E-mail exchange with Maldon Salt: 8/31/2023-9/1/2023 (request for a retraction of information posted in the Lead Safe Mama overview article on salt)

Before I share the full e-mail exchange from the past couple of days with (UK-based) Maldon Salt (scroll down to see those e-mails), I wanted to share a few relevant points for context.

1.) This language has always been published at the bottom of our Salt overview article (link): 

“NOTE TO SALT COMPANIES:

If you work with a salt company and you have recent (independent, third-party) test results you would like to share with me (in a PDF form that I can publish on this website and link to your company listing above), please e-mail me at TamaraRubin@mac.com. I will also update the list above accordingly if your test results are different than the ones reported here.”

2.) An explanation of the information shared in the Salt overview article:

• • “So what is this list? It’s a list — a work in progress — of various companies that produce (mine, collect, gather), package, and sell salt for use in cooking, along with how much Lead (in parts per billion) is known to be in each brand of salt (in most cases, as reported by the producer of the product). Gina and other Lead Safe Mama friends and readers either contacted companies directly for this information or found it online in their publicly available product information. In some cases, they were able to collect this information from other independent sources who did testing of products from that brand.”

3.) Update from Maldon Salt this week (questions/ concerns/ considerations):

• • Maldon Salt contacted us this week to inform us that their salt has, according to their e-mail, a “less than 10 ppb” test result for Lead (based on testing the company appears to have done earlier this year in April/May 2023).
  • First and foremost, it is great news to hear that Maldon Salt is reporting a “less than 10 ppb” test result for Lead in their salt; until now, I have not heard of any salt brand that has a test result for Lead (from a verified independent lab) that was as low — so if this is correct, it will be an unprecedented first!
  • I also understand — and think it’s great — that, in light of this, Maldon is quite eager to “set the record straight.” 
  • This update (which originated from an e-mail I received this week out of the blue from Maldon Salt, see screenshots of the emails below) is a good first step.
  • In support of this assertion (and at my request), Maldon has sent me a PDF of what appears to be a heavily redacted copy of a lab test result for five batches of salt that tested “negative” for Lead (given a low threshold of detection of 10 parts per billion).
  • Maldon has also “asked” — actually demanded — that I not publish the test results they sent me. (To honor their request, at least for the moment, I made a very blurry copy of their report and took a screenshot of it [above]. What you can see in this image is all the redacted lines of the report — the areas with heavy black irregular lines across them — but none of their data is visible.)
  • What I don’t understand is Maldon Salt’s motivation for including what seems to be a veiled threat (with firm and repeated language) to not disclose their provided evidentiary data for the requested update/correction, especially when publishing that information would appear to be in their benefit.
  • As you can see from the above (point #1), we invite input with new data and/or proposed corrections by companies — but also clearly state that our policy is to publish the PDFs of test results, which include any new or contradictory data with these updates (test results from a valid independent lab/COA constituting proof of any contradictory data) on this website. It is not reasonable to accept these sorts of claims without proof, of course. Yet once we have proof in hand, it is appropriate — and vital — (in the interest of full transparency) to share these reports with the public (especially if the result would be adding an exceptionally low-Lead salt to the list of “Best Choices”)!

4.) How do you explain the discrepancy between the previously reported 700 ppb and Maldon’s self-reported “less than 10 ppb” noted in the e-mail exchange below?

• • The 700 ppb (parts per billion) was a level reported in our Facebook group in 2018.
  • A Lead Safe Mama community volunteer (and medical professional) researching the subject of Lead in salt compiled a list of data comprised of Lead levels for many salts and this is one of the pieces of data she discovered during her initial research.
  • The company is currently self-reporting a level of “less than 10 ppb.”
  • The pdf image that the Maldon Salt representative sent me (which, as you can see from the e-mail thread below, they asked me to keep “confidential”) is dated May 15, 2023 (reporting on testing completed on April 14, 2023), so it is possible the Lead levels in their salt may have changed (improved) over time (in the past five years).
  • It’s possible that our reported 700 ppb was a batch-specific anomaly.
  • It’s also possible that the company learned of our reported test results when we published the initial summary back in October 2020 and has made a concerted effort to clean up their product since then. 
  • Frankly, the above possibilities are pure speculation. It is hard to know either way without additional testing (or without reviewing multiple different reports across a generous time frame such as a full year) so we can see the range of results for their products currently.
  • I have followed up with Gina (the volunteer who assembled most of the content of this list for the Lead Safe Mama parent advocacy community) to confirm the source of the previously reported 700 ppb, and will report back here as soon as I have that specific information.
  • Important to note: sustained periodic testing (at regular intervals) is required to confirm the ongoing safety of any food product (including salt, spices, and supplements) over time. Said another way, just because a company sends one or more batch samples to a lab for testing (at one specific point in time) doesn’t guarantee that those test results are consistent across all batches over a month, year, or many years. (Note: In our communication thread, Maldon Salt did however claim that they “routinely” test [without giving any specifics about intervals].)
  • To be clear, I don’t have any specific reason to doubt Maldon’s self-reported “less than 10 ppb,” but the PDF of the attached  “certificate” they included in the e-mail as evidence for their requested correction (the PDF they demanded I not share publicly) was oddly a heavily-“redacted” document (basically, nearly every line of the entire document was crudely-blackened-out — every and all heavy metals results other than Lead)! Perhaps this was done for some innocent, if misguided, reason.
  • Had they sent me an unredacted PDF of their test results (along with a friendly, non-confrontational email) I would likely have simply updated the original article and linked the PDF with the data to the listing for their salt. The only reason I am hesitant to take them at their word is their choice of language in their communications and the fact that their report is heavily redacted. Frankly, I might not have questioned their test results had these considerations been part of the communication.

As noted in our e-mail exchange with the company (below), despite the clearly-stated language in the overview article (point #1 above) that we always publicly share this information (share PDFs with test results) — I am going to hold off sharing their heavily redacted report for the moment. I intend to give the company an opportunity (until next week) to respond to my most recent e-mail (sent on the morning of 9/1/2023). This gives them the “professional courtesy” to provide me an alternate “clean” (non-adulterated!) version of their testing report before I publish the bizarre “test results” they sent me, demanding that I not share the information publicly — yet the results were included as support for their request that changes be made to our overview article. I will also share a link to this article with them.