Unlike silkworms (who can only eat mulberry leaves) or koala bears (who can only eat eucalyptus leaves), we humans are omnivores – we can eat whatever we like. Unfortunately, this lucky circumstance has a dark side to it, because some foods are unsafe to eat. Fortunately, we have known for very long times which are the natural foods that are risky, such as poisonous mushrooms or untreated cassava roots. This common sense knowledge notwithstanding, our growing dependence on others to supply our food has triggered a fear and distrust of all processed and restaurant foods.

Making matters worse is the horde of network “talking heads” and “consumer advocates” that manage to take bits and pieces of food- and health-related data and place them totally out of context in order to sensationalize them. The bearers of these morsels of ‘exclusive knowledge’ imply that consumers know nothing and need to be protected from all the dangers lurking in the food world. The sad truth is that these people are generally not experts in the field of food, nutrition or health at all. If they were, they would know that there is very little that is sensational in the field of food and health.

How many exotic fruits, teas and oils were supposed to cure cancer? Where are they now – except in the overpriced sections of high-end supermarkets of natural food stores? So, while these talking heads may not be expert in food and health, they are expert at getting the public’s attention – and using the occasion to profitably flog information that is little better than the proverbial snake oil.

It is a phenomenon that has played out most effectively in America. It is a wonder that anyone in the US can enjoy their food at all. People either end up not eating things that are delicious and healthy for them or they become defiant of the ‘urban knowledge’ that minimizes their enjoyment of food.

For instance, we have known for many years now that the urban legend asserting that all fats are bad for you, is wrong. Just like hormone replacement therapy, this knowledge was never based upon actual evidence, but on the opinions of physicians whose reputations far exceeded their technical competence and honesty. These people were all highly placed politically and exerted a great influence on our public health institutions. Just like the bogus advice on eggs and salt, their opinions have been proven totally wrong by the actual evidence. However, like stubborn warts, these opinions continue to survive, aided and abetted by our current crop of consumer advocates and public health bureaucrats, because they have supported the myth-information for so long, they can’t back out.

So we are left with the dilemma of how to resolve what food is good or bad for you. Most people have been blessed with a good deal of intelligence and common sense. Whether they have the confidence to use it is another question. I would highly recommend they do. At the very least, they should be skeptical of the gratuitous opinions that don’t quite add up to them.

A tiny exercise. We all know that we are living longer than we did years ago. So it is not news, but rather common sense, that diseases of old age are becoming more common. The increase in the rate of heart disease doesn’t mean that our food or our lifestyle is bad - it simply means that more people are living long enough to wear our parts out! We never enjoyed that privilege to the same extent before!

The real question to ask is what do we expect to be dying from as the population ages – head lice? Of course we will find higher rates of the diseases that reflect age. Does anyone actually think that they will manage to get out of life alive?

Eating is an integral part of life – it’s not just the act of ingesting nutrients. It should be a social and pleasurable experience – one that is not spoiled by hype and myth-information spread by fear mongers who have their own agendas.

There no doubt at all, your own common sense and judgment are the best tools to overcome the omnivore’s dilemma. Use them!

Most consumers have placed great faith in their government health agencies and consumer activists’ abilities to keep them up to date with rational and meaningful nutrition data. Incredible amounts of money have been spent on labeling systems claiming to do just that.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the very institutions and people that consumers have depended on to provide them with this information have let them down miserably. An excellent example is the recent work coming out of the USDA that has demonstrated that our calorie counts on food labels are all wrong and have been so from the very beginning. See http://prn.to/OyfQOy

This is not a new revelation. Professionals in the food industry have known for decades that our understanding of calories is bogus. Calories are determined by a technique called oxygen bomb calorimetry – a fancy term to describe the complete oxidation of a food substance. The amount of heat produced is measured as calories. BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY WE EAT FOOD. There is such a thing as digestibility! The structure of a food will affect its digestibility, and any undigested food will NOT be oxidized. But digestibility is never considered in the calorie listing on the label. I have complained about this for years at public meetings, only to be totally ignored by our public health bureaucrats. See http://bit.ly/PiHQ3t and http://bit.ly/M8tAKf . In the animal feed industry, this has been understood for decades, but not for human foods.

Why hasn’t the government accounted for this information known for decades? One reason – sloth! Accounting for digestibility means a lot more work, which they are not interested in doing. They have justified this by saying it is an unnecessary complication that consumers will not understand. As long as there was no public pressure to get it right, they didn’t want to rock the boat.

Why haven’t our consumer advocates told us about this? I can think of two reasons. Either they know so little about food that they were unaware that digestibility was never calculated in the calorie declarations or because of their ‘Merchant of Menace’ agenda, they preferred to have consumers believe that the calorie content of foods were higher than they actually were.

In fact, food digestibility has even greater implications. Foods that are less digestible have a lower bioavailability of all their nutrients, not just calories, so the entire label is wrong. Worse, in the dynamic digestions system we all have, eating low digestibility foods will hasten the passage of whatever else we are eating along with them through our system and will lower the bioavailability and calories of those foods as well. This is not rocket science! It is clear to anyone that takes the trouble to see what is going on.

Come to think of it, it’s not only time that our nutrient labeling system is overhauled; it’s time to replace those we depended on for years.

Today’s MoM (Merchant of Menace) health headlines blared out, “Diets High in Salt Could Deplete Calcium in the Body.” (http://tinyurl.com/brrsj89 and http://tinyurl.com/cae6oxv ) It was even reported that way throughout Asia. While this important issue is worthy of study, the reported conclusions of the research appeared to be driven more by an anti-salt ideology than by actual evidence. The giveaway was the statement in the University’s press release, “This is significant because we are eating more and more sodium in our diets, which means our bodies are getting rid of more and more calcium. Our findings reinforce why it is important to have a low-sodium diet and why it is important to have lower sodium levels in processed foods.”

Wrong!

The actual evidence shows that our salt consumption has remained unchanged since the 1950s (Bernstein & Willett, Am J Clin Nutr, 2011). Therefore, any growing impact resulting from calcium depletion cannot be attributed to increased salt consumption. In fact, we now eat less salt than we did 200 years ago (http://tinyurl.com/cmaaq4d ). The reason is that refrigeration has replaced salt as the primary means of food preservation.

What makes the press release even more bizarre is that the actual publication in the American Journal of Physiology stated that all the experimental research was carried out on opossum cells and genetically modified mice! The rest of the story on calcium loss in humans was pure hypothetical speculation! No fooling, opossum cells and GM mice. Would you say that the headline, “Diets High in Salt Could Deplete Calcium in the Body,” was somewhat exaggerated? Do you have any reason to trust what the University press releases say in future? Better to go back to the original study and eliminate all the gratuitous speculation and opinion and stick with the evidence. You will be better informed.

You can read many more exaggerations in the salt:health debate at http://tinyurl.com/7v48267 , where you will also have reference to all the peer-reviewed studies.

The 24 hour news cycle just received a contribution from the British National Health Service regarding a World Cancer Research Fund report supposedly linking salt to stomach cancer (http://tinyurl.com/cy45xdu ). Unfortunately, the report did not distinguish if it was actually salt that was the link or the foods containing the salt. As an example, smoked fish has been linked to stomach cancer over the years and smoked fish contains salt, but more importantly it contains nitrosamines, which are known powerful carcinogens. So even though salt is in the food, it is not the link to cancer.

In fact, salt or sodium chloride is not listed in ANY of the carcinogen databases. However, if you look at World Cancer Research Fund’s little brochure on salt (http://tinyurl.com/bok7kgv ), you will see that they recommend the following alternatives to salt. Chilli powder, which is laced with the deadly chemical, Sudan IV, (http://tinyurl.com/dxdexdc ); ginger, which can harbor carcinogenic aflatoxins (http://tinyurl.com/d2fd2pr ); basil, which contains estragole, a known carcinogen and teratogen (http://tinyurl.com/28mclj ); and black pepper, which can contain N-nitrosopiperadine, a strong carcinogen (http://tinyurl.com/ccqsp5l ). In other words, the World Cancer Research Fund recommends four known carcinogens to replace salt!

Interesting advice.

The British newspapers headlined a report issued today by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) that stated if people consumed foods according to the Dietary Guidelines, one-in-seven cases of stomach cancers would be prevented. Now, there are 6,000 cases of stomach cancer every year in the UK and the WCRF estimated that around 800 could be avoided if everyone stuck to their 6g of salt a day.

However, looking at British heath statistics, it has been variously estimated by researchers that approximately 46,227 cases of stomach cancer could be avoided if we gave up the carcinogens in coffee, tea, cocoa, meats, all fried, grilled, bbq'd and broiled foods, sugar and sweeteners.

Fortunately, as most people are unaware of this, they continue to consume these foods to their heart's content and have thus greatly reduced the total number of potential cases.

Harvey Levenstein, professor of history at McMaster University in Hamilton Ontario has just written a book entitled “Fear of Food - a history of why we worry about what we eat.” (See: http://tinyurl.com/ckyldhd ). In fact there is a legitimate medical condition called cibophobia or sitophobia, which causes a person to fear food, usually when it is prepared by someone other than themselves or if it contains an unfamiliar ingredient.

The fear of food has been around since we have chosen to allow others to prepare our foods. (See: http://tinyurl.com/bpyu6h7 ). The 1589 English Bread Assize was issued to protect consumers from flour contamination. One of the more famous books of the 19th century on food adulteration was written by Fredrick Accum in 1820, and described the fraudulent practices used in making bread, beer, tea, condiments and dairy products. This naturally heightened the fear that many had of foods being prepared by others.

The first regulation to control such practices was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, also called the Wiley Act. As a result, food adulteration dropped dramatically. Nevertheless, many people still have a great deal of fear and suspicion of foods. Most of these are now driven often by the fear tactics of ‘consumer’ activists, who appear to be very long on rhetoric, but rather short on scientific evidence. Unfortunately, a great many journalists have abandoned solid research for the hype and headlines that these activists generate.

As a result, we have a population that is continuously bombarded with exaggerated threats posed by the dangers of foods. The old line, “Even paranoids have enemies,” may be cute but doesn’t vindicate paranoia. It is the same with any irrational fear, including cibophobia.

The book “Fear of Food” is a worthwhile read, especially since it also describes the negative role of organizations such as the American Heart Association in generating exaggerated and unjustified food fears amongst consumers in order to promote its own parochial goals. In fact, a full investigation of the tactics of the AHA would make an interesting book in itself. Keep that in mind the next time you eat supposedly heart healthy foods.

The Dietary Guidelines are a joint product of USDA and HHS. These Dietary Guidelines are reviewed, fully updated, and published every five years. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines must contain nutritional and dietary information for the general public and be based on the very latest scientific and medical knowledge.

For the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) was appointed to conduct an analysis of the latest scientific information on diet and health and to prepare a report summarizing its findings. As far as electrolytes are concerned (specifically salt or sodium), the process appeared to be highly flawed. Rather than independently and objectively assessing ALL of the scientific and medical data currently available, the DGAC merely adopted the conclusions of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. Was there no additional new evidence to consider?

In 2005, the DGAC made its salt/sodium recommendations by simply adopting the figures from the Dietary Recommended Intakes (“DRIs”), published in 2004 by the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) (1). But this document stated, “..because of insufficient data from dose-response trials, an Estimated Average Requirement could NOT be established and thus a Recommended Dietary Allowance could NOT be derived.” Nevertheless, despite acknowledging a lack of dose-response evidence, the document went on to make totally arbitrary recommendations - recommendations that are followed to this day (2) - recommendations that have since been shown to be all wrong (3).

How could this happen?

Looking deeper into the matter, it appears that one common thread links ALL the decisions to adopt flawed recommendations in the original DRIs, and then base two subsequent sets of Dietary Guidelines on those figures. Believe it or not, the Chairperson of the 2010 DGAC’s subcommittee on electrolytes did exactly the same job for the 2005 US Dietary Guidelines! But it doesn't stop there. That individual was also the Chairperson of the IOM Panel on Electrolytes the original DRI’s!

In other words, in what was supposed to be a fully independent analysis, the very same individual repeatedly evaluated his own recommendations! What did anyone expect the outcome to be? It's no different than a judicial appeal process that asks the same judge to evaluate his own previous judgement! Any ethical judge would recuse himself from the process.

You simply cannot have an independent, objective analytical process featuring the same person creating the original standards, then being asked to evaluate his own recommendations and then five years later, being tasked once again to evaluate his prior evaluation. Yet, that is exactly what happened.

What is worse is that all the US public health institutions, as well as public health institutions around the world have uncritically adopted these recommendations. This has resulted in what may be the biggest delusion in modern public health history!

References

1) Institute of Medicine, Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate, v.-xiii (2004).

2) Both the Dietary Guidelines and the 2005 Dietary Guidelines contain the same sodium limit range of 1500-2300 mg/day. Because a Recommended Daily Allowance could not be determined, the IOM set DRIs that are the basis for the sodium limits in both the 2010 Dietary Guidelines and the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. See IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes: Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate (2004).

3) Maillot M, Drewnowski A. A Conflict between Nutritionally Adequate Diets and Meeting the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Sodium. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(2):174-179.

We are now living longer than we ever have in history. Between 1940 and 2040 the population above the age of 85 will increase 40-fold. In fact, one of the fastest growing segments of the US population is people over the age of 85. They accounted for about 12% of all elderly people in 2000 and are expected to grow to 20% by the year 2040 (1).

Because of this meteoric rise in the number of elderly people, geriatric problems are on a steep and steady rise. Dehydration, falls, fractures, cognition, attention deficits and sensory disorders are now becoming much more commonplace.

The latest information on the subject was presented last week at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior held in Zurich, Switzerland. In a presentation entitled, “Salt appetite across generations: aged and middle-aged,” researchers Khadeja Hendi and Micah Leshem of the Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, confirm that, in the elderly, impaired thirst results in a greatly increased the risk of dehydration. However, salt appetite does not diminish with age. In light of the risks to cardiovascular health and longevity from consuming any less than 6.5 g or more than 15 g of salt per day, increasing intake in the elderly prone to dehydration should be examined (2). Their findings show that the healthy salt appetite in most aged may be harnessed to sustain hydration status. This should serve as an additional reminder to assisted living care givers to be very cautions before recommending a ‘low-salt’ diet for the elderly.

Furthermore, in older people, mild hyponatremia is the most common form of electrolyte imbalance and has been shown to be associated with walking impairment, attention deficits and a much higher frequency of falls. Indeed, there have recently been a number of publications that found a direct relationship between mild hyponatremia and falls, bone fractures, unsteadiness and attention deficits (3, 4). Falls are a major socioeconomic problem in the elderly. About 30% of people over 65 fall every year (5, 6). Fall-related injury in the elderly is associated with numerous psychological and physical consequences and is a leading cause of death and disability. Falls are also associated with bone fracture in 4–6% of cases and death occurs from complication of fall in around 2% of cases mostly in patients with hip fracture (7). Almost 5.3% of all hospitalizations in people aged 65 years or older are due to fall related injuries (8).

Mild hyponatremia in the elderly is no longer considered as an asymptomatic condition. Evidence clearly points to significantly increased attention deficits, loss of cognitive function, increased falls and fractures – a cascade of conditions resulting in a highly diminished quality of life and a reduced life span. It is a significant threat that can be treated by simply adding salt to the diet.

The elderly should very carefully consider any broad, sweeping recommendations to go on a low salt diet. A well balanced diet, replete with salads, vegetables and fruit is the best approach to enjoying a healthy, active retirement.

References

1) www.merck.com/mkgr/mmg/contents.jsp also CDC figures

2) Alderman, MH, and Cohen, HW, Dietary Sodium Intake and Cardiovascular Mortality: Controversy Resolved? Am J Hypertens, 25 (7), 727-734, (2012).

3) Gankam Kengne, F., Andres, C., Sattar, L., Melot, C., and Decaux, G., “Mild hyponatremia and risk of fracture in the ambulatory elderly,” QJ Med, 101, 583–588, (2008).

4) Renneboog, B., Musch, W., Vandemergel, X., and Manto, M. U., “Mild Chronic Hyponatremia is Associated with Falls, Unsteadiness, and Attention Deficits,” The American Journal of Medicine, 119, 71.e1-71.e8, (2006).

5) Graafmans, W.C., Ooms, M.E., Hofstee, H.M., Bezemer, P.D., Bouter, L.M., Lips, P., “Falls in the elderly: a prospective study of risk factors and risk profiles,” Am J Epidemiol, 143, 1129–36, (1996).

6) Sattin, R.W., “Falls among older persons: A public health perspective,” Ann Rev Public Health, 13, 489–508, (1992).

7) Sattin, R.W., Lambert, D.A., DeVito, C.A., Rodriguez, J.G., Ros, A., Bacchelli, S., et al, “The incidence of fall injury events among the elderly in a defined population,” Am J Epidemiol, 131, 1028–37, (1990).

8) Alexander, B.H., Rivara, F.P., Wolf, M.E., “The cost and frequency of hospitalization for fall-related injuries in older adults,” Am J Public Health, 82, 1020–23, (1992).

Today’s news has trumpeted the success of New York’s trans fat ban (http://goo.gl/QngCo ). While the trans fat ban may have indeed been a success, our understanding of what constitutes a public health success has been an utter failure. The trans fat ban was put into place 5 years ago to benefit the health of New York City’s consumers. The one and only goal of the trans fat ban was to decrease levels of low density lipoproteins (LDL) or ‘bad cholesterol’ and triglycerides – health outcomes that are easy to analyze. Yet, the NYC Department of Health has never released a report showing the impact of the trans fat ban on consumer health outcomes. I have regularly called the Department of Health during the last five years, only to get a response saying the report will come soon – a typical, ‘the check is in the mail’ response.

Why have they not done the study? A lame excuse has been that LDL and triglyceride reductions are the result of many factors, so it is hard to figure out what is going on. If that was the case, why such hoopla about trans fats and none if the other factors? No, there are two reasons why we have not seen the NYC health outcomes report. Either the Dept of Health fear that the outcomes are not significant and would rather not bring attention to the matter or they have done the study and do not wish to release the figures. Either way, the trans fat ban cannot be considered a success until its impact on the health of consumers has been demonstrated. Nothing else will do.

Showing that the level of trans fat has dropped is NOT a measure of success. Success can only be measured as the actual impact on the health of consumers. As of this moment in time, we have no such data. Anyone who declares the ban a success at this time has no appreciation of the intended beneficiary – the consumer.

In the latest issue of Nutrition, the international journal of applied and basic nutritional sciences, the Salt Institute's Morton Satin, Vice President of Science and Research, explains the risk of trying to reduce salt consumption across the population.

He makes this point in his article:

"Although decreasing salt intakes may reduce blood pressure for some individuals, it will likely increase renin/aldosterone levels for everyone. As a strategy to decrease blood pressure, unlike the DASH/Mediterranean diet or decreased stress or increased physical activity, decreasing salt does have significant potential for negative consequences because it trades one cardiovascular risk factor (blood pressure) for another (renin/aldosterone)."

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE (pdf 81.22 kB)

In 2010 the AP reported that Campbell’s was taking more salt out of its soups ...

Feb. 7, 2010
Campbell Soup lowers sodium

(AP) -- Campbell Soup lowered its fiscal 2010 sales forecast Wednesday and said it will improve some of its soups by cutting sodium further and changing their packaging.

The world's biggest soup maker now anticipates full-year sales will rise 2.5% to 3.5%, vs. its prior outlook for a 4% to 5% increase.

One year later, the AP reports soup revenue has -- you guessed it -- taken a big hit …

Feb. 18, 2011
Campbell sales, profit dip; outlook worsens

(AP) -- The Campbell Soup Co.'s fiscal second-quarter income fell 8 percent as soup revenue slipped, the company said today.

The quarterly decline was expected, but it came with some other bad news from the food maker. The outlook for the rest of the year is cloudy enough that Campbell lowered its guidance for the second time in about three months.
Campbell says it now expects full-year revenue to be essentially flat -- between a 1 percent decline and 1 percent growth, and earnings per share to fall by 1 percent to 3 percent.

The breaking news out of Canada this morning was that the Canadian Government has disbanded the Health Canada Sodium Working Group , a full five years before it completed its program of tracking whether companies were reducing the level of salt in processed foods. In a stunning blow to Canada’s anti-salt zealots, it appears that someone may have asked for the actual evidence of benefit rather than simply accepting activist-driven overstatement.

This Canadian action follows those in the United Kingdom to abolish the dietary mandate of the FSA (Food Standards Agency), the government unit most actively involved in salt reduction advocacy.

Kudos to those governments that demand actual evidence before proceeding to provide solutions for which there are no problems. It’s time our health policies move away from ideology back to science, where they belong.

I always find it a bit strange to see the looks of disbelief on the faces of journalists when I tell them that lowering the salt content of foods will greatly increase the obesity epidemic. How can that be?

Well, it’s quite simple really. People will eat more food and ingest more calories just to satisfy their innate appetite for salt. We have decades of experience with animal feeding as a basis for this statement. If you’re freely feeding cattle expensive feed, you add more salt to satisfy their appetite and limit their intake. If you want them to eat more feed, you cut back on the salt.

For the skeptics out there, we have a great many examples which everyone can easily identify with. When we cut the nicotine out of cigarettes, people smoked far more; when we cut the sugar out of soft drinks, people swilled tons more low-cal beverages; when we cut the fat out of foods, people gorged themselves on low-fat, no-fat foods to such an extent, they ushered in the current obesity epidemic.

What do you possibly think people will do when they face a big bag of low-salt chips?

All the pharmacists out there should not be surprised in future when they come across a rash of doctors’ prescriptions from their obese patients – “Salt (generic sodium chloride), for control of obesity – shake on food as required.”

First of all, I am pleased that the dietary guidelines have finally begun to focus on whole foods and eating patterns rather than isolated nutrients. It’s a pity that it took the dietary guidelines 30 years and a public announcement by the Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS to state what grandma’s always said. I am also pleased that the Dietary Guidelines talk so highly about the Mediterranean eating pattern, which has been responsible for the excellent health statistics of that part of the world. What the dietary guidelines do not state, however, is that the levels of salt consumption in the Mediterranean diet are about 40% higher than in the US diet.

The new guidelines, if followed, will have significant unintended negative health consequences. A very recent Harvard study links low-salt diets to an increase in insulin resistance, the condition that is a precursor to Type 2 Diabetes. What’s more, many nutritionists predict the guidelines will worsen, not improve, the obesity crisis because people will consume more calories just to satisfy their innate salt appetite. Still other studies link lowered salt intakes to low-birth weights and cognition impairment in children and a greatly increased rate of falls and fractures among the elderly. (It is a standard practice in assisted living facilities to place all residents on low-salt diets – and the rates of falls and fractures in these assisted living facilities are three times as great as in the normal home environment.) Another recent study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by two renowned Harvard researchers demonstrates that while hypertension has increased among Americans over the last 40 years, sodium has remained virtually unchanged. These findings totally contradict the urban myth that assumes increasing salt intake is the main driver in population-wide hypertension. If, over the last four decades, high blood pressure increased significantly but salt consumption did not, then the two are not related. The Dietary Guidelines regarding salt are thus more a product of ideology rather than science. There is not a single scientific long-term study demonstrating that population-wide sodium reduction will lead to better overall health – on the contrary, there is considerable peer-reviewed clinical research that predicts several negative consequences, across all age groups. That is why the Salt Institute has, for many years, been the only organization that has repeatedly asked the Secretary HHS to support a large clinical trial that would show the health outcomes resulting from population-wide salt reduction. This request has always been refused. Because the Dietary Guidelines recommend a level of salt far lower than any other country in the world and lower than any period in recorded history, it effectively places the entire population into a massive clinical trial without our knowledge or without our consent.

Appenzell, Asiago, Brie, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Casciotta, Cheshire, Doppelrhamstufel, Stilton, Fontainebleau, Gloucester, Fontina, Neufchatel, Jarlsberg, Parmigiano Reggiano, Roquefort, Saint-Paulin, Vacherin-Fribourgeois – these are just a few of the thousands of cheeses produced around the world. Cheese is composed of the natural proteins and fat from the milk of cows, buffalo, goats, or sheep.

In some cases, a cheese may have a colorful and romantic history, such as the fabulous Italian Mozzarella di Bufala made from the milk of the water buffalo rather than from cow's milk. How on earth did Asian water buffalo get to Italy? Some say they were brought to Italy by the Goths during the migrations of the early medieval period, while others say that they were introduced by Normans from Sicily in the year 1000, and that traders from the Middle East originally introduced them into Sicily. Another theory is that water buffalo were brought from Mesopotamia into Italy by knights returning from the crusades. Whichever theory you ascribe to, one thing everyone can agree upon – the texture, aroma and creaminess of mozzarella from buffalo is incomparable and it’s all the result of the simple coagulation of the casein protein found in buffalo milk.

Natural cheeses are often cured in saturated salt brine. The salty brining solution removes excess water from the cheese and also helps to limit the growth of unwanted bacteria. Brine-cured cheeses have a slightly salty, savory flavor that is quite desirable in a great many cheeses, including Appenzeller, Asiago, Gouda and Parmesan. For other cheeses, such as Roquefort, Stilton and Gorgonzola varieties, salt is an indispensible ingredient for the growth of the Penicillium mold that gives these cheeses their blue-veined appearance and characteristic flavor.

What was started as a means of preserving milk has evolved in to a class of products that is universally adored around the world. Cheese can be eaten by itself, with a glass of wine, with fresh or preserved fruit, honey or crackers - as a meal or an appetizer. Good cheese, made with real milk is not cheap, but it is, without doubt, one of humankind’s great inventions.

Cheese is so popular that the idea of making artificial imitation cheese, called cheese analogs, was inevitable. Cheese analogs are made most frequently from soybeans but also made from rice, yeast and other non-dairy ingredients. Because analog cheese is an entirely formulated product, it can have an unlimited shelf life, a decreased cost, any artificial color or flavor and any desired melting or stretching characteristics. It can even be made cholesterol-free. That’s simply because it is not cheese.

The latest development is reduced salt in cheese . This can be easily accomplished because, as mentioned, analog cheese is not cheese, so there is no need for curing and no need for natural fermentation. The typical ingredient listing for analog mozzarella are: water, vegetable oil, soya concentrate, salt, spirit vinegar, artificial flavor, lactic acid (dairy-free), xanthan gum, carrageenan and yeast extract. To make life simple, for the other varieties of analog cheese the ingredients and their order in the ingredient list is identical, except that colors may be added at the end – paprika for analog cheddar cheese, turmeric for analog edam and annatto for analog gouda . It’s like different varieties of PlayDough – just change the food colors!

By reducing salt, the vinegar, artificial flavor, lactic acid, xanthan gum, carrageenan and even the yeast extract may all move ahead on the ingredient list. Now, that’s progress!

Give me natural cheese any day of the week!