NZ: CRI denies involvement in olive oil judging scandal
When an olive-oil award goes wrong, a lot of parties suddenly want to explain what they did and did not do. It is a useful moment to look at how oil is really judged — part trained human palate, part cold laboratory chemistry — and who is responsible for which.
Behind a simple gold sticker sits a surprisingly serious process, and it splits neatly in two. One half is human: a panel of trained tasters assessing an oil’s aroma and flavour. The other half is chemical: a laboratory measuring the things a tongue cannot, like free acidity and peroxide value. When a competition is disputed, the roles of these two halves — and of whoever provided the venue and equipment — matter a great deal, because they decide who is actually accountable for a result.
The human half: the sensory panel
Extra virgin is, uniquely among edible oils, defined partly by taste. A trained sensory panel smells and tastes coded samples and scores them for fruitiness, bitterness and pungency — and, crucially, for defects. An oil with a recognised fault (rancid, fusty, musty, winey) cannot be extra virgin no matter how good its chemistry looks. This is skilled, calibrated work, not casual sipping, and it is where a competition’s credibility lives or dies. Get the panel’s independence wrong and the whole result is tainted.
The cold half: the laboratory
The lab does the part no palate can. It measures free acidity (a marker of how sound the fruit and processing were), peroxide value (early oxidation), and other chemical limits an oil must meet to be graded extra virgin. A research institute or commercial lab often supplies this testing, the venue and the logistics — a support role, quite separate from the judging itself. That distinction is why, when a tasting result is challenged, the lab can legitimately say the chemistry was run correctly and the dispute lies entirely with the panel.
Why the split protects you
The two-part system is a strength, because taste and chemistry catch different problems. A lab can certify an oil is chemically sound while a panel rejects it for an off-flavour the numbers miss; a panel can love an oil the lab then disqualifies on acidity. A trustworthy award needs both to pass, judged by people with nothing to gain. When you see a medal, it is worth knowing it should rest on this double check — and that the most reliable ones come from competitions transparent about how both halves were run.
| Test | What it catches | Who runs it |
|---|---|---|
| Sensory panel | Aroma, flavour, defects | Trained blind tasters |
| Free acidity | Poor fruit or processing | The laboratory |
| Peroxide value | Early oxidation | The laboratory |
| Grade decision | Extra virgin or not | Both together |
Reading a medal with this in mind
- A serious award rests on both taste and chemistry, not one alone.
- Extra virgin is defined partly by a trained sensory panel, uniquely among oils.
- Labs usually provide testing and venue, not the tasting verdict.
- Favour competitions that are transparent about their process.
How olive oil is judged: common questions
How is olive oil actually judged?
In two ways: a trained sensory panel tastes coded samples for aroma, flavour and defects, and a laboratory measures chemical markers like free acidity and peroxide value.
Why does taste matter for grading?
Because extra virgin is defined partly by flavour. An oil with a recognised defect cannot be extra virgin, however good its chemistry — a rule unique to olive oil.
What does the laboratory do?
It measures what a palate cannot — acidity, oxidation and other chemical limits — and often provides the venue and equipment, separate from the tasting itself.
Can a lab be blamed for a bad tasting result?
Not usually. If the chemistry was run correctly, a disputed result rests with the sensory panel and the competition’s organisers, not the lab.
What makes an award trustworthy?
Independent blind tasting, correct laboratory testing, and transparency about how both were conducted — a medal should rest on both checks.
People think a gold medal is one thing; it is really two. A trained panel has to like the oil, and a lab has to pass its chemistry — and the two catch faults the other misses. The lab measures acidity and oxidation coldly; the panel sniffs out the rancid or musty notes numbers ignore. When a contest goes sour, the lab can usually and fairly say the chemistry was fine and point back at the tasting. For you the takeaway is quiet but useful: a medal worth trusting sits on both a blind human verdict and a clean lab report, run by people with nothing riding on the outcome.
Drawn from extra-virgin sensory and chemical grading practice.