This week may go down as one of the bleakest in nutritional history. By total chance, two seemingly unrelated fragments of research coalesced to reveal the potential for unwarranted dietary recommendations, such as those promulgated by the Dietary Guidelines, to wreak havoc upon society.

In large headlines, London’s Daily Mail reported that researchers from Maastricht University in Holland have discovered that reduced salt diets during pregnancy lead to a disproportionate number of female births! Their conclusions followed a five-year study involving 172 Western European women aged from 23 to 42 who had all previously given birth to boys, but this time around they wanted girls.

Researchers instructed the women to cut out salt and eat lots of dairy products. Because diets with low levels of salt are not very palatable, many of the women dropped out of the survey, but 21 women stuck it out to the end. And, of the 21, 16 gave birth to daughters – indicating an astonishing success rate of almost 80 per cent!

Although this was the first time that humans have allowed themselves to be guinea pigs for such experiments, it will certainly not be the last. If the latest iteration of the Dietary Guidelines for American, expected to be released shortly, will ever be implemented it promises to be the largest clinical trial on record, using the entire population of the United States – 308 million people - as the test subjects. The new Dietary Guidelines recommend that Americans consume less than 4 grams of salt per day on average, a level lower than ever experienced in recorded human history and considerably less than that of any other modern society in the world!

If the researchers at Maastricht University are correct, this Dietary Guidelines recommendation may spell the doom of society as we know it.

No, I am not referring to our evolution into a female-dominated society similar to that living in the area north of the Black Sea, described by the famous Greek historian, Herodotus, in the fifth century BC. We all know that the all–female society of fierce warriors he called Amazons is little more than a myth.

What I am referring to is the second fragment of apocalyptic research recently announced by economists Gordon Dahl from the University of Rochester and Enrico Moretti from UCLA . They analyzed three million U.S. birth and marriage records, and found that married couples with one daughter are almost 5 percent more likely to split up, versus those with one son. And the effect grew more pronounced with more offspring. Parents of three girls are about 10 percent more likely to divorce than those with three boys. The numbers were even worse in other countries.

Mounting evidence in social science journals demonstrates that the divorce rate is eroding society as we know it and will have a devastating effect upon future generations (small as they eventually may be).

Were the Dietary Guidelines to be followed, the reduced salt diets recommended would lead to a veritable torrent of fairer sex births shadowed by an epidemic of divorce, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1857 British Matrimonial Causes Act.

The breakdown of society is another in the long list of unintended consequences resulting from the unwise and totally unwarranted recommendations resulting from the latest iteration of the Dietary Guidelines.

For years, I have gone on record highlighting the benefits of the “Mediterranean” diet . This was no second or third party pitch I was making. Having lived in Italy for almost 20 years, I have ample ‘first-hand’ experience of the diet and its many health benefits. At the same time, it was clear to me that this healthful diet was being misrepresented to fit the agendas of certain individuals and organizations in the health and consumer segments.

There is no doubt that everyone loves a winner and the hands-down favorite diet all around the world promoting good health is the Mediterranean diet, so naturally all the diet talking heads tried to pitch it in their favor. Lots of salads, vegetables and fruits, plenty of grains (bread and pasta), good cheeses, a lot of fish and a small amount of meat – that’s how all the Mediterranean diet promoters characterized it. And there is no doubt, the cardiovascular figures of Mediterranean residents are amongst the best in the world.

But all the pretenders in the medical institutions and the consumer group sector neglected to mention one very important aspect of the Mediterranean diet – it’s very high salt content. That can only mean one of two things. Either, they had no idea of what the diet actually was but pretended they did, or they knew it was a very high salt diet but purposely lied about it because it did not fit their agenda. After all, the urban myth was that high salt diets contributed to cardiovascular disease and if the Mediterranean diet was revealed to be high in salt, it would prove to be very embarrassing to their salt reduction agenda. Either way, it makes me wonder how consumers can still have any faith in the medical establishment when it comes to nutritional advice.

Aside from my personal experience of the food in Italy, there was a highly regarded publication by C. Leclercq and A. Ferro-Luzzi describing the high salt content of the Italian diet (1). This 20 year old paper was just reconfirmed by a recent study of A. Venezia et al, published in the May edition of the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition . And still, the Southern Italians continue to enjoy good cardiovascular health.

And salt is not a bystander to this good health paradigm. A key determinant of good health is the consumption of a sufficient amount of salads and vegetables. These foods contain the bulk of the essential water-soluble micro-nutrients we consume. You don’t get as many water soluble nutrients from any other source in the diet. And it is salt that makes salads and vegetables so tasty. Salt is what encourages a good, well-balanced diet. That is why we evolved to like salt as much as we do – because it keeps us healthy.

The doom and gloom prophets, the food police and the nutrition con artists are all preaching that our diet is killing us. Fortunately, most of us are blissfully unaware of this so we continue to enjoy life and thrive better than at any time in the entire history of mankind – just check out the health statistics on the CDC website .

________________________

(1) C. Leclercq and A. Ferro-Luzzi, “Total and domestic consumption of salt and their determinants in three regions of Italy,” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar, 45(3), 151-9, (1991).

(2) A Venezia, G Barba, O Russo, C Capasso, V De Luca, E Farinaro, F. Cappuccio, and P Strazzullo, “Dietary sodium intake in a sample of adult male population in southern Italy: results of the Olivetti Heart Study,” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 64, 518-524 (May 2010).

In a previous blog "Abolish FSA - Without Delay !" I mentioned that the new UK government was thinking of making major changes to the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Well, today, the UK government has ended speculation about the future of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), announcing that the body will retain its food safety remit but be stripped of responsibility for nutrition policy and labeling.

Under the plans, the Department of Health (DoH) will become responsible for nutrition policy while the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will oversee labeling and food composition policies.

The FSA was known to advance an activist agenda totally driven by misinformation rather than concrete evidence. Their role in nutrition policy will not be missed.

On June 15, 2010, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that public comments would be accepted on the Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 (Advisory Report). Individuals and organizations were encouraged to provide written comments and oral testimony could also be provided at a public meeting to be held in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2010 .

I submitted the Salt Institute’s comments (pdf 91.39 kB) that were accepted by the USDA for oral testimony. The oral testimony was well received and was cited in several articles as well as releases issued by other groups .

Aldosterone plays a major role in the maintenance of electrolytes and fluid balance and subsequent blood pressure control. Epidemiological studies that explore the connection between hypertension and cancer have found a higher rate of cancer-related mortality in hypertensive patients that have an elevated level of aldosterone. Recent research indicates that this may be the result of aldosterone-mediated damage to chromosomes and DNA in kidney cells.

For most people, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is activated when our salt consumption drops below current levels. Although cardiovascular issues were always considered to be a possible unintended consequence of salt reduction, this study is one of the preliminary indications that an increase in cancer-related mortality may be a consequence as well. The Salt Institute will maintain a watching brief on the clinical research carried out in this area.

In my recent blog, “Good Tidings ,” I mentioned that Food Standards Agency (FSA) chief executive Tim Smith claimed that the UK has “turned the tide” on salt consumption, basing his case 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. However, there was a strange tone in his public address that led me to believe that something was afoot. I got the impression that, with the new government installed in the UK, the FSA’s chief executive was indicating that they would be cutting their anti-salt campaign, which is which is why I felt that the tide had turned.

Well, there was more news on this front this week. On Monday, July 12, the Guardian wrote that Andrew Lansley, the British Health Secretary indicated that the Food Standards Agency may be abolished entirely. As part of the changes, the FSA's regulatory role – including safety and hygiene –would be reassigned to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) from whence it originally came.

There were the inevitable cries of foul – that the government could not get rid of a much needed watchdog agency , but I for one couldn’t be more pleased. The FSA was the poorest possible model of a watchdog agency and it's about time it was abolished.

The function of a watchdog agency is to make sure everyone is honest – everyone – a hard task to accomplish when the agency itself was dishonest and used taxpayers' money to advance an activist agenda totally driven by misinformation rather than concrete evidence. The agency completely ignored every bit of science that did not support their agenda, as though it didn't exist. They tried to bundle together bits and pieces of poor, incomplete information or opinion and pass it off as a real evidence - talk about putting lipstick on a pig! The FSA became the chief promoters of the big lie on the benefits of salt reduction.

Yes, we may need certain watchdog agencies - not pawns of any interest group, but honest scientists who can objectively evaluate scientific evidence and who have enough backbone and honesty to forgo advancing gratuitous solutions until sufficient evidence is available, rather than giving half-baked advice that will never benefit anyone except themselves.

Many of us take mobility and roadway safety during winter for granted, yet without salt, we could not cope with winter. Using obvious poetic license the latest SaltGuru video "Coping with Winter " uses a lighthearted, but memorable series of images intended to make people think what it’s like in winter without the benefits of salt.

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.

The impact of salt on health has been reviewed on a number of occasions over the years with mixed results. The latest meta-review of the evidence was commissioned by the German Ministry of Health just last year and concluded that population-wide salt reduction was not justified from a public health point of view. The controversial nature of the evidence will have great significance for international trade if salt reduction policies are ever enacted. This month's Food Technology Magazine features an OpEd I wrote on this issue.

When the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, an international agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) to reduce risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins, or pathogens in foods took effect. Intimately linked to the SPS is an additional agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), signed in the same year and designed to restrict the use of unjustified measures for the purpose of trade protection.

The aim of the SPS and TBT Agreements is to ensure that regulatory actions are not misused for protectionist purposes and don't result in unnecessary barriers to international trade. The intent is to reduce arbitrary decisions by requiring all health protection measures to be based upon an objective analysis of the preponderance of scientific evidence.

Import regulations that fall under the provisions of TBT or SPS Agreements are typically complex and frequently employ standards that create a high hurdle for imports. Exporters, whose own governments do not implement similar standards, find it difficult to understand the logic or need behind the regulations, so an objective evaluation of the science supporting them goes a long way in resolving disputes.

The core strategy of the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee report on "Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States" is the FDA removal of GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status from salt and the regulation of the amount to be added to each food category. Removing the GRAS status of salt and regulating what is an essential nutrient and arguably the oldest and most ubiquitous food additive in the world will be a monumental task and will undoubtedly have enormous consequences for food and food trade around the world.

Several European countries are major exporters of traditional food products to the U.S. Breads, olives, ham, sausages and cheeses--produced through processes standardized centuries ago--are typical examples. These products and processes are so well established that many are protected with geographic origin designations. Not only are products such as Parmesan and Gorgonzola cheeses, olives, anchovies, prosciutto, and pepperoni consumed directly, but they are also key ingredients in many other products such as pizza and pasta dishes.

These traditional products were developed long before refrigeration. Many employ high salt levels for debittering (olives), curing (hard cheeses), mold culturing (blue-veined cheeses), water activity control (black forest and prosciutto hams, corned beef, salamis, etc.), and storage (anchovies, capers, fish roe, salt fish). The intent of the IOM report makes it unlikely that these traditional products will be permitted. While it is impossible to say whether low-salt variations of these products will achieve market success or whether salt replacement additives will themselves come under regulatory analysis for potential health issues, one thing can be predicted with a fair degree of certainty. Regulation of the salt content of foods will be carefully scrutinized regarding its impact as a non-tariff trade barrier.

For exporters of traditional French, Greek, and Italian foods, the health benefits of the high salt content Mediterranean Diet have been acknowledged for centuries. Despite Americans' stable consumption of salt for the past three decades, ischemic heart disease death rates in the U.S. have fallen precipitously. All of the above are rational reasons to invoke the SPS and TBT Agreements to challenge whether the regulation of salt in foods is an arbitrary measure and an unjustified barrier to trade or one supported by the preponderance of scientific evidence.

Supertasters are people who experience taste with far greater intensity over the average. It is estimated that about 25% of the population are supertasters and women are more likely to be supertasters than men as are Asians and Africans. The cause of this heightened response is thought to be due to an increased number of fungiform papillae or taste buds. Although one would think that the taste sensation would be an advantage if it is more sensitive, this is not always the case. An increased response to bitterness may severely limit the range of foods that are palatable. Vegetables have important phytochemicals that are protective of heart disease and cancer risk but their natural bitterness may turn supertasters off.

A potential unintended consequence of population-wide salt reduction has been highlighted in a paper by John Hayes and colleagues from Pennsylvania State University, published in the latest edition of Physiology and Behavior .

Hayes and colleagues examined the response of supertasters to varying amounts of salt in a wide range of foods. As indicated previously, these supertasters make up about 25% of the population and are genetically hypersensitive to bitter tastes, leading them to naturally avoid some vegetables and other foods that taste naturally bitter.

The researchers measured the liking and intake of foods with varying amount of saltiness among 87 healthy adults (45 men).

Supertasters reported greater saltiness in chips and pretzels and soup broth at levels comparable to regular-sodium products. They also found greater sensory enjoyment to growing salt concentration in cheeses (where sodium ions mask bitterness).

Despite adding less salt, supertasters consumed more sodium through food, as salt was more important to preference, both for its salty taste and masking of bitterness. This suggested to the researchers that supertasters appreciate increased salt in food formulations to mask naturally bitter foods particularly vegetables and other foods that may be deemed to be healthy.

Researchers at the Medical College of Georgia have documented a chain of events showing that excess fat can cause the body to retain more sodium and, consequently, more fluid resulting in higher blood pressure.

Their findings point toward a biomarker in the urine that could one day help physicians identify the most effective therapy for these patients.

Team leader Yanbin Dong said, "It's well established that obesity increases inflammation, salt sensitivity and high blood pressure," referring to the study in the American Journal of Physiology Regulatory - Integrative and Comparative Physiology .

Dong's team outlined the process that appears to start with fat producing more inflammatory factors, such as interleukin-6, or IL-6.

When he and his colleagues exposed mouse kidney cells to the fat inflammatory factor, interleukin-6, they found increased salt reabsorption.

Whether the mouse reactions function the same way in humans remains to be seen, but it appears Dong may have found a way to gauge this activity in humans. Dong already is measuring obese people with and without hypertension as well as normal-weight individuals. A simple urine test could one day help identify those at risk for or experiencing this type of inflammation-based hypertension, he said.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture may increase health risks, including obesity, by ignoring sound science as they announce recommendations to reduce sodium consumption to 1,500 mg per day. It is reckless for the government to risk the health of Americans by relying on substandard levels of evidence and refusing to consider new evidence.

The rationale behind the recommendation is purportedly blood pressure reduction. While no one doubts that a small percentage of our population may experience modest blood pressure declines from salt reduction, it has not been scientifically established that a population-wide reduction will benefit overall health. Research indicates health risks for some on low salt diets, including higher risk of heart attacks. And new research shows that not a single modern society consumes such a low level of salt as that recommended (less than 4 grams of salt per day). This recommendation is essentially an unauthorized massive clinical trial using 300 million Americans as guinea pigs.

Recent research (Can Dietary Sodium Intake be Modified by Public Policy? David A. McCarron, Joel C. Geerling, Alexandra G. Kazaks, Judith S. Stern) involving data collected from more than 19,000 individuals in 33 countries has demonstrated that healthy humans, all around the world, consume sodium within a relatively narrow range (2700 mg- 4900 mg sodium) – a range controlled by a number of physiological mechanisms. The DGAC recommended level of 1500 mg is drastically lower and will result in unintended health consequences if Americans strive to reach the recommended target.

Most nutritionists agree that reduced sodium in food preparations will very likely increase the obesity crisis because individuals will consume more calories just to satisfy their innate sodium appetite and their search for eating satisfaction.

Perhaps the greatest failure of the Dietary Guidelines is their priority focus on single nutrients rather than the whole diet. Concerns over blood pressure would be better addressed if Americans would eat more salads, vegetables and fruits. Italians consume more salt than Americans yet they have better cardiovascular health because they eat a well balanced diet. They use salt to make healthy foods more delicious...without adding calories.

The public comment period on the Dietary Guidelines is June 15 to July 15.

Road weather information systems (RWIS) provide snowfighters with unprecedented access to crucial, real-time information enabling improved winter roadway operations, improved public safety, mobility and productivity. Like all road management improvements, innovative RWIS technologies reduce the exposure of road agencies and road users to certain liabilities.

The effect can be cross-cutting. The potential for improved safety, for example, raises realistic public expectations that better plowing and salting will cut the number of crashes, injuries and fatalities. These issues are examined in a new report issued earlier this month by Jaime Rall of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Weather or Not? State Liability and Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) . The NCSL report is a resource for state legislators and state DOTs.

NCSL explains why this is an important question:

Weather significantly affects the traveling public and the transportation agencies that operate and maintain the nation’s roadways. Recent studies estimate that 24 percent of all crashes and 17 percent of traffic fatalities are weather-related—more than 1.5 million accidents per year, resulting in over 673,000 injuries and nearly 7,400 fatalities.1 Adverse weather also is the second-largest cause of non-recurring highway congestion, accounting for approximately 15 percent of traffic delays nationwide. Winter road maintenance alone accounts for about 20 percent of state DOT maintenance budgets. State and local transportation agencies spend more than $2.5 billion each year on snow and ice control operations, and more than $5 billion to repair weather-damaged roadway infrastructure.

Because RWIS systems deliver a benefit cost ratio between 2:1 and 10:1, RWIS adoption has been broad and rapid in the North American snowbelt; at least 44 states and DC have RWIS systems. The data from 33 states and three cities are integrated into the huge "anytime, anywhere" Clarus database available to all transportation users and operators.

The power of this information is a two-edged sword and state DOTs, says NCSL, are exposed to legal liabilities with regard to its public, particularly online, dissemination of this information (the problem isn't entirely mitigated if a third party like Clarus is involved), altered standards of liability for road agencies under their duty to respond to the new RWIS information and potential suits for agencies that choose not to use this useful tool.

The report makes it clear that

RWIS can help DOTs avoid a “breach of duty,” without which there is no liability, by helping them meet their legal duties. When a DOT has notice of a dangerous condition, these duties include exercising reasonable care to either alleviate the condition or provide adequate warning to the traveling public. Because RWIS can help a DOT meet these responsibilities—for example, by supporting better informed maintenance decisions, automated road treatments and real-time traveler information—it can thus reduce exposure to certain liabilities.

RWIS also creates new duties: Undertaking a new practice or service that affects public safety creates a duty to perform it with reasonable care." In sum:

RWIS might also affect what constitutes a standard of reasonable care for the traditional duties of state DOTs, raising expectations for how DOTs handle dangerous situations. There are earlier decisions in which the lack of advanced RWIS-type technologies was mentioned. In 1982, for example, the Supreme Court of Michigan held the state DOT not negligent because, among other factors, “the technology available at the time of the accident was not advanced to such point as would permit the installation of a flashing sign which would be automatically activated upon the actual appearance of ice on [a] bridge…” Now, however, real-time detection and automated
warnings are available.

The report makes a series of recommendations on how agencies can manage these new liabilities.

A decade ago, road safety and mobility policy pinned its hopes on technology to abate the appallingly high highway fatality rate. That bright promise has been laboring, not languishing, but clearly needs a boost to achieve the vision of harnessing wireless technology and on-board vehicle communications to overcome distracted driving and make our roads both safer and reliably free-flowing. A new DOT white paper, Achieving the Vision: From VII to IntelliDrive , suggests adding a new component to the strategy -- road weather information (RWIS) data -- to break through the policy "chicken and egg" conundrum of whether to invest first in "smart roads" or rather in "smart cars."
The white paper outlines a research strategy for the next five years incorporating RWIS information. Noting that RWIS systems are an increasingly common infrastructure enhancement, the white paper opines:

For both road weather and environmental applications, vehicle systems may be a powerful source of new data. In the case of road weather, for example, vehicle-based data can supplement conventional weather data, primarily collected in the atmosphere, to provide more relevant and pervasive information about roadway surface conditions. For instance, activation of automatic stability control systems on multiple vehicles in a common location could indicate slippery pavement that needs treatment. Similarly, vehicle-based data may provide new information sources that could enable new transportation management techniques that are sensitive to environmental impact. For example, data generated from IntelliDrive systems may provide system operators with detailed , real-time information on the location, speed, and operating conditions of vehicles using their system. This data could enable transportation agencies to manage system operations more efficiently -- for example, by adjusting traffic signal timing to accommodate the predominant directional flow of traffic, which can save fuel and reduce environmental impact.

For snowfighters, this means that tools developed to help them speed their lifesaving emergency service of restoring roadway safety and mobility will have broader application. As slippery roads trigger the anti-skid brake systems and in-pavement "loops" detecting traffic flow document the congestion of snow- and ice-covered roads -- the primary impairment to winter safety and mobility -- these same tools used by snowfighters in managing their operations will provide a key input into our national vision for safer roads and more reliable roadway mobility.

Most salt reduction advocates maintain that we are eating more salt now than ever before in history. They don't have any data to back up this claim, but they were never particularly fastidious about getting real evidence. However, the question of how much salt we ate in the past intrigued me, so I decided to seek out reliable evidence from other sources. It struck me that the military were always meticulous in maintaining and preserving their archives, so I decided to see if I could find out the daily salt rations provided to soldiers over the last 200 years. I hit pay dirt!!

During the War of 1812, the daily salt ration for the Continental army was 18g of salt/day (1).

The United States declared war on England on June 18, 1812 to protest the undue control of the British government over the lives of Americans. Captured US forces were first shipped up to Canada and thereafter crammed into ships for the long, cold voyage to England and the prison camps of Chatham and Portsmouth. Each man was given a daily ration of a pound and a half of coarse bread (8-10 g salt), some boney beef, 9 g of table salt and one or two turnips a week. American prisoners of war described their treatment by the British as "ungenerous, inhuman and unmerited oppression." (2)

The Mexican War ration was established in 1838 and also contained 18g of salt/day.

The Civil War rations enacted by Congress in 1860 and 1861, increased the variety of foods in the ration but maintained the 18g salt/day.

During the Spanish American War very few changes were made to army rations with the exception of a slight increase potatoes and a decrease in wheat flour and beans. Again, the salt ration was kept at 18g/day.

During World War I - the daily army reserve ration included a one-pound can of corned beef containing (10g salt), two 8-ounce tins of hard bread (4g salt), and 4½g of table salt for a combined total of 18½g salt. (3)

During World War II, the salt ration for American prisoners of war in Germany was 20g salt/day and the ration for Italian POWs interred in South Africa was likewise 20g salt/day. (4)

The bottom line is that we are now eating about half that amount of salt.

============

(1) Rations: The History of Rations, Conference Notes, Prepared by The Quartermaster School for the Quartermaster General, January 1949.

(2) James Adams, Dartmoor Prison, A Faithful Narrative of the Massacre of American Seamen, to Which is added a Sketch of the Treatment of Prisoners During the Late War by the British Government (Pittsburgh, S. Engles, 1816).

(3) “Special Rations for the Armed Forces, 1946-53", By Franz A. Koehler, QMC Historical Studies, Series II, No. 6, Historical Branch, Office of the Quartermaster General, Washington D.C. 1958.

(4) American Prisoners Of War In Germany, Prepared by Military Intelligence Service War Department, November 1945, Restricted Classification Removed - STALAG 17B (Air Force Non-Commissioned Officers).