Could the New Dietary Guidelines on Salt Do More Harm than Good?

Are the New Dietary Guidelines Hazardous to Your Health -- and Your Waistline?

February 14, 2011, news conference at National Press Club

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Could the federal government's new dietary guidelines have negative health consequences? The Salt Institute’s Morton Satin was one of several experts at a Monday, Feb. 14, news conference in Washington pointing out serious flaws in the guidelines.

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines, released Jan. 31, recommend a level of 1,500 mg sodium per day for more than half the population. If followed, U.S. salt consumption would be lower than any country in the world and lower than in any period in recorded history.

Satin, Vice President of Science and Research, says history suggests that increased obesity may be one of several unintended negative health outcomes. People will consume more calories just to satisfy their innate appetite for salt.

Watch a complete video of the two-hour news conference organized by The Weston A. Price Foundation here .

Satin's complete statement follows:

I am concerned that the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, which recommend a level of 1,500 mg sodium per day for more than half the population, may have negative unintended health consequences. You heard that correctly. The Dietary Guidelines may have a negative impact on health.

As a food scientist, I base this assertion not on opinion or ideology, or because my employer, the Salt Institute, represents the salt industry. I base my concern upon peer-reviewed medical literature that for some reason never made it into the Dietary Guidelines.

For instance, a recent study that came out of Harvard Medical School clearly links reduced salt intakes to an increase in insulin resistance , the condition that is a precursor to Type 2 Diabetes. The very title of the paper doesn’t mince words, “Low-salt diet increases insulin resistance in healthy subjects.” Healthy people placed on a low-salt diet developed insulin resistance within 7 days – that’s virtually immediately – 7 days! Wouldn’t you think that such dramatic clinical evidence, coming from such an authoritative source would be seriously considered in making recommendations to the American public? Well, it wasn’t. According to this latest evidence, the recommended reduction in salt intake will promote an epidemic of diabetes to go along with obesity.

And speaking of the obesity epidemic, the reduced salt Guidelines may worsen, not improve, the ongoing obesity crisis because people will consume more calories just to satisfy their innate salt appetite. We have decades of animal feeding experience as a foundation for this statement. And if there are any skeptics still out there, we have many similar examples. When ‘light’ beer was produced, people drank more of it; when we cut the sugar out of soft drinks, people swilled a great deal more low-cal beverages; when we cut the fat out of foods, people gorged themselves on low-fat, no-fat foods to the extent of ushering in the current obesity epidemic.

Based on this history and experience, what are consumers likely to do when faced with a huge bag of low-salt potato chips? Consumers will eat more potato chips, consuming more calories in the process.

The main concern about sodium is based upon the supposed connection between salt consumption and hypertension – an issue which has been hotly debated for the last 30 years. But what actually are the claimed benefits for salt reduction? They are a projected 2 – 6 mm drop in systolic pressure for people with hypertension. That’s it – a maximum of a 2 – 6 mm drop if you have hypertension and cut out 2/3 of your salt. Hypertensive consumers have to continue taking their medicine and any physician recommending this drop in salt consumption as a replacement for hypertension medicine may be subject to a malpractice suit.

While 30% of the population may experience this small drop in blood pressure, the available peer-reviewed evidence states that another 20% of the population will experience a similar increase in blood pressure. Have the 2010 Dietary Guidelines become an instrument of discriminatory policy, where one portion of the population will apparently benefit from their recommendations, while another portion of the population is made to suffer?

And even the very connection between salt intakes and rising rates of hypertension have been disputed recently in another study out of Harvard . This study demonstrates that while hypertension and obesity have increased among Americans over the last 40 years, sodium or salt consumption has remained virtually unchanged. These findings totally contradict the myth that assumes increasing salt intake as the main driver in population-wide increases in hypertension. If, over the last four decades, rates of hypertension increased significantly but salt consumption did not, then the two do not appear to be related. Since the primary reason for placing limits on salt was the purported link to hypertension, the exclusion of this most recent peer-reviewed study makes it clear that the 2010 Dietary Guidelines regarding salt are far more a product of ideology than science.

Among the other studies ignored by the Dietary Guidelines were those that linked lowered salt intakes to low-birth weights and cognitive impairment in children. Why were these studies never considered? Also ignored were peer-reviewed studies that demonstrated increased rate of falls and fractures among the elderly ? In assisted living facilities, where all residents are given low-salt diets, the rate of falls and fractures are three times as great as in the normal home environment.

A multiplicity of conditions and risks have recently been described in the peer-reviewed medical literature (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) that have been associated with reducing salt in the diet. To what extent have these been taken into account by the Dietary Guidelines?

Amongst the most egregious sins of omission is the refusal of the Dietary Guidelines to seriously consider the latest evidence linking low-salt diets to increased mortality and readmissions for heart failure patients. One of the most recent and well-controlled studies on this subject was ignored.

Further reducing the salt in our diets will have a negative effect on our dietary choices. While the Dietary Guidelines recommend increasing salad and dark green vegetable consumption, these items contain healthy, but bitter phytochemicals - broccoli is a perfect example. Reducing salt intake makes these foods less appealing and adversely affects intake . It is the salt that makes these food items more palatable – if not, they taste like grass.

The Dietary Guidelines praise the Mediterranean eating pattern, which has been responsible for the excellent health statistics in that part of the world. What the Dietary Guidelines do not state, however, is that the levels of salt consumption in the Mediterranean diet have always been and currently are about 40% higher than in the US diet .

There is considerable peer-reviewed clinical research that predicts several negative consequences for population-wide salt reduction across all age groups. That is why the Salt Institute has, for many years, been the only organization in the country that has repeatedly asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support a large clinical trial that would show the health outcomes resulting from population-wide salt reduction. This request has always been made without any pre-conditions and it has always been refused.

We are now eating less salt than we ever have. Up until the end of the Second World War, salt was the primary means of food preservation. Beginning in the 1950s, refrigeration took over that function and our salt consumption dropped dramatically.

But the 2010 Dietary Guidelines are recommending a level of salt far lower than can be found in any other country in the world and lower than in any period in recorded history. If actually implemented, this will effectively place the entire population of the US into a massive clinical trial without the consumers’ knowledge and certainly without their consent.

Public Law 101, Section 301 on the Dietary Guidelines clearly states that “The information and guidelines contained in each report required under paragraph shall be based on the preponderance of the scientific and medical knowledge which is current at the time the report is prepared.” With reference to the current state of knowledge on the relationship of salt to health, I do not believe that the 2010 Dietary Guidelines achieve this objective.

In fact, the Salt Institute believes the 2010 Dietary Guidelines on salt are confused, simplistic and far more a product of ideology than of science.

Following them could do more harm than good to the nation’s health.