[Exclusive] Raw Pork Lard Illegally Distributed as Edible Ingredient, Supplied Even to Department Stores

Unrefined Lard Disguised as Cooking Ingredient Without Proper Refining

Promoted for Use in Stir-Frying, Deep-Frying, and Even Distributed to Department Stores

Ministry of Food and Drug Safety: "Not Suitable for Consumption, Violation of Stan

It has been confirmed that raw pork lard, which does not meet edible standards, is being distributed in the market as if it were a cooking ingredient. Products with acid values (a measure of freshness and rancidity in oils) exceeding the strict standards set by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety by up to four times are even being supplied to department stores, raising concerns about potential controversy.

According to reporting by The Asia Business Daily and the police on April 22, at least five distributors across the country, including those in Seoul, Incheon, and Daegu, have been found to be selling raw pork lard for edible use rather than as an ingredient. These companies, which distribute their products online, label them as raw pork lard in the food type section but promote them as suitable for cooking in product descriptions.

Fueled by the Lard Oil Craze... 'Ingredients' Masquerading as Edible

Under the Food Sanitation Act, raw pork lard is defined as the 'ingredient' for edible pork lard. Only after undergoing refining processes such as degumming (removal of impurities), deacidification (removal of free fatty acids), decolorization (removal of pigments causing cloudiness), and deodorization (removal of odors) can it be distributed as edible pork lard. At this stage, edible pork lard must meet strict criteria, such as an acid value of 0.3 or less and moisture content of 0.3% or less. In contrast, raw pork lard before refining is held to a less stringent acid value standard of 4.0 or less.

However, Company A in Seoul encouraged the use of raw pork lard for frying eggs or making kimchi pancakes, touting its taste and cooking stability. When asked whether their product was suitable for consumption, Company B in Seoul falsely claimed it was edible pork lard, adding, "The refining process is managed at the factory, so I don't know the details." Company C in Incheon recruited a trial group and posted blogger reviews, while Company D in Daegu highlighted that its products are distributed as premium items in department stores. Company E in Daegu also actively promoted cooking methods using its product.

It was found that all the raw pork lard sold by these companies was supplied by a company based in North Gyeongsang Province. The acid value of the raw pork lard distributed in the market was found to be between 0.8 and 1.4. While these values meet the standard for raw pork lard (4.0 or less), they exceed the edible standard by three to four times and do not meet edible requirements, as the product was not refined.

The supplier claims that there is no issue with using raw pork lard for consumption. A company representative stated, "To meet the acid value standard, various substances have to be added during the refining process, and removing them again is complicated," adding, "As long as acid value and moisture are controlled, raw pork lard is actually more natural and safe."

"The Tallow Incident Was Acquitted"... A Fundamentally Different Issue

Some in the industry have cited the 1989 tallow incident, where a food company was acquitted. At the time, the acid value standard for edible tallow was 0.3 or less, but prosecutors charged a food company executive on the grounds that 'industrial grade ingredients' exceeding this standard were imported. However, the company argued that the imported tallow was refined to meet edible standards before being used in products like instant noodles, and the court accepted this argument.

However, in that case, non-edible grade tallow was imported and refined domestically to meet local standards, whereas prosecutors argued that edible-level standards should have applied even at the ingredient stage. This is different from the current case, where unrefined raw pork lard is being deceptively marketed and distributed as edible. Kim Tae-min, a food law specialist and former official at the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, pointed out, "If the standards and specifications are violated, of course, there is a basis for punishment."

According to the Food Sanitation Act, the food code that sets safety specifications is concerned not with whether something is edible in principle, but with ensuring safety during distribution. Scientifically, unrefined fats are not natural foods; they still contain enzymes and microorganisms, making them highly susceptible to rapid rancidity during distribution.

A professor of food engineering at a major university in Seoul, who requested anonymity, explained, "Legally defined standards are in place to check for the potential presence of harmful substances. While a high acid value does not in itself mean spoilage, it can indicate that the product was exposed to poor environmental conditions, such as high temperatures."

A Ministry of Food and Drug Safety official stated, "Unrefined raw pork lard is not suitable for edible use," adding, "If it is confirmed that raw pork lard has been distributed for consumption, action can be taken for violation of current standards and specifications under the law."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.