mpiweb.org, the voice of the meeting planning industry, had a clever article in its October issue: it identified the "Ten Meetings that Rocked the World ." They include:

1. Marco Polo meets Kublai Khan in 1274 fostering in an era of global trade.

2. The International Olympic Committee in 1894 reviving the ancient Greek games to encourage competition in sport, not war.

3. John Lennon meets Paul McCartney in 1957, the birth of the Beatles and a new style of music.

4. The Fifth Solvay International Conference in 1927 bringing together such intellectual luminaries as Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr and launching a new age of quantum mechanics-based technology manipulating subatomic particles (e.g. lasers, transistors, diodes, etc.).

5. Dumbarton Oaks Conference in 1944 which led to the creation of the United Nations.

6. Ray Kroc meets Dick and Mac McDonald in 1954 leading to the birth of "fast food."

7. The Hampton Court Conference in 1604 producing the King James version of the Bible which represented the primary literature for its age.

8. The Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, the beginnng of the women's rights movement in the U.S.

9. The organization meeting of the Black Hand Secret Society in 1911. Ten Serbs created a cell of Serb nationalists who, in 1914, assassinated Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and precipitated WWI.

10. The Baghdad Conference in 1960 creating OPEC, the world oil cartel.

Did you pick up on the "salt" meeting? #4, the Solvay Conference. Okay, it's a stretch, I know.

Organizer Ernest Solvay had been sponsoring these conferences since 1911, the first one also being star-studded (Marie Curie, Max Planck and a younger Albert Einstein). Solvay was a Belgian chemist who became a philanthropist later in life. Fifty years before his first "Solvay international conference," in 1861, he had developed the ammonia-soda process for the manufacture of soda ash (anhydrous sodium carbonate) from salt (sodium chloride) brine and limestone (as a source of calcium carbonate). The process was an improvement over the earlier Leblanc process. Solvay Chemicals is still heavily into salt-based chemicals and, within the past decade, sold its salt business to K+S, both Salt Institute members, to make esco, the European Salt Company. At one EuSalt meeting in Brussels, we were able to tour the Solvay House.

October's SI Report includes stories on Gov. Schwarzenegger's veto of the California softener ban bill, January-June US salt sales and stories on consumer food choices and new research showing risks of high aldosterone levels (caused by salt-reduced diets).

On several occasions, we have reported on the current research linking reduced salt consumption with increased plasma aldosterone levels and their negative health consequences . We have done this as transparently as possible because this observed phenomenon is never considered by salt-reduction advocates. They focus uniquely on blood pressure as a cardiovascular risk factor to the exclusion of all else. It is little wonder that they are at a loss to explain why more people on low salt diets are apt to die than those on regular salt diets. In fact, the BPO (Blood Pressure Only) anti-salt advocates are likely to totally ignore the LSHD (low-salt, high death-rate) linkage.

Well, the LSHD linkage is not going away. The scientific evidence is mounting as can be seen in the most recent publication of Atherosclerosis . In an article entitled, "Dietary salt restriction increases plasma lipoprotein and inflammatory marker concentrations in hypertensive patients," author Edna Nakandakare and co-authors describe the impacts of placing people on low-salt diets .

Their research demonstrated that serum triglycerides, chylomicron-cholesterol, tumor necrosis factors, renin activity, aldosterone and insulin values all increased. They concluded that reduced salt intakes induced alterations in the plasma lipoproteins and in inflammatory markers that are common features of the metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is the combination of medical disorders that increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

It should be noted that this most recent example of the negative impact of reduced salt intakes also showed a drop in blood pressure. This was expected. The difference between this study and the countless salt-reduction advocacy papers that we have seen over the years is that this research went way beyond BPO. It looked at a great many other health outcomes. That's what overall health is - a composite of discrete health effects.

When reduced salt consumption is studied and a composite of health impacts is considered, the overall balance is negative. Yes, blood pressure may drop with reduced salt consumption, but at the same time, there is a cascade of negative health impacts that result on an overall negative health impact. The LSHD phenomenon is not an artifact - more and more research is taking place that will establish its reproducibility beyond any doubt.

It remains to be seen whether the scientists chosen to develop the new set of Dietary Guidelines will adequately consider this phenomenon in their evaluations - lives may depend on it.

Months of hard work were repaid today as CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 2270 , a bill to remove procedural hurdles and make it easier for the state's water districts to ban ion-exchange water softeners. Schwarzenegger told the Legislature:

Increasing the use of recycled water in the state is an absolutely necessary activity to increase water supply reliability for the future of our growing state. Unfortunately, this bill also includes provisions that go too far in limiting residential use of water softeners.

I recognize that excess salinity in surface and ground water is a serious water quality problem in various regions throughout the state, including the Central Valley and southern California. However, current law already includes provisions that allow local agencies to regulate water softeners. The provisions of this bill create a system that could unduly limit choices for consumers and small water systems, with potentially little positive impact given the relatively limited contribution of water softeners to our salinity problems.

The Water Quality Association and Pacific WQA, with the active support of the salt industry and retailers, argued that the bill would deprive consumers of the means to protect their homes against the damage of hard water with little compensating environmental benefit.

Facing a midnight deadline, the Governor signed 81 bills and vetoed 58 as the budget-impasse-extended Legislature finally finished its 2008 session.

Well done. Thank you, Governor.

Packaged and processed foods sold in the United States started carrying standardized nutrition labels in 1994 when the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) took effect. The major goal was to increase access to nutrition information and improve consumers' ability to make healthful food choices. Since NLEA took effect, technological change has introduced new sources of nutrition information and the consumption of food away from home has continued to increase. But have these measures been effective?

A new report examines how the consumers' use of nutrition labels have changed over the decade by looking at the trend in use of various nutrition label components and demographic groups. The U.S. experience may help policymakers in other countries who are considering mandatory nutrition labeling to achieve public health goals.

The study reveals that in the decade from 1996 to 2006, consumer use of nutrition labels declined. It declined 3% for the Nutrition Facts panel, 11% for the ingredient list, and 10% for the panel's information about calories, fat, cholesterol, and sodium. In fact, only fiber and sugar did not decline over the 10-year period. Sugar held steady while fiber increased by 2% - a telling result.

The decrease in use of the nutrition label was greatest for individuals in the 20-29 year-old bracket.

If you are wondering how the government possibly misunderstood the information desires of consumers, you need look no further that the new UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) report "Consumer Priorities for Sustainable Development "

Not satisfied with spontaneous answers to questions about what is important to consumers when buying food, the FSA researchers prompted them with specific responses. They then combined both the spontaneous and prompted answer for the final result. For example, only 7% of UK consumers were concerned with salt, but after prompting, an additional 27% said they were concerned. This resulted in a grand total of 34%. Talk about fudging!

Is it any wonder we always fail to recognize the consumers' genuine desires?

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published a long-term follow-up study to determine the impact of tight control over blood pressure among patients with Type II Diabetes. Researchers at the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) wanted to see whether the risk reductions achieved during periods of tight control over blood pressure would be sustainable after those controls were relaxed.

Out of 5000 patients with newly diagnosed type II diabetes, they randomly assigned more than 1000 that had hypertension to either tight or more relaxed blood-pressure control regimes. Patients with blood pressures greater than or equal to 160/90 mm Hg were randomly allocated to tight-control, aiming for less than 150/85 mm Hg with either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or a Beta-blocker or to less-tight-control aiming for less than 200/105 mm Hg. Patients who underwent post-trial monitoring were asked to attend annual UKPDS clinics for the first 5 years, but no attempt was made to maintain their previously assigned therapies.

What was the result? After the trial, blood-pressure levels fell in the less-tight-control group and rose in the tight-control group, with no significant differences between the groups after 2 years. In line with this equalization of blood pressures, there were no significant risk reductions observed between the groups 10 years after the trial.

Differences in blood pressure between the two groups during the trial disappeared within 2 years after termination of the trial. Significant relative risk reductions found during the trial for any diabetes-related end point, diabetes-related death, microvascular disease, and stroke in the group receiving tight, as compared with less tight, blood-pressure control were not sustained during the post-trial follow-up.

WaterTech Online ran a story yesterday noting a press release from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cautioning against using a "water softener which requires a lot of water." EPA could not confirm to WaterTech Online whether the agency considers all softeners to be water inefficient or just some.

The story continues, quoting Water Quality Association technical director Joe Harrison who explained

that while water softeners do use a weekly average of 50 gallons of water during their regeneration cycle, they save water in the long run. He said softer water makes cleaning quicker, easier and more effective, thereby reducing the amount of water needed for each cleaning task.

Because they reduce mineral-scale buildup that makes water-heater elements less efficient, Harrison added, water softeners also help reduce the cost of heating water, thus reducing energy use.

For the past quarter century, water utilities, particularly in drought-persistent California, have imposed a series of technology-forcing salt efficiency standards on the water treatment industry, often at the cost of less water efficiency. The real concern was never salt, but stretching scarce water supplies. In the past, stretching water supplies was focused on reducing the impacts of water softeners on the environment and, particularly, on water quality. The U.S. EPA statement, however, aguably, focuses on the larger and more appropriate concern: how much water does a water treatment device require to deliver its designed benefits?

This may be the opening salvo in an assault on the current "salt efficiency" paradigm by those concerned with "water use efficiency."

For more than a quarter of a century, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture have jointly published a new version of the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" every five years. In 2010, the sixth edition of this publication will come out.

With reference to the consumption of salt, the Dietary Guidelines has served the public poorly. The fact of the matter is that the figures are based entirely upon expert opinion, not scientific trials. This was confirmed in the paper delivered at the Institute of Medicine workshop "The Development of DRIs 1994-2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges" held in Washington September 18-20, 2007 by Dr. Peter Greenwald, Director of Cancer Prevention at the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health . Dr Greenwald described how most of the figures behind the recommended dietary intakes were based upon expert opinion - the lowest quality of medical evidence - rather than randomized controlled double blind clinical trials - the highest level of evidence.

The next iteration of the Dietary Guidelines will be the sixth in the series. Are we destined to continue basing our dietary recommendations on the lowest level of evidence? What would happen if Americans actually adhered to the dietary guidelines? The only evidence we have thus far is not particularly reassuring. In two studies on healthy young adults, carried out in very different geographic locations, college students were limited to 2300 mg Na/day - the Upper Limit for sodium recommended by the Institute of Medicine (1), (2). In both cases, all the students taking part in the trial experienced elevated aldosterone levels, and in the case of the Shapiro et al. study, they all showed evidence of arterial stiffness.

These are the only experimental results we have relating to the Institute of Medicine recommendations for sodium intake. Surely, it behooves us to test whether the IOM's recommendations are safe for Americans or not. If they once more appeared in the Dietary Guidelines, based solely on expert opinion, consumers would be justifiably bound to abandon confidence in the science behind these recommendations.

It is time to step up to the plate and have the Institute of Medicine recommendations tested experimentally

We need to establish a trial with a significant group of healthy young adults who are comprehensively counseled on how to limit their sodium intake to 2300 mg/day. As a lead-in to the trial, their baseline blood pressures, 24-hr urinary sodium, and plasma renin and aldosterone levels would be accurately determined. Once the trial began and the young adults maintained their sodium intakes at 2300 mg/day, these parameters will be checked on a weekly basis. The trial will continue for 30 days and a final analyses of blood pressures, urinary sodium, renin and aldosterone would be taken.

Such a trial would give us an excellent understanding of the impact of maintaining a consumption level of 2300 mg/day of sodium or less - on blood pressure as well as renin/aldosterone levels. It would be the first large-scale trial into the effect of adhering to the IOM recommendation for sodium and will be critically important in establishing the next edition of the Dietary Guidelines. Such a trial would not be overly costly and would, for once, remove considerable doubt regarding the validity of the IOM recommendations.

(1) Kodama N, Nishimuta M, Suzuki K., "Negative balance of calcium and magnesium under relatively low sodium intake in humans," J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo), 2003, Jun;49(3):201-9.

(2) Shapiro, Y., Boaz, M., Matas, Z., Fux, A., & M. Shargorodsky, "The association between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and arterial stiffness in young healthy subjects," Clinical Endocrinolog,. 2008 Apr;68(4):510-2.

When budgets get tight, inexperienced managers may curtail training as a frill. Big mistake. Training helps managers get the most from their resources, argues the latest Salt & Highway Deicing newsletter which explains "Earning above-average ROI on your snow and ice control training." Learn how to evaluate how improving operators' attitudes and understanding pays dividends for your agency.

Why is it that salt and water - the two elements so critical to all animal life on our planet - should regularly be the subjects of such divergent views and opinions - all supposedly based on legitimate science? The problem is that the goal of scientific observation is to develop a prediction or scientific theory. The leap from observation to hypotheses does not preclude the influence of a scientist's personal bias. We have seen this result in a distorted series of public policies in the case of salt. A similar string of contradictions exist regarding a perception of freshwater sources.

The Freshwater Biological Association, based in Dorset, UK, is sponsoring a meeting entitled, "Multiple Stressors in Freshwater Ecosystems ". The agenda of this meeting is designed is to launch an international call for action and influence to safeguard the future of global fresh waters. The meeting was opened by Professor John Beddington, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, who stated. "It is not all doom and gloom however, I believe science and technology can play a key role in responding to these challenges ."

One week earlier, in the August 23rd edition of New Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Chenoweth, of the Center for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, wrote an article entitled, "Water, water everywhere," in which he stated that his research indicated that the issue of shrinking world supplies of fresh water may not be as dire as many scientists are suggesting. He went on to state that he believed the supposed looming water crisis is primarily a problem of distribution and management rather than supply. Through the use of increased investment, existing technologies and political will, this problem can be readily solved.

In one case, a meeting is essentially focused on what is characterized as a dire problem - the stressors impacting our freshwater ecosystems - while in the other case, a well-known and respected scientist slowly and methodically analyzes the current situation and makes suggestions for practical, realizable solutions that would greatly expand everyone's access to sufficient supplies of fresh water.

It will be interesting to see which attitude will prevail in the public's perception of freshwater.

Score one for the good guys! The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently adopted the rationale proffered by EuSalt and announced it would forego multi-national dietary guidelines. EFSA announced :

The main conclusion of the Panel is that it is not feasible to establish detailed and effective FBDG [note: Food Based Dietary Guidelines] which could be used at the EU level as diet-related public health priorities may differ between countries. FBDG must also take into account wide disparities in dietary habits, due to cultural differences in eating patterns and the varying availability of food products across Europe. Therefore the NDA Panel decided to focus its opinion on the scientific process underlying the development of FBDG.

EuSalt hailed the decision as "evidence for its long-standing position, namely that it is not feasible to generalise, neither globally nor on European level, requirements on the intake of salt." EuSalt argued broad guidelines would "be dangerous for many." EuSalt also expressed pleasure at the newly-announced review of the scientific process underlying dietary advisories.

The Salt Institute congratulates both EFSA and EuSalt for their enlightened advocacy.

Arguing hyperbolically that it is "even more important to reduce consumption of sodium" than to eliminate trans-fat in foods, two staffers at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene editorialized in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA , subscription required) that "it is nearly impossible for consumers to greatly reduce their own salt intake." They urge drastic government controls to "protect the public from unhealthy food" such as restrictions on marketing foods they don't like and subsidizing the consumption of government-favored foods, zoning restrictions to bar location of restraurants that serve foods they don't like or taxes on such "bad foods."

In short, the solution is to restrict consumer choices to their know-it-all choices. "The modern food supply is tainted -- it is too salty, too sugary, and too rich in calories, and there is simply too much of such food easily available," they continue, arguing that governments should regulate the amount of salt and added sugar in foods. "Food safety for the 21st century should be reframed....public health systems must reduce the contribution of food to the epidemics of obesity and chronic disease."

Over the past year, with evidence turing against arguments for universal sodium reduction, advocates of cutting salt are becoming shriller and more totalitarian. Perhaps the the NYC Department of Health is upset that reason Magazine ranked New York City the nation's second-worst "nanny-state city" (behind San Francisco) when it comes to dietary fascism and the Big Apple is out to regain its #1 ranking.

The tragic toll of highway and workplace fatalities both declined in 2007 -- good news for salt companies who contributed to both positive outcomes. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a 6% decline in workplace deaths in 2007; overall, occupational fatalities have declined from 5,840 to 5,488; the biggest improvement coming from at-work transportation fatalities. Traffic fatalities declined 3.9% to the lowest number in 13 years. The fatality rate of 1.37 is the lowest ever recorded, according the U.S. Department of Transportation .

Salt companies, likewise, had their safest-ever year in 2007 and sold a near-record amount of live-saving highway salt .

Today's Chicago Tribune informed readers of emergency meetings being held this week among public works managers of Chicago's northern suburbs. Tara Malone and Carolyn Starks reported:

As summer nears its final stretch, many cities and towns across the northern suburbs are stuck in a very wintry, administrative snowdrift: They have no road salt, supply is tight and prices are through the roof.

A similar story appeared in today's Pittsburgh, PA Tribune-Review.

Thirty-four salt storage facilities in 7 states and 2 Canadian provinces were first-time winners in the Salt Institute's 2008 Excellence in Storage Award program. The winners were unveiled during the American Public Works Association Congress today in New Orleans. An additional 63 facilities earned "continuing excellence" designation. Visit our website for more details.