On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:03, D L Thompson wrote:

>>From: Keith Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
>>Get walnuts which have not had their shells bleached
>>(sadly most have) the bleaching is wholly cosmetic
>>and uses chemicals that can only
>>harm the nut meat.
>
...

>I didn't know about walnut shells being bleached.  It's amazing to learn how
>much might have been done to your food even when you think you're buying it
>in its raw, natural state!
>
>Deborah
As it's the walnut season here now, I have been eating a lot.  I examined carefully 200
organically walnuts from a farm near here, looking particularly for any signs on the shell which
indicated anything about the quality of the meat.  I found nothing.  Many of the shells
(unbleached) had discolouration spots and specks caused by a mould.  Some shells had a tan
tinge.  Some were big, others small.  Some had a deep pattern, others were far smoother.  Some
were elongated, others almost spherical.  None of these differences pointed in any way to the
quality of the meat.  The meat itself varied in colour from pale cream with veins almost invisible
through to brown with sepia veins.  Of the 200 about 15 per cent had a small amount of fine white
hairy mould, rather like an untidy spider's web.  This made no difference to the flavour.  About 4
per cent were shrivelled.  Those that were shrivelled to about half the usual size had a more
intense flavour but were delicious.  Those that had lost all their moisture were unpalatable.  About
10 per cent of those I ate had a richer, fattier flavour - as if they had been dipped in melted butter
or suet.  These were magnificent, but there was nothing I could detect on the shell that pointed to
these gems.

That's all a bit boring.  The bottom line - for me, at least - is that shell appearance provides no
clue as to the quality of the meat, so there's no point in picking the nuts over to select the
prettiest!