NEWS RELEASE
FOR RELEASE: 10 am EST
February 24, 2005
Contact: Dick Hanneman
703/549-4648
e-mail: dick@saltinstitute.org
Salt: Right Question, Wrong Answer
Alexandria, VA (Feb. 24)…. Richard L. Hanneman, president of the
Salt Institute, issued the following response statement to release today of a report on
salt by the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
“Mr.
Jacobson’s conclusions represent his viewpoint, not science. His report fails the sniff test: it hasn’t been peer reviewed or published.
“That said,
however, CSPI’s focus on whether the amount of salt we eat matters to our health is
the right question. CSPI, however, has the wrong answer to the question. It’s right to ask whether
cutting back salt will save lives. The
government has been ducking that question for years, refusing to conduct a randomized
clinical trial to provide evidence on this point. We know salt affects blood pressure: for some
people cutting back salt lowers blood pressure; for others, it raises blood pressure. We also know reducing salt also adversely affects
hormone systems, our nervous systems and our sensitivity to insulin. It is the total effect of these impacts that
determines the number of heart attacks. You
can’t just assume that projected blood pressure falls will net a health benefit. We need the data from a clinical trial.
“In
fact, the only evidence we have is from observational studies. There are no clinical trials at all. And, worldwide, there have been only a dozen
observational studies reported. Eleven of the twelve show just the opposite of what
Mr. Jacobson is saying. None of these
eleven studies shows improved rates of heart attacks or strokes on low salt diets; three,
in fact, show just the opposite – low salt diets have higher risks of heart
attacks. The twelfth study just came out and
was done in Japan where the “low salt” group actually consumed more salt than
the average American. I haven’t had a
chance to study it in detail yet, but its stated conclusions support Mr. Jacobson’s
claim. But what about the other eleven
studies? Many of the other eleven studies are
quite large studies and none of them could find a population benefit in reducing dietary
sodium.
“Mr. Jacobson
says that diets
too high in salt are responsible for 150,000 premature deaths each year in the United
States. There is no evidence supporting this
claim. In fact, the American Heart
Association says 150,000 is exactly the total number of all Americans under age 65 who die
of cardiovascular disease every year. Is Mr.
Jacobson alleging all of them died from salt? Or
is he saying the American Heart Association is wrong?
“This
allegation is sophistry, pure and simple. It
is based on a hidden assumption to tie together two well-known facts. First, we’ve known for 4,000 years that salt
is an important factor in blood pressure, and, persuasive evidence shows that a two-thirds
reduction in dietary salt will reduce average blood pressures by a few millimeters of
pressure. And, second, we’ve known for
much of the last century that populations with lower average blood pressure, even a few
millimeters, have lower incidence of heart attacks and strokes. But that doesn’t mean that reducing dietary
salt would lower the incidence of heart attacks. Perhaps
it would. But perhaps other known
cardiovascular factors such as the impacts of lowering dietary salt on the kidney hormone
renin or on insulin sensitivity or on sympathetic nervous system response will cancel out
the blood pressure effect. That is a question
that deserves a clinical trial and that clinical trial has never been done.
“Let’s
look at the evidence. It’s easy to make
bombastic charges. Where’s the beef? We invite Mr. Jacobson to join with us in
demanding the government conduct a randomized controlled trial of the cardiovascular
outcomes of sodium reduction.”
-- 30 --
Citations
for the twelve studies are provided on the Salt Institute website at http://www.saltinstitute.org/healthrisk.html. For further background, see http://www.saltinstitute.org/28.html.
