: lessons learned from Myanmar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2021

Shauna M Downs*
Affiliation:
Department of Urban-Global Public Health, Rutgers School of Public Health, One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 1020, Newark, NJ 07102, USA
Khristopher Nicholas
Affiliation:
Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Kay Khine Linn
Affiliation:
HelpAge International, Yangon, Myanmar
Jessica Fanzo
Affiliation:
Berman Institute of Bioethics, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email sd1081@sph.rutgers.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to examine the trade-offs related to the production and consumption of palm oil in Myanmar from a sustainable diets perspective.

Design:

We used an enhanced value chain analysis approach that included semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders; market analyses to assess edible oils in markets and focus groups as well as surveys with consumers to ascertain their perceptions and practices related to edible oils.

Setting:

Four settings in Myanmar (upper income urban; lower income urban; middle-income urban; lower income rural).

Participants:

Key stakeholders (n 12) from government, trade bodies and civil society organisations were included in the interviews. Women from each of the regions participated in four focus groups (n 32), and a convenience sample of male and female consumers participated in the surveys (n 362).

Results:

We found mistrust of the oil sector overall. Poor production practices, leading to low yields, limit the economic viability of oil palm production in Myanmar and contribute to negative environmental (e.g. deforestation) and social outcomes (e.g. land conflicts). Consumers demonstrated low preferences for palm oil as compared with traditional oils from a taste, health and transparency perspective; however, they indicated that its relative low cost led to its purchase over other oils.

Conclusions:

The Burmese example suggests that there may be limited benefits, and significant costs, of investing in palm oil production in regions where there are coordinating disincentives from a sustainable diets perspective. However, if oil palm cultivation is to continue, there are opportunities to improve its economic viability and environmental sustainability.

Information

Type
Research paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society
Figure 0

Fig. 1 An overview of the edible oil sector in Myanmar

Figure 1

Table 1 Overview of the key challenges across the palm oil value chain in Myanmar and their consequences

Figure 2

Fig. 2 An overview of the source and use of labels among oils examined in markets (n 20) in four regions of Myanmar. Note: Vegetable oil refers to oil labelled as ‘vegetable’ oil without information about the specific oils included

Figure 3

Fig. 3 An overview of edible oil preferences and perceived attributes in four communities in Myanmar. Significant differences in edible oil preferences and oils typically used using Chi-squared test (P < 0·01)

Figure 4

Table 2 An overview of entry points to improve the sustainable production and consumption of oils in Myanmar

Supplementary material: File

Downs et al. supplementary material

Downs et al. supplementary material

Download Downs et al. supplementary material(File)
File 193.6 KB