GMO-Free Water, Anybody?

A company in the USA is marketing black-coloured bottles of water as GMO-free, gluten-free and free of Bisphenol A (BPA), a compound produced when manufacturing some plastics. So what’s the difference between this water and regular water? Well, it appears there’s very little in terms of content or nutrition – but there is one resounding difference: the water itself is black.

The dark beverage was pioneered by Albie Manzo and Chris Laurita of New Jersey, who hit upon it at a foodie convention in the neighbouring state of New York back in 2011. After sampling the water, Manzo claimed that it left him feeling more refreshed than usual and so decided to launch the project as blk., the weirdest-coloured water on the market.

Why so Black?

The black colouring of the liquid allegedly comes from “fulvic trace minerals”, as well as the trace elements of more than 60 other minerals, according to the blk. website. The website neglects to specify exactly what these minerals might be, but does go on to say the water contains “powerful electrolytes” and elevated pH levels designed to neutralise any acidic taste from the other stuff.

What exactly does all of this mean? Well, fulvic acid is generally found in soil and peat and only occurs organically – which means it requires mining. It does encourage strength and growth – but in plants, not people. Therefore, its inclusion in blk. water is not very exciting from a health perspective.

On the other hand, blk. water does contain zero calories, zero carbohydrates and zero sugar, which is definitely good news for your health… but then again, neither does normal water. So essentially, blk. water appears to have no added benefits over regular bottled water – but it is black, and does come at a higher price.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of GMO

On the broader spectrum of things, blk. water either comes under the heading “ugly” or perhaps just downright “weird” of genetically-modified products. It’s one of a growing number of health fads, especially popular in the United States, which profess to offer numerous health benefits without actually having much substance to back up their claims.

However, all of GMOs shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush. Blk. water has made its gimmick expelling GMO from the list of ingredients – which can often be desirable – but GMO does have its uses. For example, increasing levels of land salinity in Australia is causing concern among rural farmers, who are struggling to meet food demands in the increasingly arid land. One GMO technique, plant mitochondria, hopes to alleviate the burden on farmers by reducing food shortages.

Meanwhile, back in 2010, the EU sanctioned the growth of genetically-modified potatoes for the first time, citing a lack of opposing scientific evidence as the reason. It was stressed at the time that the produce would only be used in an industrial capacity and would not be fit for consumption. Even this assurance was not enough for some opponents of the practice, however, who have made their voices heard in the intervening five years. 

Clearly, the moral and scientific grounding of GMO is still very shaky – but for now, blk. water have taken the opportunity to exploit that shakiness by marketing their uniquely average beverage.