This was originally written for our newsletter last fall but the prominence of Schneider’s ads for their all natural line of bs (bacon and sausages) makes it just as relevant so I thought I would resurrect it as a post.

Has anyone else noticed the ads that Maple Leaf is running for “preservative free” ham? Being the curious sort that I am and knowing the role of preservatives in the production of ham, I suspected that the claim was based on a technicality with the definition of “preservatives” rather than actually containing no preservatives. After some not so difficult sleuthing, it turns out that the “cultured celery extract” that is listed in the ingredients is a natural source of sodium nitrate. If Maple Leaf had put the sodium nitrate in the ham directly, it would be called a preservative and they wouldn’t be allowed to make the claim. However, since cultured celery extract is not considered a preservative, they can legally make the claim. I found a small article on cbc.ca that includes mention of this slight of hand. Here’s a quote from the article:

A Consumer Reports investigation of hot dogs found that brands that boasted that they contain “no added nitrates,” but listed celery juice among their ingredients, contained levels of nitrates and nitrites comparable to the cured brands.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/09/08/f-whats-in-it-cooked-ham.html#ixzz10NeDqDln

Sodium Nitrate is a necessary addition to any smoked meat – it’s one of the few things that will kill Clostridium Botulinum. However, there are good reasons for avoiding too much of it in your diet, including a link to cancer through the formation of nitrosamines. As well, it is salt and contributes to your sodium intake.

As we create more rules and definitions for labels we give the lawyers more opportunities to find ways of technically complying with the rules while clearly circumventing the original spirit of the rules. I’m reminded of the “Product of Canada” apple juice that contained 100% Chinese apple juice but under the rules qualifies for “Product of Canada” labelling because the value of the tin is higher than the juice it contains. (By the way, as far as I know, the changes to the laws haven’t been enacted yet – the wheels of parliament turn v e r y s l o w l y). Another example was the ban on importation of chinese honey because of unacceptable levels of an antibiotic – chloramphenicol. You’ve eaten chinese honey but you don’t know it. After the ban, Chinese honey was shipped to South American countries, blended with the domestic honey up to the limit to still be called Product of that country and then shipped to North America (in some cases of outright fraud, the honey wasn’t blended and just relabelled). If you’ve eaten honey that said “Made from a blend of Canadian and [insert name of South American country]” then you’ve most likely eaten Chinese honey.

In another example, Silvia fed me GMO canola oil without realizing it (and paid a premium for the privilege). She purchased a bag of “Organic” Corn Tortilla Chips. But they were produced under the “Made with Organic Ingredients” part of the USDA regulations which allows for up to 30% of the contents of a processed product to be non-organic. The canola oil the chips were fried in was not organic.

So what’s a consumer to do? Get educated and get away from buying processed anything. The longer the ingredient list, the more opportunities there are for obfuscation. The majority of what we sell here at the Stoddart Family Farm has a single ingredient on the list and we intend to keep it that way.

P.S. I’m not sure if everyone would have understood the oblique connection between the picture and the article. The picture is of 40t of compost that we had delivered recently. So essentially looking at the picture you would be correct if you uttered the words “What a pile of crap!”. Need I say more?