Print

News/Culture >> Browse Articles >> Food Writing

-1

In Defense of Fancy Water

In Defense of Fancy Water

GOOD Magazine

G: What difference does terroir make?

MM: If the water is in the ground for 15,000 or 20,000 years, it has more time to absorb minerals. Water doesn’t necessarily get better as it gets older, but if you have a source that was hermetically sealed for the last 7,000 years, you can be fairly sure that what’s there has very little industrial pollution. If you go to Tasmania, they collect rainwater, because it has the cleanest air in the world. The geography is not only shaping the water, but also shaping the perception of what water is.

G: And what is water?

MM: I have a background in wine, so I talk to wine people and I talk to water people, and they’re the same. They’re very passionate about sourcing where the water is coming from, and about the soil, so it’s basically the same idea: You have a natural product—one is wine, the other is water—and you need to protect the environment around the source, and have other people around the world share the experience you have by delivering them the water (or the wine) in bottles. It’s a very similar attitude.

G: Isn’t this all a little overblown?

MM: People laugh about water, but I also enjoy chocolate dramatically. I would contest that most Americans have never tasted chocolate, because they eat Hershey’s; that’s not chocolate, that’s a chocolate-like substance. Real chocolate comes from a plantation, from a particular species, and follows a particular process. That’s what’s happening as we move from bottled water into natural foods.



Related Reads: