Misdirecting efforts to cut cardiovascular risk hurts us all
A June 26 story on "Sodium Shakeout: Salt and Health " by Kimberly J. Decker in Food Product Design discussed the salt and health issue, referring to a resolution approved a year ago by the American Medical Association.
"Sodium has been in discussion for many years, and the problem is that it's a very controversial discussion," agrees Markus Eckert, technical vice president, flavors, Mastertaste, Teterboro, NJ. "There have been studies for many years already showing that it can lead to cardiovascular health issues." However, "there have been other published studies that followed subjects on low-sodium diets for several years and found that, actually, the risk for cardiovascular health issues is higher here than for regular diets."
In one such study, published in 2006 in the online version of the American Journal of Medicine (119(3): 275.e7-275.e14), researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY, studied survey data from the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II) and found that, among 7,154 survey participants, those who consumed less than 2,300 mg of sodium per day were actually 37% more likely to have died from CVD. The researchers acknowledged it wasn't a clinical trial, nor did they propose that the results dictate sodium nutrition policy. They did point out that their findings cast some doubt on across-the-board advice to lower sodium consumption.
Decker summarized for her food industry subscribers:
So, following the AMA's 2006 sodium statement, the Institute of Food Technologists, Chicago, offered a voice of reason by noting that we do not now consume substantially more (or, alas, substantially less) salt than we have over the past quarter century. Other food industry organizations, such as the Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association, Washington, D.C., and the Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA, issued rejoinders of their own, with the latter's president, Richard L. Hanneman, going so far as to call the AMA's recommendations "scientifically unjustified and a waste of time and money." Ouch.
Ouch, indeed. Thanks to IFT for its efforts to sort out the controversy. Actually, sodium intakes have been generally unchanged not just for the past quarter century, but for the hundred or so years that we've been able to measure intakes with some accuracy. We need a "truth squad" to prevent anti-salt zealots from trying to distract the public health policy discussion from its proper focus on whether lowering dietary sodium would provide any health benefit to the population. There's no evidence on the table that it would, just computer-generated model projections based on flawed assumptions drawn from intermediate variables. Yes, ouch. That hurts all of us.
