All true of course. However, although companies moan and whinge about pretty much anything that forces them to re-tool (or do anything other than what they did yesterday) that's the nature of business. The market changes. Rules change. Business adapts, and the reality is they're very very good at turning "problems" into advantages. Remember when the US government waged war against fat? Food companies made a killing by substituting relatively expensive fats with starch and sugar, while advertising their products as 'healthy'.
In this case, it shouldn't be hard to get a large slice of the 'concerned consumer' market by signing up to a (more-or-less optional) scheme for glass jar re-use.
Well ... as with meat, it's complicated. There's nothing inherently wrong with palm oil. The scientific evidence so far is that saturated fats (like palm oil or animal fats) are better for cooking because they are more heat-stable and have a better balance of EFAs. "Healthy" unsaturated oils are partially converted into various toxins and carcinogens at normal cooking temperatures. Commercial establishments hate them because they leave a gummy polymer film over everything.
I've been looking into growing palm oil myself. Oil palm can be a valuable and ecologically-sound component of a tropical farm. The problem comes when people decide to grow nothing but oilpalm, on soils which are supposed to be (say) rainforests. In practice oilpalm simply will not grow on clearcut forest (in fact nothing will) so plantation owners sow a lot of leguminous groundcover. That doesn't mitigate the fact that a vast amount of valuable native species were destroyed in the process of creating the plantation, but oil palm plantations are much less destructive than (say) cattle-grazing on the same land.