I realize I may be subject to criticism, pushback, and negative comments. However, this view is fundamental to my thinking, and I believe it is supported by ample evidence—based as much on common sense as on direct knowledge of production methods and the producers themselves. Nothing more.
I want to introduce some very simple concepts: lemon and sugar, water and heat. These elements can make the difference—for better or worse—between a high-quality fruit preserve, marmalade, or jam and an "industrial" one.
I use the term "industrial" with complete respect for those who produce on a large scale. I am referring strictly to industrial processing methods: those relying on autoclaves, cooking temperatures well above the boiling point of water, the use of sweeteners other than sugar, and the addition of thickeners like pectin (E440), stabilizers, colorants, and other permitted additives.
Unfortunately, for large-scale production, the industry invariably uses autoclaves. This is because it "costs less" than sound artisanal practices and is mistakenly considered safer and more economical. It is a practice so widely accepted that few of us question the limitations and consequences inherent in the use of autoclaves and high temperatures. It is deemed more "convenient" to invest in technology than to train a workforce. It benefits the product's price point on supermarket shelves in a fiercely competitive processed-fruit market. But what is the price we pay—not to the seller, but to ourselves? Perhaps the right question to ask ourselves is whether the artisanal product costs "too much," or if the industrial product costs "too little."
Furthermore, is it truly the best choice to opt for industrial foods—often out-of-season, of uncertain or distant origin, untraced or only partially traced, and all too frequently counterfeit or adulterated? Or would it be wiser to turn to "natural" food—defined as fresh and "untreated"—thereby avoiding the need for supplements or even medical treatments to restore nutrient levels and lead a healthier life? Food that is "zero-mile" or sourced through a short supply chain. And let us not forget that, in an ideal world, the farmer is also the processor and the seller of their own processed product. A "super-short" supply chain, I would call it. Unique.
Artisans know full well that quality production is not merely a matter of high-tech laboratory wizardry, but of common sense. "Natural chemistry"—as I like, perhaps a bit forcefully, to call it.
Let us return to our sugar, lemon, water, and heat. We are dealing with compounds (sugar and water), mixtures (lemon), and energy (heat). Yet, these are not the result of laboratory transformations in the strict sense. Nor is natural sugar—at least not if we consider what the locals in Papua New Guinea obtained by boiling sugarcane thousands of years ago, or simply by chewing on the sweet-tasting stalks. Admittedly, not everything that has happened to sugar over the centuries can be viewed in a positive light. For one thing, the way it is processed and marketed—as it has been for decades—means it arrives stripped of almost all the original nutrients found in sugar beets or sugar cane. Sugar 'seduces' us, and in the long run, I would describe it as an agent that unfairly alters our sensory habits. But that is another story.
Centuries ago, ice (water), heat (fire), and sugar were already being used to preserve food. Lemon stabilizes it and, when used wisely, enhances it. Oil is another example. And, of course, salt.
Some did it more skillfully than others; some for longer periods than others.
'Industrial chemistry'—with the countless elements of the 'E-number' world—did not save the world; it merely rebalanced—though not always successfully—much of what human greed had destroyed.
Balance. Awareness. Respect. Ethics.
It promises solutions that protect us in one way, yet deplete or impoverish us in so many others.
Mass-produced jam—to cite only one example—loses flavour, vitamins, nutrients, and colour.
It loses density and structure. Not to mention the sensory qualities of aroma and texture.
But it costs less.
Just like so many other canned products—and others besides.
However, what I find hard to accept is the way the autoclave is touted as a 'safe' method, implying that anyone who doesn't use one fails to offer the same level of safety and assurance.
That is misleading. Because 'those who don't use it'—be they few or very few (I haven't counted, though I believe the number is tiny)—must still meet extremely high safety standards if they want to sell their products. It is scrutinized just as much as—if not more than—those who "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (a quote from Paul Samuelson, Nobel price Professor of Economics).
Whereas those who use it...
— Enjoy Marche