SaltSensibility

U.S. salt sales revenues for the first six months of 2008 are 10.3% ahead of last year; tons sold increased 11.6%. Sales revenues increased in every major use category.

As we've been saying constantly to the news media and anxious public works agency road salt customers, the tonnage of highway deicing salt reached a near-record in 2007 and the salt industry is operating at full production. The sales figures bear this out; . Road salt sales in January-June 2008 surged 12.4% higher than in the blistering pace of the first half of 2007.

Biggest percentage gains were recorded for sales to the chemical industry which jumped 37.2% in tons and 36% in revenues. Highway sales revenues increased 15.5%. In terms of tonnage, salt for water softening increased 9.6%, animal nutrition salt climbed 7.4% and only food salt eased (dropping 2.5%). Revenues increased 6.8% for water conditioning salt, 12.1% for animal nutrition salt and 2.9% for food salt.

With forecasts of a severe winter ahead and record high bids from state transportation departments, 2008 may well set the all-time record. While there are wide swings in the weather, last year setting snowfall records in the upper Midwest, the overall advance in highway salt sales reflects the recognition by drivers and commercial highway users that modern, professional snowfighting technologies and technqiues can keep winter roads safe reliably available. Thus, there is a strengthening constituency for improved standards for winter roadway maintenance.

The Institute’s website contains annual U.S. salt sales data back to 1978.

Posted by Dick Hanneman at 08:46 PM | Permalink

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?

Posted by Mort Satin at 05:11 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Mort Satin at 04:40 PM | Permalink

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."

Posted by Dick Hanneman at 12:24 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Mort Satin at 05:08 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Dick Hanneman at 12:49 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Mort Satin at 12:06 PM | Permalink