# Kirkland EVO



## smeetree (Dec 2, 2014)

I don't want to start drama about olive oil, but I did receive a response from Costco today regarding their EVO. 

_[FONT=&quot]Dear Smee,

We've received the information about our Kirkland Signature Extra Virgin Olive Oil that you're inquiring about.  The Iodine value of this product is about 60.  This can vary slightly depending on the climate.  Let us know if we can help with anything else, have a great day!

Thank you,

Shantel T. 
Member Service Center
Costco Wholesale Corporation[/FONT]_

According to the Soap Makers Handbook, written in 1912, pure olive oil should have a Iodine vaue of 81-84. Internet sources I found say 75-90ish can be normal. Nobody mentions 60. They must be putting some [low quality?] dilution in this stuff. What is amazing (not really if you think how in bed corporations are with government) is that the FDA allows this stuff to be labeled "certified organic" and extra virgin. 

My underlying point in the other thread was that we should question the purity of our oils. (a) because we put it on our skin, (b) because we sell it to others who trust what we're making, (c) because we cook with some of these oils and actually ingest them. I received a lot of unwarranted backlash, imo. Anyway, above is the info I received so hopefully it helps people make decisions.


----------



## KatieShephard (Dec 2, 2014)

Where did you get the book from?  Sounds like an interesting read.


----------



## smeetree (Dec 2, 2014)

KatieShephard said:


> Where did you get the book from?  Sounds like an interesting read.



If you send me a private message with your email address, I can send you a copy. It is too large to attach to messages on the forum. Since it is so old, it's in the public domain. There is a lot of chemistry and technical jargon in the book that make it a tough read, but in between it all you can pick up some interesting information.


----------



## snappyllama (Dec 2, 2014)

Out of curiosity, wouldn't EVOO typically have a lower iodine value than regular pressed OO? I *think* I remember that a range of 70-95 is typical for olive oils with EVOO sitting at the lower end of the spectrum. I wish I could find where I read this... during some debate with my foodie sister-in-law no doubt.

Regardless, the Kirkland's EVOO still seems off - though I use their regular OO for soaping and cooking to good results.


----------



## smeetree (Dec 2, 2014)

This chart says 79-95: http://thesoapdish.com/oil-properties-chart.htm

This says 80-88: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_value

The book from 1912 says 81-84. I trust this book because in 1912 people were less deceptive and producing things more purely, in general. 

So while the upper end results vary, all seem to agree ~80 is the lowest. IMO, this would imply Costco is mixing it with a cheap, highly saturated oil. What I found is that EVO and pomace both have approximately the same Iodine Value. 

A good question is why we even have an FDA since corporations just purchase them and then sell us foods that make us ill, but that's for another forum.

Hey if your sister is a foodie check out the link in my signature. My lady and I are huge foodies and run that food blog.


----------



## IrishLass (Dec 2, 2014)

smeetree said:


> The book from 1912 says 81-84. I trust this book because in 1912 people were less deceptive and producing things more purely, in general.



This may be a faulty premise to rely upon. For example, I highly doubt people were any less deceptive in 1912 than they are now (or always have been). History bears that out quite dramatically. Also- the equipment used in order to test such things back in 1912 may not have been as sophisticated as the testing equipment used now.

IrishLas


----------



## smeetree (Dec 2, 2014)

It is definitely a bias. I should have clarified that. "Snake oil sales" were high back then! But the modern economy is essentially cartels that produce a commodity, and then they lobby/purchase the government agency overseeing that industry. The arrangement wasn't as advanced in 1912. But that discussion is for a political/economic forum, though.

I wonder if the equipment and testing were poor in 1912. The test looked pretty simple when I looked it up. But who knows.

I just want to inform people Kirkland is a 60. What they do with that information is up to them. I also think we should question our ingredients. I have more queries into other companies. If people are interested in this type of thing, I can share responses.


----------



## Nevada (Dec 2, 2014)

sounds like you have never read _*The Jungle*_ by Upton Sinclair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle



smeetree said:


> ...... I trust this book because in 1912 people were less deceptive and producing things more purely, in general. .


----------



## smeetree (Dec 2, 2014)

Nevada said:


> sounds like you have never read _*The Jungle*_ by Upton Sinclair
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle



As mentioned above, it's my bias. I have read the book.



Nevada said:


> sounds like you have never read _*The Jungle*_ by Upton Sinclair
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle



I don't know if the admins are cool in going on a tangent. These olive oil threads seem to result in tangents and debates. So we'll see. But we're really not far removed from the Jungle. Just some top of the head similarities: "pink slime", wood/cellulose in tacos, adulterated oils, horse meat in food, goats milk in cow milk, fish farms, shipping chickens to china (with low quality control) for processing, commercial honey from non-authentic origins with no bee pollen, etc. 

On the flipside, in 1886 margarine had to be died pink to show it wasn't real butter. That's one example. There are many more of how labeling has changed over time.

So to bring up one industry, the meat packing industry, and assume I didn't read it and have an uneducated opinion isn't really fair. Also, the Jungle wasn't really about food fraud (the topic of my olive oil post) but rather unsanitary conditions and mistreatment of workers.

Neither of us were alive in 1912 so we're getting 2nd hand accounts and making assumptions both ways. My opinion is that government and corporation have merged, via lobby and cartel formation, in a way that makes it more difficult for the average citizen to separate truth from fiction today (heck, this is why many of us make soap, because we don't want the chemicals or mislabeled products on our skin). Please don't assume I don't read books. That's insulting. I have literally read hundreds of books, and after the classics the topic I read most is economics/politics. 

Back to olive oil: Kirkland is a 60 if anyone finds value in that information.


----------



## JustBeachy (Dec 2, 2014)

I think you can pretty much drive yourself crazy trying to figure it all out. Are there counterfeit OO's?  Sure. So the question is, what are they being cut with. If it was cut with a quality sunflower oil, would that classify as a "cheap" blend?  It's a blend, and no doubt couldn't be called 100% pure olive oil, but is the effect on your skin going to be noticeable?  I doubt it. 

I'm all for old recipes, some old wives tales are great and some are actually being proved to be true. But I would take any testing done from 1912 with a grain of salt compared the tests today. In the 50's the tests all showed saccharin was perfectly healthy for us. Now, not so much. 

I stay in good shape and health by following a diet recommendation, given by Jack Lalanne, "if man made it don't eat it".  That said, it's really just more of a guide line to stay away from processed food. It's never a 100% thing. Try doing it completely in today's world. haha  The reason I use this point is to illustrate that we can strive to use 100% pure anything, including olive oil, and drive ourselves crazy while failing to actually accomplish it. Is the extra 20% non olive oil going to kill us, or make our soap morph into something that is detrimental to our skin?  Again, I highly doubt it. 

Not saying you're wrong to question the whole 100% pure OO thing. Just that it's probably an endeavor that will yield little results.


----------



## smeetree (Dec 2, 2014)

JustBeachy said:


> I think you can pretty much drive yourself crazy trying to figure it all out. Are there counterfeit OO's?  Sure. So the question is, what are they being cut with. If it was cut with a quality sunflower oil, would that classify as a "cheap" blend?  It's a blend, and no doubt couldn't be called 100% pure olive oil, but is the effect on your skin going to be noticeable?  I doubt it.
> 
> I'm all for old recipes, some old wives tales are great and some are actually being proved to be true. But I would take any testing done from 1912 with a grain of salt compared the tests today. In the 50's the tests all showed saccharin was perfectly healthy for us. Now, not so much.
> 
> ...



Oh I completely agree, buddy. The reason I started making soap to begin with was that I wanted to get off chemicals, or at least reduce them. To control the ingredients. We cook every night. We never eat out, and we eat as much raw food as possible. But like you said, that's nearly impossible. Even the tin canning for something simple like beans has issues with chemical erosion into the food. 

So you are right, you can drive yourself nuts. But at the same time, if Kirkland is labeling something as 100% pure EVO, and it is not even close on the iodine value scale, then that is something that must be called out. Additionally, if it were 100% EVO what would the price be? Price is probably the best indicator of quality (on the cheap side, not so much the reverse with high end), because there's only so much Kirkland/Costco can do via "economies of scale". At some point they have to adulter or the price becomes too high for the type of store that they run. If it were truly pure and $50 per bottle, it would probably go rancid before they sold one crate. :razz: My family is from Italy, and my grandmother would say the oil is different, and you hear many stories on the internet of families from Italy who say the olive oil there is completely different. There is enough anecdotal evidence to know it's not the real deal.

I get pretty annoyed that we even have an FDA. We pay taxpayer dollars to have this agency that's allowing adultered oils to be labeled 100% EVO, and in many cases "organic" when they are not. And they know they are not. Organic is another huge scam, btw. The FDA is nothing more than taxpayers subsidizing a false sense of security. The reality is Monsanto, et al purchased that agency long ago. This is why we get adultred oils, hydrogenated everything, trans fats, genetically modified beans, etc etc. Is is coincidence we have an endemic of serious illness? Imo, no. It's all linked.

I do take testing done in 1912 with a grain of salt. This is why I reiterate it's a bias based on my worldview. Everyone has this. But conversely, we don't know how they tested olive oil in 1912. Maybe it was the same exact method as today. The figures seem to suggest the 1912 tests were in the correct range with today's tests...


----------



## Lindy (Dec 2, 2014)

Although I don't live in the US I feel the FDA as well as Health Canada are necessary.  It is not their responsibility to make sure EVOO is 100% pure or they would have to test every single batch of olive oil coming into the country.

 Quite frankly IF we are talking about soaping, which is what this forum is about after all, then we are looking for oils that make good soaps.  We could get into a rant about GMO's and then that would rule out oils like Canola and Rice Bran as well as a few others, but we are all here to make soap and whatever oil is giving us the soap we like to use and for those who sell, the ones we're proud to sell.  

 When you start talking about chemicals being bad then you can't use soap as it is made with a chemical.

 Let's keep this conversation from going political okay?

 Cheers


----------



## KristaY (Dec 3, 2014)

In my opinion there are just too many factors that could account for the iodine in Kirkland's olive oil as opposed to information from 100 years ago. Yes, testing practice and instrumentation may be different. What about the environment? What is the quality of the soil and water today and what was it like 100 years ago? What about air quality? What about crop and seed quality? What about processing equipment and extraction methods? All these things may come into play to influence the iodine. You may be right in your assumption they're cutting it with something else. But as Lindy said, we're here to make soap with the best ingredients and safest methods we can use. Will Kirkland's olive oil ruin my soap or make it unsafe to use? It hasn't so far. Even if it's cut with another oil, the soap I make for my family is still healthier than the bar of Dove from the supermarket. In our world today, it's very difficult to avoid certain types of ingredients or commercial practices. All we can do is our best.


----------



## sassanellat (Dec 3, 2014)

IrishLass said:


> This may be a faulty premise to rely upon. For example, I highly doubt people were any less deceptive in 1912 than they are now (or always have been). History bears that out quite dramatically. Also- the equipment used in order to test such things back in 1912 may not have been as sophisticated as the testing equipment used now.
> IrishLas


 
While I think you are correct about the inclination to be deceptive, there is no doubt that folks today have it down to an art and science, and have the means and scope to be more deceptive about many more things for much less of a reason than ever in human history. And it happens all day, every day - we're essentially bathing in a sea of deliberate deception. It's a difficult (and unwelcome) truth, but there is it. The news and advertizements are common examples, but the QA/QC from products exported from China are rarely worth the paper that they are written on. *shrugs*



smeetree said:


> I get pretty annoyed that we even have an FDA. We pay taxpayer dollars to have this agency that's allowing adultered oils to be labeled 100% EVO, and in many cases "organic" when they are not. And they know they are not. Organic is another huge scam, btw. The FDA is nothing more than taxpayers subsidizing a false sense of security. The reality is Monsanto, et al purchased that agency long ago. This is why we get adultred oils, hydrogenated everything, trans fats, genetically modified beans, etc etc. Is is coincidence we have an endemic of serious illness? Imo, no. It's all linked.


 
The FDA doesn't regulate food oil - that's the USDA. And certain political factions have made very, very sure that there are so few inspectors that most manufacturers are allowed to jimmy, fudge, or outright arrange for their QC to say what they wish. If you eliminate the cops, how long do you think it would take for most people to be (lesser or greater) criminals? It's appalling.


----------

