Moves to cut salt levels in bacon and ham risk increasing potentially fatal cases of the paralysing food bug botulism, the Food Standards Agency has been warned.
Ham processors are particularly concerned at moves to reduce salt content to 2.13g per 100g by 2010 and to 1.75g by 2012. They said their concern was not because of a resistance to change, but was related to the health risks.
Lesse, both ham and bacon are a method of (amongst other things) using salt to preserve a meat. Thus using too little salt will fail to preserve the meat. Yes, I think we can all see that, can\’t we?
Malcolm Kane, an independent food technology consultant who advises the campaign group Consensus Action of Salt in Health, suggested that the objections from industry were because companies feared the shelf-life of products may have to be reduced below the current average of ten-day “use by” dates: “I’m disappointed. It is just a feeble excuse for doing nothing about salt levels. They don’t want to lower salt levels because they are nervous about consumer reaction and people not liking the taste with less salt.”
And along comes some fuckwit who says it\’s all about capitalism. How about the thought that they don\’t want to poison their customers, dimbo?
How about those people who don\’t want to eat lots of salt not eat bacon and ham then? Or would that reduce your opportunities to tell everyone else how they should live and die?
And what in buggery is wrong with people liking the taste of salt anyway?