As Mort blogged earlier this morning, the Salt Institute gets calls constantly from the media. In an exchange yesterday with another Chicago area reporter writing on salt and health, I drew an analogy that may help explain the basic point of the Salt Institute's advocacy on salt and health. See what you think.
We argue that the relevant question that should be asked with regard to a public health advisory to reduce dietary sodium is "Will cutting salt intake improve health?" Instead, some frame the question as "Will cutting salt improve blood pressure?" They aren't the same thing. When you cut salt, you "buy" all the consequences, intended and unintended, that are triggered as the body recognizes it is consuming less salt.
I likened public confusion on the issue with the current flap over national security policy. Those who characterize our national security challenge as combatting terrorism have a very different worldview from those who define our challenge in terms of our engagement in Iraq. It's not a matter of patriotism; it's a matter of focus and context.
In the war against cardiovascular mortality, some would test our weapons systems for their impact on overall health and mortality; others would focus on the specific problem of blood pressure. Without doubt, blood pressure is related to cardiovascular health, but it is one of several important "theaters." It's important to identify specifically and correctly our rules of engagement before we sally forth to meet the enemy. We want to avoid any "friendly fire" casualties.
Unfortunately, experts lack consensus over the right questions to ask in both challenges: national security and cardiovascular health.
