From a starting point that would have mandated iodization of all dietary salt in Australia and New Zealand, both for home use and salt used by food manufacturers, the countries' food regulatory agency, FSANZ, has announced its second retrenchment.
FSANZ earlier backed away and proposed requiring iodized salt only for selected bakery products (breads, breakfast cereals and biscuits --what Americans outslde Silicon Valley call "cookies").
The "final" proposal would restrict the mandate for using iodized salt in food processing to breads alone.
FSANZ explained its rationale in an online paper with attachments on the cost of the proposal.
Universal salt iodisation (USI), the iodisation of all salt used for human and animal consumption, is the recommended global strategy for the control of iodine deficiency (ICCIDD et al., 2001). However, USI has not been adopted by developed economies such as the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Instead, these countries have introduced legislation allowing, and in some cases mandating, the iodisation of discretionary salt and/or salt used in some processed foods and animal feeds.
Therefore, FSANZ initially assessed two mandatory fortification options; the first option replacing salt with iodised salt in all processed foods (comparable to USI) and the second replacing salt with iodised salt in cereal-based foods. A different level of salt iodisation was selected for each option such that it maximised iodine intakes while minimising the proportion of the population potentially excessive intakes. Both options would deliver similar outcomes in terms of effectiveness, and safety. This is detailed in the Draft Assessment .
Because the two options would deliver similar outcomes, the choice of the preferred option was based on non-nutritional considerations. Specifically, FSANZ selected the option with the least associated costs and trade impacts. This is consistent with the government’s requirement for minimum effective regulation. Both Australia and New Zealand are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). While the WTO agreements allow governments to take measures to restrict trade in pursuing national health policy objectives, these measures should be no more trade-restrictive than necessary.
Another consideration for FSANZ was to ensure that the addition of iodised salt would be technically feasible. From experience overseas and in Tasmania, we knew iodised salt could be successfully added to bread. Although it is generally accepted that iodised salt can be substituted for non-iodised salt in most foods, questions remain regarding the impact of different processing methods on iodine retention levels and food quality. Further studies would be needed to confirm the technological feasibility of adding iodised to all processed foods.
Therefore, FSANZ’s preferred regulatory option is to replace salt with iodised salt in bread. In comparison to replacing salt with iodised salt in all processed foods, this option is less costly for industry, has less trade impact, is technologically feasible, and comparable in terms of effectiveness in the delivery of iodine to the population.
Public comments will be accepted until June 6.