Speaking to an audience of academics, government officials and World Health Organisation staff at a salt reduction forum in London, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) chief executive Tim Smith acknowledged that UK salt intakes were still well above its target of 6g/day after seven years of vigorous campaigning. He claimed that the UK has “turned the tide” on salt consumption, basing his claim upon the disputed FSA analysis survey showing that average adult salt intakes dropped from 9.5g/day in 2001 to 8.6g/day in 2008. What he didn’t mention to his chosen sympathetic audience was that these figures have been openly disputed as being inaccurate and inconsistent1.
Even if those figure were correct, claiming to have turned the tide when they have only reached 25% of their stated goal in 8 years is reflective of the ‘DON’T BOTHER ME WITH THE FACTS’ ideology that has characterized the anti-salt advocates involved with the salt and health debate. His statement is doubly perplexing coming only a few days two reports by Nielson and Kantar WorldPanel on the retail sales of salt in the UK. Nielson claims an 18% jump in UK retail sales of salt in 2010 (including cooking, table and sea salt) while Kantar WorldPanel claims volumes were up 26.5%! Granted, some of this rise was due to consumers using table salt for home deicing last year, but Nielson also recorded a sharp rise in 2008/09, which could not be attributed to the weather.
So while there is no doubt that the FSA’s strategy of ‘naming and shaming’ companies has coerced many of them to lower the salt in their processed food formulations, have consumers compensated for this by topping up taste with the salt shaker? The neural mechanisms for salt appetite that we have evolved over the eons certainly indicates that this may be the case2. In fact, the Salt Institute has prepared a number of Newsletters on this very subject3, 4, 5. So despite Smith’s claims of turning the tide, the preponderance of scientific evidence appears to disagree with the notion that public policies can supersede our naturally evolved physiological mechanisms controlling our intake and liking of salt4.
Or is it possible that, with the new government installed in the UK, the FSA’s chief executive has signalled that they will be cutting back their anti-salt campaigning, but felt obliged to claim some sort of pyrrhic victory. It certainly seems that way, particularly since he stated how important salt was in preventing microbial growth, toxins and spoilage as well as its critical importance in baking.
It appears that the whole salt and health debate may indeed have seen the “tide turned.”
---
1) McCarron, D.A., Geerling, J.C., Kazaks, A.G. and Stern, J.S., “Can Dietary Sodium Intake Be Modified by Public Policy?” Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 4, 1878–1882, 2009.
2) Geerling, J.C., and Loewy, A.D., “Central regulation of sodium appetite,” Exp Physiol 93: 177–209, 2008.
3) Satin, M., “Aldosterone: unlocking our understanding of cardiovascular risk,” Salt and Health Newsletter, 3(3). Summer, 2008.
4) Satin, M., “Salt Appetite Revisited,” Salt and Health Newsletter, 3(1), Winter, 2010.
5) Satin, M., “Salt Appetite,” Salt and Health Newsletter, First Quarter, 2010.
