GIVEN the food scares that now strike with increasing frequency, it鈥檚 small
wonder that we find it hard to separate science from sensation. But even when
the public could easily grasp the science involved, there are forces conspiring
to prevent our understanding. The June issue of Which?, the magazine of
Britain鈥檚 Consumers鈥� Association, found that not one of the 70 food labels
examined by its panel accurately described the nutrient content of the ice
cream, baked beans and the like that they accompanied.
So what of the handful of food ingredients that are simple chemical
substances? Simplest of all is gold used to adorn extravagant chocolates and
risottos. Gold has its own E number, signifying that it is a food additive
recognised by the European Union. However, gold passes unaltered through the
digestive system, so nobody makes outrageous claims about its origins, purity or
dietary benefits.
Not so for salt. Sea salt commands four times the price of ordinary salt.
鈥淪lowly and simply evaporated from the water of the Mediterranean Sea,鈥� says one
brand seductively. Ordinary table salt, too, is often evaporated from brine. Yet
Joanna Blythman in her influential book, The Food We Eat, says that sea
salt made in this way 鈥渋s produced in a much more natural manner鈥�. The former is
鈥減ure鈥�, the latter is 鈥渘atural鈥�. For her, the benefit of sea salt lies in its
tiny concentration of impurities. But it is still 99.999 per cent sodium
chloride. The only difference of chemical significance is that sea salt usually
does not contain additives to stop it clogging up the saltcellar, although it
does contain some organic matter.
Advertisement
Chefs may rave about sea salt鈥檚 鈥渘aturalness鈥�, but really they use it because
its large uneven crystals produce a pleasurable taste sensation. Salt from other
sources cannot compete with the romance of the sea, although one brand meets the
challenge with the claim that its mined salt is 鈥渕illions of years old鈥�. What
benefit is conferred by this antiquity is unclear.
However salt reaches the table, the sodium in it increases the risk of heart
disease. So you might expect alternative products to trumpet their superiority
by citing medical evidence in their favour. But no. A product called Lo-Salt
contains one-third of the sodium of ordinary salt because it substitutes the
similar-tasting potassium chloride. Or, as the manufacturer puts it, 鈥渘atural
potassium鈥� rather than 鈥渟odium salt鈥�. The implication that one chemical element
is more natural than another is fatuous.
Water is another 鈥渟imple鈥� chemical compound. Continental producers have long
provided tables of the concentrations of the ions dissolved in their bottled
waters. British producers have traditionally withheld this information from the
public, although it is collected for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food.
British waters tend to spout purple prose: 鈥淭he origin of this unique pure
natural mineral water is deep down in Toms Hill, just outside Tring, a
designated area of outstanding natural beauty adjoining the Ashridge National
Trust property in the Chiltern Hills. After its filtration period of up to 50
years or more the water is released from some 300 feet down in the 90 000
000-year-old chalk strata by way of stainless-steel pipes and hygienically
bottled and tamper-proof-sealed at source.鈥� The gushing copy does more for Tring
tourism than for consumer awareness, and once again invokes ancient origins.
A natural mineral water, Blythman explains, must be free of pollutants. But
one of its precious 鈥渕inerals鈥� is likely to be nitrate, whether from ancient
natural sources or from modern fertiliser residues. Mineral waters can contain
more nitrate than tapwater . . .
Then there鈥檚 a paradox. Although mineral waters are sold on the strength of
their mineral content, they are bought for their purity. Some imply that they
are pure water鈥攖he mineral content apparently counts for nothing. Two
years ago, the Consumers鈥� Association recommended that there should be a minimum
content of minerals below which waters could no longer describe themselves as
鈥渕ineral鈥� (Which?, May 1995). On their present levels, most brands
would fail to make the grade.
Which brings us back to the difficulties of the promotional copywriter
struggling to claim uniqueness for one brand over another. The
purer鈥攃hemically purer鈥攐ur salt and water, the less meaningful are
any claims they might make to being ancient or natural. A chemical is a chemical
is a chemical. And all that glisters is not E175.