I picked up a carton of organic orange juice from a Trader Joe’s grocery store yesterday. I wanted to get organic juice because I know how destructive non-organic agriculture can be.

There were two kinds of organic orange juice available. One had no pulp, which didn’t seem very healthy, given that the pulp in orange juice provides dietary fiber. So, I picked the alternative: Trader Joe’s organic orange juice “calcium added”.

trader joes orange juice with tricalcium phosphateWhen I opened up the juice back at home and had a glass, I was disappointed to discover that the calcium added juice didn’t have pulp either. My assumption that it would, because it wasn’t marked “no pulp”, was not well founded.

I started to consider more about how that carton of juice was marked. It was called organic, but the label said that calcium was added. Is that an organic practice, to add calcium to orange juice?

Looking on the label, I read the following ingredients: “Organic orange juice, Tricalcium phosphate”. Hold on. Stop the breakfast. The juice is marked organic, but the tricalcium phosphate isn’t marked organic. So, is the Trader Joe’s orange juice really organic?

Organic food is supposed to be free of synthetic (human created) chemical treatments. Tricalcium phosphate sounds like a synthetic chemical, but it isn’t necessarily. Tricalcium phosphate occurs in nature. It’s found in rocks in places like Morocco, and it’s also obtained from the bones of animals like cows and pigs.

I can’t find any information about where exactly the tricalcium phosphate in Trader Joe’s orange juice comes from, but if it comes from animal bones, that means that my juice wouldn’t be vegetarian, or at least not vegan. It’s not marked as organic tricalcium phosphate, and so I want to know whether the Trader Joe’s tricalcium phosphate comes from cows or pigs that were not organically reared. If that were to be the case, that orange juice would definitely not be organic.

However, if the tricalcium phosphate Trader Joe’s used came from the ground, well, I can’t find any reason to conclude that the mineral disqualifies the juice as organic, strictly speaking. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it would truly be beneficial for the health of those who drink it. Arsenic occurs as naturally as tricalcium phosphate, after all, and arsenic is not usually thought of as a health food.

I’ve got a little bone to pick with Trader Joe’s in terms of its labeling, though, saying that the orange juice has “calcium added”. It’s true that the calcium triphosphate has calcium in it, but it has other elements too: Oxygen and phosphorus. You don’t see the label reading “phosphorus added”, or “oxygen added”, but calcium triphosphate has more oxygen atoms in it that it has calcium atoms.

There’s a reason that Trader Joe’s just didn’t come right out and put “Tricalcium phosphate added” on the front of the orange juice package. They know tricalcium phosphate doesn’t sound like it fits with the ideal of organic food as easily as simple calcium does. It seems to be playing around the edges of what’s allowable within the definition of organic food.

Aesthetically, the Trader Joe’s organic orange juice with calcium added tastes like, well, like it has calcium added… At least, it tastes like it has something funny added to it. I can’t honestly say that I know what calcium – tricalcium phosphate – really tastes like. What I can say is that the orange juice tastes not quite right, and that’s the best reason of all for me to decide against buying any more in the future.

Unnatural Word Games By Sprite

March 19th, 2009 | Posted by jclifford in Reviews - (3 Comments)

I’m sitting in front of a bottle of Sprite soda that makes a promise, or at least it appears to.

100% Natural Flavors, it says.

I look to the short list of ingredients: Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, natural flavors, sodium citrate, sodium benzoate (to protect taste) Which of those are natural flavors?

I don’t know what the sodium citrate does. It doesn’t sound natural, but it might be, or it might not be a flavor at all. Carbonated water doesn’t have a flavor, so I suppose it doesn’t count as unfairly natural that there’s carbonation in the water.

Then there are “natural flavors”. Sprite claims it’s got natural flavors, but then it doesn’t say what they are. If they’re secret, how do I know that they’re really natural? Furthermore, how do I know that they’re a healthy sort of natural? Maybe those natural flavors are extract of poison ivy, dog poo and bread mold. What’s the point of a list of ingredients if it doesn’t actually list the ingredients?

Is sodium benzoate a flavor, if it is added to “protect taste”? That’s debatable, but it’s pushing the edge. Citric acid has natural sources – but is it still natural if it’s extracted to be a separate ingredient, apart from its source?

Finally, there’s high fructose corn syrup. There’s no such thing as corn syrup in nature. For that matter, there’s no such thing as corn in nature. Perhaps some syrupy substance might ooze from a pile of corn if it were left to rot, but I don’t think that’s the syrup that the Sprite bottle is talking about. Even if there was corn syrup in nature, the concentration of it into a high fructose state wouldn’t be natural.

It doesn’t seem very honest for Sprite to claim to have 100 percent natural flavors… unless the label is supposed to mean that there are just some 100 percent natural flavors in the drink, rather than meaning that 100 percent of the flavors in the drink are natural.

That’s clever word play, but it’s not fair to the natural language of people shopping for something to drink in a grocery store. If we had a Food and Drug Administration that was doing its job, it would regulate the use of this kind of language. Naturally, the FDA is too far in the pocket of agribusiness and food manufacturers to deal with such matters.

Snoqualmie Bitter Without Body

December 8th, 2008 | Posted by Truman in Reviews - (0 Comments)

I am fond of a red wine that lets its presence be known. I like to feel the way that the texture of my tongue adapts to a good dry wine that knows how to exert itself within my mouth, rolling through with a very slight initial sweetness to be replaced with a touch of sandpaper.

Snoqualmie’s 2006 merlot is not such a wine. It’s got the rasp down pat, but there’s no berry to go with it. Instead, I start out with a sharp, bitter taste, which passes straight to harsh without anything in between.

This wine isn’t bad, really. It’s just lacking – lacking in body. When I say body, I refer to the sense that a wine fills up the mouth with elevating sensations. It’s the impression of thickness in a liquid that is, of course, literally thin. A wine with body gives me the feeling of a capital O in my mouth. Snowqualmie 2006 merlot doesn’t reach that full inflation. It’s more like just an eeuhhh.

That said, Snowqualmie really does have an excellent label. The old red tractor is great, and the painted lines of the sky above are great at evoking late summer. I like the font too – and hey, a real cork is a plus!

Still, I bought a bottle of wine. Wine. I was hoping for just a bit more.