Sodium chloride is naturally present in all foods, both elements are essential. Human use began in pre-history. It was used extensively by early humans as a food preservative because of its toxic effect on micro-organisms and drying properties.
...
Sodium chloride is a toxic agent but it does not ordinarily occur in natural foods nor in most inland waters at toxic levels. It would appear that toxic levels are usually added by human intervention...
http://www.springer.com/food+science/journal/11130
I tried to follow that link, but I don't see how to get to the text you quoted.
In any case, in the sense of "toxic" employed above, just about anything qualifies. It's not toxic in the sense that, say, hemlock is toxic.
I don't see here a differentiation between health effects of consuming plain-old NaCl and those of consuming Himalayan Salt.
I think in the end it comes down to... how much "tinkering around" are you able to condone happening to your food before you consume it?
If common table salt has additives, and has minerals removed, and is heat treated, and is bleached, and is tinkered with to no end..... vs .... Himalayan salt which is delivered in a closer to natural state, uncontaminated, unrefined (kinda like organic food vs pesticide ridden, pasteurized, and preservative laden food)... which one are you gonna bet on?
And why would you want to eat "salt" that has been stripped of all of it nutrients so completely... that manufactures have to artifically add back in iodine, which is essential to human thyroid function and hormone balance.
This notion of a "natural state" for salt puzzles me. It seems unlikely to me that over time the human body adapted itself to a mineral mixture extracted from the Himalayas. Rock salt is mined in many places, with different mineral prevalence. For example, here's an MSU geology department page regarding the "natural" salt in the Detroit area:
http://www.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/saltminingM.html
What makes Himalayan salt more "natural" than Detroit salt? I'm getting the sense that those Detroit folks are missing a marketing opportunity.
Does natural salt always occur with iodine? Not where it's most abundant, in our oceans. According to the US Geological Survey (
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFaP-KGfoULOJCQl-qdbzNcwpxoEQ), sea water is only .05 parts per million iodine. However, at 35g salt/kg water, (a ballpark figure; apparently it varies) sea water is 35,000 parts per million salt.
As for bleach -- where do you see that? It's naturally white, from what I can see in my reading. Different colors occur when it's mixed with different mineral deposits -- which even in nature it isn't always.
As for heat treatment, I'm not sure where you see that either, but I don't see how it matters. I remember learning back in 8th grade that NaCl's ionic bond was quite strong and more or less indifferent to any amount of heat any of us ever encounter (even in the broiler). If you'll accept data from "the salt institute" at
http://web.archive.org/web/20132520...tinstitute.org/About-salt/Physical-properties (it's a materials information sheet; there are many other sources), it melts at 1,473.4° F.
As for salt's "nutrients" -- it *is* a nutrient. Certain levels of consumption are necessary; others are harmful.
In the midst of all this, I don't see any evidence that consuming quantity X of NaCl from a Himalyan salt container will have a different health effect than consuming the same quantity of NaCl from an iodized Morton's salt box.