According to the article, raw pork fat that did not meet edible standards was distributed on the market like a cooking ingredient. Some companies wrote raw pork fat as the product type, but in consumer guidance or sales descriptions, they introduced it like edible or cooking use. Even if it is the same pork fat, edible pork fat and raw pork fat have different standards and management rules, so the controversy grew bigger. In particular, the article explains the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety standards: edible pork fat acid value 0.3 or less, raw pork fat acid value 4.0 or less. Separately from this, the report said that compared with edible standards, products exceeding the standard by up to 4 times were even supplied to department stores. Consumers can easily believe that products sold in department stores or premium food halls are safer, so this is the part that can shake that trust. This report shows more than just one company's mistake. It shows that if food labeling, online advertising, distribution channel screening, and administrative monitoring do not match properly, raw materials that should not originally come to the table can be sold like cooking ingredients.
원문 보기
The core issue is not pork fat itself, but that it is **oil of a different grade**
If you only read the first article, you may feel like this: “What is wrong with pork fat?” Right. It does not mean pork fat itself is the problem right away. The issue is that even with the same pork fat, it becomes a completely different product depending on what process it went through, what standards it was managed by, and what purpose it was sold for.
Simply put, raw pork fat is closer to a raw material before it is refined into edible oil, and edible pork fat is a product that can go on the table after refining and standard management. Just like raw rice and instant cooked rice are the same rice but have different conditions and management methods, the key here is not “is it the same ingredient,” but “was it managed in a condition safe to eat.”
So this controversy is not about taste or preference, but leads to a problem of food safety and trust in labeling. If the product type says raw material, but the sales description says cooking use, consumers cannot easily tell the real grade. From that point, the issue grows beyond one bottle of oil and becomes a problem for the whole distribution system.
raw pork fat = raw material stage of pork fat, edible pork fat = stage managed by standards so it can be eaten.
The key of this controversy is not hatred of pork fat, but the signs that a raw-stage product was distributed like an edible product.
Edible pork fat and raw pork fat, what is different even if both are pork fat
| Item | Edible pork fat | Raw pork fat |
|---|---|---|
| Basic nature | Oil that comes out in a state safe to eat after refining and standard management | Oil still at the food raw material stage or hard to directly see as for final edible use |
| Main use | Cooking, processed food ingredients, consumer sales | Ingredients before extra processing, raw materials for other uses |
| Refining level | Quality is adjusted through refining steps like degumming, deacidification, bleaching, and deodorization | It may be distributed before the refining stage, or it may be managed at a lower level than products that meet edible standards |
| Labeling and sales | Easy for consumers to understand, like edible oil or raw ingredients for cooking | By type, it is labeled as ingredient, and consumers should not mistake it for edible use |
| Key question | How can I use this in a tasty way? | Is this in a condition that can go on the dining table? |
Edible oil does not just come out like that: refining goes through four steps
Technical words may sound hard, but actually, it is easy to think of it as a process of cleaning up the oil step by step.
Step 1: Degumming
This is the step where impurities like gummy substances and phospholipids in the oil are removed first. It is like boiling soup and skimming off the bits floating on top, cleaning up the dirty parts in the oil.
Step 2: Deacidification
This step lowers free fatty acids, which are related to rancidity. If the acid value is high, it means there are many of these free fatty acids. Simply put, it means the sign that the oil is going bad has become stronger.
Step 3: Bleaching
This is the process of absorbing and removing pigments and oxidation byproducts. It is not only about making the color look nice, but also about reducing degraded substances and keeping the quality stable.
Step 4: Deodorization
Finally, it reduces smells and volatile off-odors. When we eat food, the first thing we notice is the smell. If this step is not enough, the feeling of Is this oil a bit strange? can come first easily.
But why is lard oil becoming popular again right now?
What is interesting is that pork fat is not a newly appeared ingredient. Lard, meaning pork fat, was originally a traditional cooking fat. But for a while, it was pushed aside as vegetable oil got the image of being more modern and cleaner.
There are mainly three reasons why it is getting attention again these days. First is taste and cooking performance. Many people feel there is a difference in the crispness of fried food, the flavor of stir-fried dishes, and the texture of baked goods. Second is health talk like keto, low-carb high-fat, and seed oil avoidance. Third, from the restaurant industry side, it can create both a traditional style and a premium story at the same time.
So this case is not simply a story about a strange ingredient suddenly appearing. It is closer to a story of loosely managed products entering a market where demand has grown. When a trend appears, good products come in, but products aiming for gaps come in too.
The core driver is not one health myth, but a combination of taste + retro gourmet culture + restaurant branding.
As demand grows, consumers should not feel safe just by seeing the word lard oil, and should look more carefully at food type and manufacturing information.
How did lard disappear and then come back again?
If you look at the background of the trend, you can see a little why this controversy broke out now.
Traditional era: lard was originally a basic cooking fat
In the past, pork fat was widely used for bread, frying, and stir-frying. It was not a strange ingredient, but a basic ingredient.
Industrialization era: vegetable oil got an image of being “more modern”
In the 20th century, vegetable shortening and seed oils started to look like cleaner and more refined choices. Lard was pushed more and more into an old-fashioned image.
Health fear era: animal fat was avoided for a while
As fear about saturated fat and cholesterol grew, the idea spread that animal fat in general was bad for health. Both homes and restaurants leaned toward vegetable oil.
Reevaluation era: after the trans fat controversy, people started comparing again
As people started saying vegetable oil was not always the right answer, traditional fats began to get a second look too. That is when lard appeared again.
2020s: gourmet and health trends meet, and lard becomes popular again
SNS food culture, retro feelings, low-carb high-fat talk, and restaurant differentiation all came together, so lard is getting attention again. You can see this recent raw pork fat controversy as the shadow of that growing demand.
The article said ‘up to 4 times over the standard’ — why is this so sensitive?
In the original article, the standards edible pork fat acid value 0.3 or less and raw pork fat acid value 4.0 or less appear together. The chart below is a simple visual explanation that shows the article phrase ‘up to 4 times over’ as a relative difference compared with the edible standard.
Labeled as raw material, sold for cooking: where did the monitoring leak?
| Step | What should have been checked originally | Weak points in reality |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing and import stage | Product type, standard, test and inspection results, legal documents | Even if it is a product at the raw material stage, there may still be room for it to be understood as edible at the later sales stage. |
| Wholesale and repackaging stage | Keep the original labeling, repackaging information, and transaction documents consistent | If the documents say it is a raw ingredient, but the sales explanation changes to “for cooking,” consumers can get confused. |
| Online platform stage | Product name, detail page wording, ad expressions | Even if the seller's wording does not match the actual food type, it is hard for the platform to always check the real product label directly. |
| Offline sales and department store stage | Store entry documents, test reports, brand trust check | The stronger the image of being a premium channel, the more easily consumers believe, “They probably filtered this out here.” |
| Administrative monitoring stage | Label inspection, ad monitoring, blocking harmful foods | If labeling, advertising, and the actual sales site move separately, a gray area can easily appear. |
Will this end as a simple mistake? If it gets caught, it usually goes like this
Legally, the weight changes depending on whether it is a labeling mistake, false advertising, or selling unsuitable food.
Step 1: Confirm the violation
First, they compare the product type, ad wording, test results, and sales records. Here, intent, repetition, and the chance of misleading consumers become the key issues.
Step 2: Correction order and recall action
They may first order the ad to be removed or sales to stop, and take action to recall and destroy the problem product. This step is to stop consumer harm from getting bigger.
Step 3: Administrative disposition
If the case is serious, it can lead to actions like business suspension, suspension of manufacturing for the item, or penalty surcharges. It means this is different from just one simple typo.
Step 4: Investigation and possible criminal punishment
If false or exaggerated advertising, or the sale of unsuitable food, is clear, it can also lead to referral to an investigative agency and possible criminal punishment. But the actual level of punishment depends on the applied law and how much can be proven.
Just because it was in a department store does not mean it is safer
This is the part that surprised many people in the article too. The moment people hear supplied to a department store, consumers automatically think, “Then it must have been checked.” In fact, premium food halls usually do have tighter document checks and brand screening than regular stores.
But being tighter and being perfect are different things. Distributors check legal documents and hygiene systems, but it is hard to keep online descriptions and in-store sales methods perfectly matched every moment. In the end, a premium channel is only a tool that supports trust, not a shield that makes every final decision for consumers.
So from our side, it is more important to build the habit of checking what the food type is, whether the edible label is clear, and whether the manufacturing and sales explanations match each other before listening to phrases like “lard oil is trending,” “they sell it at a department store,” or “it is a premium product.” This case showed that food safety starts with checking basic information, not brand image.
Before the product name, check the food type first. The key point is whether it is a “raw ingredient” or “edible.”
If the detail page description and the real label are different, that itself is a warning sign.
Phrases like “sold in department stores” or “premium” are just reference information, not a safety guarantee.
We will show you how to live in Korea
Please give lots of love to gltr life