Talk:Sea salt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

A note[edit]

There seems to be no reason to have this page. For one thing, sea salt is NOT sodium chloride (it contains sodium chloride). All of the information can be accomodated in the article salinity Marshman 00:40, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You have to got be kidding me. A section of the taste of salt!!?? Salt is salt and it tastes like salt what is this nonsense about mouthfeel all salt tastes the same and its made of the same stuff. SALT!
I would have thought this article would discuss sea salt in cuisine, sources of sea salt used in cooking (there are several methods of manufacture - I've always wondered how the Brittany method worked exactly), whether it really tastes different, etc - but I see that this is all scientific bits that would be OK for salinity. Stan 01:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agreed (in VFD -- disagreed with myself) that there would be value in keeping sea salt for this other information Marshman 07:03, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the fuss about having a separate article on sea salt. It's a common item in supermarkets and it is useful to know about it's specific properties and which ones are facts rather than urban legends. --Theorize (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since sea salt is sometimes touted as a natural more healthy alternative to common table salt, it seems to me entirely appropriate to include a factual article about it. In my search to identify it's constituents, all the breakdowns I have seen are in terms of atomic composition as opposed to molecular composition. The latter would arguably be far more useful in determining any potential health benefits and in understanding the effect of sea salt on the human body. E.g, I believe one of sea salts molecular constituents is Magnesium Sulphate, a laxative.Emansnas (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


  • sea salt - This page is somewhat redundant with salinity. I suggest deletion after material under sea salt (which has value) is moved to salinity. Marshman 01:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and moved material out of sea salt into salinity. Now I see there is also a page sea water. This too seems a redundant topic that could be blended into salinity. I'm open to suggestions as sea water is a common term -- but I note if one types seawater (also correct), one is transported to Oyster culture. Marshman 01:38, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I guess I'm just talking to myself here ~ But went ahead and created a redirect from seawater to sea water. I'm now inclined to think we want to keep sea water and persue slightly different thoughts under salinity and ocean-only sea water Marshman 02:15, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Sea salt has a seperate meaning as a culinary term, I added some information on this aspect. SimonP 20:25, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • Sea salt has historial importance. For example, the salt march of Mohandas Gandhi is a classical example of nonviolent disobedience. Somebody should add a section about history of sea salt in the article. wshun 23:05, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree, the more technical aspects should be under sea water and salinity / sea salt could be used for the culinary and social/historical aspects of this important substance. Marshman 23:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep Sea Salt for Culinary and cultural information reasons, very distinct from sea water. RB-Ex-MrPolo 06:56, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Suggestion: merge[edit]

I suggest this article is merged with the article "Edible salt". --Eleassar777 11:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Now that's a sensible merger. --Wetman 11:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There has also been a massive omission of Cayman Sea Salt.See caymanseasalt.com

  • Not a bad suggestion. I'm starting to wonder whether Table salt should cease to be a redirect, since some people consider it to be synonymous with sodium chloride, whereas others with edible salt. --Rebroad 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough With The Suggestions To Get Rid Of This Page[edit]

I found this page by searching for "sea salt" in Wikipedia. So stop believing your suggestions are what's best for the readers. I never would have assumed to search for this information under "salinity", or even "edible salt", as Sea Salt is marketed and known by this name.

  • I second this. Chefs and gourmands regard sea salt as distinct from table salt as an ingredient in recipes; this should be enough reason to distinguish the two. --Soultaco 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I third this.
  • There is a reason for this page. But I do have a problem with the "some claims" of a different taste. I believe that the Einstein reference says it doesn't "necessarily" taste different, which is true. And it's not necessarily different for people avoiding salt in their diet. The way the article is worded however, implies that some people claim it can *never* be distinguished. The different taste should be one of the main concerns of this article. Also the Einstein book

http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring02/001183excerpt.htm gets the whole cooking pasta issue wrong. You add salt after it boils, because salt water takes longer to boil, you add salt with the pasta, so that the saltiness cooks into the pasta, so that salt is more evenly distributed in the dish. So I don't trust the book entirely. Another important point here is that most salt used today is a bi-product of oil discovery and production, that's why salt is so cheap. mjolsnes Oct 2006

Wow[edit]

who knew so many people cared this much about salt?

If one considers the massive salt sales across the world, it should not be a surprise.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Health benefits?[edit]

The Taste section currently begins, "Its purported health benefits notwithstanding…". What purported health benefits are those? —mjb 04:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Health Benefits[edit]

"Its purported health benefits notwithstanding, gourmets believe sea salt to be superior to ordinary table salt."

This sentence references purported health benefits which are never discussed in the article.


I would be curious to see any info related to the impact of sea salt on hypertension as compared to regular salt's impact. There seems to be less Na per gram in sea salt, and Na is what is usually blamed for increasing blood pressure, but is there any evidence to say that sea salt is better for you? Tom Hubbard (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In many countries with salt mines, table salt IS sea salt. The people who seem to think there is a difference between "sea salt" and "ordinary table salt", must be assuming that "ordinary table salt" comes from a salt mine, which is not a world-wide view. Also, salt from salt lakes does not seem to have been considered at all.Eregli bob (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Typically table salt has iodine (not always) and sea salt has a higher magnesium content and less sodium per unit measure, due to the dissolved solution content in the sea. So, there is a difference.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"According to The Mayo Clinic and Australian Professor Bruce Neal, the health consequences of ingesting sea salt or regular table salt are the same, as the content of sea salt is still mainly sodium chloride."
Does anybody else think this is one of the dumber statements on Wikipedia? That's like saying the health consequences of ingesting sea water or fresh water are the same, as the content of sea water is still mainly water. Or how about your latest pharmaceutical de jure is no better than a potato as its main ingredient is a starch bulking agent. Cloudswrest (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not dumb. It's perfectly accurate and meaningful, except for the strange situation of an Australian differentiating between sea salt and regular salt. In Australia regular salt IS sea salt. HiLo48 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Caveat emptor[edit]

Many consumer brands of sea salt are pure sodium chloride. It's just refined from seawater instead of rock salt. These brands sell a salt that tastes no different but has a different texture (usually coarser) than garden-variety "table salt". Buyers should check that what they're buying is unrefined seawater evaporate, if they really want the sea salt that doesn't taste like a purified chemical. That's what sodium chloride tastes like to me. 68.121.165.9 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This raises a good point- what, exactly, is the "legal" definition of "sea salt". The reason I visited this page was to see what the FDA (or whomever) requires - Just like "organic" or "natural", these labels are getting harder to figure out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.160.138 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found no legal definition of sea salt, and my experience is that even reputable producers do not detail their product analysis, if they ever do one. There is little discussion of the metabolic or culinary effects of the ~15% by weight of 'other' components of sea salt, and none about possible contaminants and organic matter (algy, diatoms, fungi, other microbes, and increasing pollutants) that must be in any sea water residue, and therefore certainly in at least some 'sea salt' labeled products.
Wikidity (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading?[edit]

I'm a little concerned about this statement:

"However, unrefined sea salt contains many important minerals that regular iodized table salt does not contain."

Does it contain them in amounts that are significant to a person's health? If not, I think this assertion is somewhat misleading. I mean a Snickers bar contains important minerals too, but people don't really consider them especially healthy...

Forgot to sign! Actionsquid

okay well i gotta question does anyone know how it is transported? its homewrk that is the only reason im on this thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.114.153 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Calcium and potassium are definitely important for health, but they're also easy to get from other sources. It'd be incorrect to say sea salt has no health benefit, but it'd be naive to think it's a significant one over, like, vitamin pills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Magnesium is important to heart health, and it is the second most abundant electrolyte in sea salt. It is missing in refined salt. It is not easy to replace the 100's of milligrams of magnesium missing from a daily dose of refined salt. It would collectively cost Americans of the order of $10B annually for magnesium supplements.

Reliance on supplements to overcome dietary deficiencies of modern table salt is an expensive and non-standard approach to protecting our food supply. To avoid the need for iodine supplements, American law requires salt manufacturers to add iodine to their product. It compensates for deficiencies in salt processing. For thousands of years salt in food contained all the electrolytes in useful proportion, plus other minerals. If modern refining of salt removed some healthful components, the reasonable course of action would be to have them restored.

Also, the human body needs electrolytes in balance. It would not be surprising if the main dietary problem with salt today is that sodium ingestion without the proportional ingestion of magnesium, potassium and calcium creates electrolyte imbalances. Keeping the electrolytes in balance seems simplified by using a salt throughout the food industry that has these electrolytes in balance, though some research on this specific issue seems needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.189.67 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Taste and health[edit]

"Gourmets often believe sea salt to be better than ordinary table salt in taste and texture, though one cannot always taste the difference when dissolved." This sentence needs some rewording to sound less biased.

"However, unrefined sea salt contains many minerals that regular iodized table salt does not contain, such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, sulfate, and traces of others (including heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium, as well as strontium)[citation needed]." sounds really interesting. I would really like to know more about the possibility of heavy metals in sea salt, but I haven't been able to find anything conclusive with regular internet searches. Can someone contribute more information here? --Theorize (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


I found the page through a Google search on "Sea Salt" because I was curious about the potential for heavy metals in sea salt. I would indeed love to see more information on this one. If it's just evaporated sea water, shouldn't there be all kinds of nasty things in there? I use sea salt and now I wonder. AncientWolf (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)AncientWolf


'Table salt' generally contains an anti-caking agent - Sodium Hexflourite being one. These chemicals have a taste for those who can take them. As a lifelong disliker of 'table salt' the discovery of sea salt was a revalation. It does not have the bad taste of table salt. The distinction here is one of additives rather than the source of the salt. However it is a real one. December 2012.

Downsides to Sea Salt[edit]

With our oceans and seas so polluted, what does this do to salt that is harvested from the sea? Does anyone know what downers there might be to injesting sea salt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.229.174 (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pollution[edit]

If sea salt is just dried-out, unpurified seawater from bays, and bays are constantly polluted by factories and ships going by (Ship pollution), does sea salt contain all these pollutants, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.68.161 (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And what about the microplastics that are everywhere in sea water? They even accumulate contaminants and toxins. --SchallundRauch (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Chemical Composition[edit]

There is a "Composition" section as well as a picture of the composition at the top of the page. The text "Sea salt is primarily composed of the following ions" accompanies the section. Solids should not have ions. Liquids can have ions. The listed composition is the composition of salt water. Salt water is not sea salt. As salt water sun dries, the ions in it should bond and it'll become mostly NaCl (not Na and Cl separately, as many internet pages seem to list). I trust this page [1] which says the other stuff in sea salt is negligible and sea salt has almost the same NaCl by weight as table salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.39.116 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Salt by any other name is still salt.[edit]

The salt that is mined from the earth IS sea salt, it's just produced by natural methods and aged (for example, the Great Salt Lake's salt flats are the remnants of an inland sea. The sea was cut off from its water supply and exit to the oceans and evaporated. Just like you make "sea salt" only this occurred naturally (which is to say, without people present). All salt mines are merely dried up sea beds that were subducted by plate tectonics. The comment about minerals being "stripped out" of mined salt is hilarious. What purpose would that serve other than to increase the cost of production? Give me a break. Renglish (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am equally sceptical. Nothing in this article convinces me that the difference is anything formal or clearly identifiable. It all seems like marketing and fashion to me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No, there is a technical difference. Now, that doesn't mean that some commercial enterprise isn't putting a fast one over you, tho', in their pkging of the product. The problem is that both table and sea salt have the same basic degree of sodium as far as health is concerned. Now, if the trace elements in seawater like magnesium are higher in sea salt, depending on one's body chemistry, you could benefit from it ... slightly.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sea salt composition[edit]

Is the last sentence in the paragraph not contradicting the sentence before it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatheringwithin (talkcontribs) 16:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Relative numbers - by mass?[edit]

Section Composition: is the relative composition really by mass? Or is it by molar? --Mortense (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Salt Farmers - Pak Thale-edit1.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Salt Farmers - Pak Thale-edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 11, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-12-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Sea salt harvesting

The harvesting of sea saltsalt obtained by the evaporation of seawater—in Phetchaburi Province, Thailand. Like mineral salt, production of sea salt dates to prehistoric times. Generally more expensive than table salt, it is commonly used in gourmet cooking because it is believed to taste better.

Photo: JJ Harrison
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


Component breakdown[edit]

This article needs a component breakdown of the average concentration of the compounds in sea salt, such as:
x1% Sodium
x2% Chloride
x3% Calcium
x4% Potassium
etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudswrest (talkcontribs) 17:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed -- this was long overdue. Done. 174.24.56.55 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This article has a weird and silly bias[edit]

In the very first paragraph of the lead we have "Generally more expensive than the more popular refined salt (table salt)..." In many parts of the world, including where I live, Australia, table salt IS sea salt. Almost all salt here and in many other places is produced by solar evaporation of sea water. So, contrasting sea salt with table salt is nonsensical. The article is obviously written from the perspective of somewhere in the world where the statement is true, in ignorance of what happens elsewhere, but we aren't told where that is. The places where the quote above makes sense need to be identified, and the truth told. I'd like to give the article a more global focus. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody care? HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Our systemic bias seems clearly on display in the thread below. Is that the problem with my question here? Nobody else can look beyond the borders of the USA? Remember, this is a global article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to keep bumping this thread until I get some discussion here. Is San Francisco all that the rest of you parochial editors care about? HiLo48 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't presume to answer for any other editor, but for myself, I don't actually even care about San Francisco Bay. The recent flurry of edits about San Fran seem to be all related to one editor's determination to insert non-RS fluff. The efforts to remove that were right and go against the tendency to give US-based information too much prominence. Adding global production and consumption of sea salt would be one other way to do this but most countries don't appear to distinguish between production methods for salt. This makes sourcing for such information more difficult than I, frankly, am willing to uncover. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pleased to sae another editor not caught up in the marketing hype. Actually, your observation about an absence of sources makes my point even more strongly. It's only the marketing of something called "sea salt" in the US (and sometimes now in other places too) as something special, unique, and somehow good for you, that causes the existence of this separate article at all. To differentiate between sea salt and table salt is meaningless in much of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Am I understanding that you think there shouldn't be a sea salt article at all, then? I feel there are sufficient historical and culinary reasons for keeping such an article, but If you think it will not survive AfD, by all means, nominate it there. There is already ample evidence above, however, that it would be opposed. In the alternate, are you saying that the article should de-mystify sea salt as a unique variant of salt, then I would agree. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The latter is my point. The article, right from the lead, is written as if table salt and sea salt are different things. In much of the world they're not, so the article is very wrong. It needs a major re-write. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Where sea salt comes from[edit]

It is all over the internet that almost all sea salt used in the US is made from San Fransisco bay water and there are multiple sources I have added for this. --Tarhound21 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be "all over the internet" but your sources don't support that statement. And two of them are commercial websites - not WP:RS. Please find a better reference. Vsmith (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources clearly back up my edit.--Tarhound21 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Two of your sources are promotional websites and are not WP:reliable sources. The third reference is a good source, but says nothing about ...most sea salt sold... rather it is about the environmental restoration of the salt ponds in the bay. Vsmith (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I've reworded and removed the commercial weblinks. Vsmith (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop re-wording what I wrote, it is fine the way that I said it. --Tarhound21 (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, your wording is not supported by your references. Please read WP:synthesis and WP:no original research. Vsmith (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The references say exactly what I wrote and that's the way it will stay. --Tarhound21 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:RS as commercial websites are not reliable sources except for limited basic info about the companies. I don't find anything about "most sea salt production" in any of the references, although it could well be true. If I've missed something - explain where the comment is supported. Vsmith (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The reference says the San Fransisco bay sea salt works is the only one is the US. The sources also say that cargil and morton, the two biggest sea salt sellers in the US use salt from the San Fransisco bay.--Tarhound21 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this at all. The content is about a single country, in a global article in a global encyclopaedia. It's undue, and doesn't belong there at all. I will remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a important and interesting fact that should be included. --Tarhound21 (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I say it's not important enough, and gave reasons. You failed to respond to my reasons. Your opinion without reasons counts for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


It is not undue, it is a established fact backed up by multiple references. Morton and cargil are not only the largest producers of sea salt in America but also the world, particularly cargil. And they get all their sea salt from San Fransisco bay water. I will change the edit to reflect that.--Tarhound21 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed WP:OR - not supported by reliable sources. The NASA ref is about environmental restoration and totally unrelated to your "fact". The Kitchen ref does not support the assertion either. The two commercial websites are not reliable references. Vsmith (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The references clearly state the edit I made.--Tarhound21 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You say "The Kitchen ref does not support the assertion either" but the kitchen reference clearly states "This is Cargill's only sea salt operation in the world, and in fact, the only solar sea salt production facility in the United States, period." Cargill is the largest producer of sea salt in the world, so clearly this back up my edit, not to mention the other references. --Tarhound21 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  • You've been reverted by three different editors, and all of them were correct: your sources are simply not acceptable. Morton and Cargill are not neutral or independent and cannot be used for such claims. Revert again, use those links again for statements that they can't support, and you'll be blocked. Your apparent inability to read WP:RS, which you've been pointed to, is not these editors' problem. Simple as that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with the reference http://www.thekitchn.com/come-along-on-a-159478 it is neutral and backs up my edit. --Tarhound21 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it does not meet our very clear definition of a reliable source. Hint: click that blue link and READ. ES&L 15:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hint #2: WP:CONSENSUS says the "interesting factoid" doesn't belong in the article - which means, it does not go in the article ES&L 15:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Note what it says at the bottom: "Information for this post was gathered during a press trip sponsored by Cargill Diamond Crystal Salt. All views and opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author." A standard disclaimer, no doubt, and in this case it's interesting to note that those views and opinions seem to be exactly those of Cargill's Corporate Responsibility office. Tarhound, those are things to look for (and if you looked at the comments in that kitchn.com article you'd see very quickly that there is considerable controversy over this very rosy sketch of an industrial operation.) In addition, the site doesn't seem to have an editorial policy that offers confidence in its editorial independence. But that's enough time spent on such a straightforward matter. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
We have 250000 existing articles that are {{unreferenced}} but we instead of writing encyclopedia we have to hassle an editor making a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Wonderful. Tarhound, try [2], [3], [4] for starters. NE Ent 16:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
There's two issues:
  • Reliable sourcing - Reliable sources are required for any article. Adding material based on unreliable sources is not better than adding unreferenced materials. It's not "hassling" an editor to politely ask them to provide reliable sources for their edits. However - the second of NE Ent's linked sources (the Bureau of Mines report) is indeed reliable and does indeed make clear on page 8 that in the US, all (commercial) solar salt production from seawater takes place in and around San Francisco Bay and southern California. So - while Tarhound's sources were unreliable, NE Ent's source is, and supports the San Fran/southern California claim for US solar sea salt production.
  • Undue weight - If we accept that the US solar sea salt production industry is entirely based in California, is it necessary to include this fact in the article? Of itself and given the shortness of the article, the answer might be no - otherwise we would include similar factoids about every salt producing country in the world. But the same Bureau of Mines report mentioned above finds that the US is the world's largest salt producer. So the question might become 1) is the US also among the world's largest salt exporters? If so the importance of California to the US salt supply chain potentially becomes a global issue rather than a purely US one and would deserve a place in the article. Alas the Bureau of Mines report doesn't go into enough detail. And 2) is California sea salt production, whether export or domestic, so large as a proportion of global sea salt production that inclusion is in fact "due weight"? On this point we might need more sources - the Mines report notes the US preponderance in total salt production but not simply sea salt.
Not having yet explored further sources, I don't know the answers to these questions. But on balance I don't see the harm in a reliably-sourced addition to the article referencing California's role in sea salt production. At least while we explore global supply chain issues or discover if Californian sea salt is some behemoth of global output.
Other views welcome as always Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Now that is the type of input/discussion that leads to new consensus about things - intelligent, well-reasoned, non-aggressive, policy-based ... yaaay ES&L 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
As useful as NE Ent's references are, I don't think they really support Tarhound's initial statement. The Bureau of Mines report, particularly, is very out of date. All data in that report are only through 1990. Furthermore, the other two sources make it clear that solar sea salt production in the San Francisco Bay area has decreased since that time, (both in terms of production and in terms of land devoted to salt pans) and that Baja California is a rising competitor. I would like to see a more-recent reference to Bay versus Baja production before that was added to the article.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sea salt is...[edit]

So, right up front, shouldn't it say if sea salt IS sodium chloride, or some other compound (like potassium chloride, e.g.)?? 141.158.64.226 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, because about the third word in the article is a wiki-linked reference to the salt article. NE Ent 20:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Grammar and accuracy problem in first sentence[edit]

It says "Sea salt is salt produced from the evaporation of seawater." It's not the seawater that evaporates. Just plain water evaporates from the seawater, leaving salt behind. I can't immediately see a good way to reword it, but invite suggestions please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense from Enclabs[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_salt&action=historysubmit&diff=652816288&oldid=652814942 is a revert where, in my view, unsatisfactory material is introduced into the article (by an account with an obvious conflict of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_salt&action=historysubmit&diff=652783116&oldid=636950048 ). I believe this material is unsatisfactory because:

  • "All salts (with very few exceptions) can be considered sea salts as they originated from a sea at some point in time." - this is nonsense in the context of the article, which is about salt which has been produced from seawater in the recent past.
  • "Commercially available sea salts on the market today vary widely in their chemical composition and none have the same composition and proportion of elements found in natural seawater." - uncited
  • The percentage composition that makes up the last sentence was per the citation given before the revert, not afterwards.

I propose to restore the status quo. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

First, the user is aware of the COI problem and has stopped adding the commercial website as a reference. The current version does need referencing. Most salt is mined from evaporite deposits that did result from ancient evaporating seawater. That is factual, but is it relevant to this article? Second, the statement that commercial sea salts "vary widely in their chemical composition" ... does need a reference and a cite needed tag was added in hopes the user might provide a RS for that. Is there any reference for the opposite? or for the claim that sea salt has the same composition as the salts in seawater? The Utah Geological Survey reference is for the average composition of seawater, and not for the sea salt product. And that reference also gives data for the Great Salt Lake and the Dead Sea showing considerable variation in the various ions. The variation in ion content of the Great Salt Lake and the Dead Sea would most likely hold for the resulting evaporated salts. The section needs work, but will a simple revert really be an improvement? Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it relevant? Probably not. And "can be considered sea salts" is silly, in context.
I don't think there is a claim that sea salts have the same composition as seawater, except perhaps by implication.
Presently we have a set of figures for seawater, cited to the UGS, which are not those in the cite. If nothing else, that should be changed back. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)