The new salt study
The current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has an article from investigators at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine (where I worked from 1976 to 1986) and Columbia using computer models to predict the effect of relatively small reductions in salt intake on health. Their conclusion:
Modest reductions in dietary salt could substantially reduce cardiovascular events and medical costs and should be a public health target.
The article also is discussed in an accompanying editorial, and was the topic of a long discussion in the New York Times.
I never know what to make of computer models, but one thing is clear: many people consume two or three times the amount of salt recommended. It’s hard to avoid doing so. Australian investigators surveyed processed foods and found more than 60% of them to contain salt above recommended levels. Ours are unlikely to be any different.
While we are on the subject of salt in processed foods: Juli Mandel Sloves of Campbell Soup correctly points out that my observation that the company’s kids’ soups contain 480 mg sodium per 4 ounce serving is incorrect. A serving of soup is 8 ounces, not 4. I see how I made this mistake. The label states that a serving is half a cup (4 ounces) and that one serving contains 480 mg sodium. But you are supposed to dilute what’s in the can with another can of water. That makes it 480 mg sodium per 8 ounces, the same amount of salt but diluted. The confusing serving sizes are another good reason to rethink and redesign the Nutrition Facts label.
Leave a comment
Follow Marion
Next public appearance
New York: 92nd St Y, Tribeca
This is a conversation about 101 Classic Cookbooks, 501 Classic Recipes (Rizzoli Books, 2013), with Clark Wolf, Marvin Taylor (curator NYU Fales Library), Rose Levy Beranbaum (author, The Cake Bible), and Madhur Jaffrey (actor and author). 7:30 p.m. 92ndY Tribeca, 200 Hudson St, Price $15, RSVP: here
Comments
gooooooooood
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by nyusteinhardt: The new salt study http://ff.im/-eIC3M…
Computer models are not ‘studies’. They are not research. They add NO new data to the science.
They are mostly PR generators.
They reflect the assumptions of the modelers, their pre-conceived notions, and often, their desire to produce results. (If this ‘model’ had shown zero effect, do think it would have been PR’d so heavily? “Cutting salt would have NO benefit, says the latest study.” Nope, they would simply tinker with the numbers until they got something like ‘millions to ve saved.’)
Note too, this talks about population-wide effects from an OVERALL reduction in salt. That ASSUMES that some people would reduce their salt consumption by a few grams per week, and therefore would NOT get a disease they were otherwise destined to.
I know of no actual clinical data that supports such a notion.
Data, in real humans, is very sparse and contradictory, which suggests any effect — if there is one — will be tiny. Not ‘millions saved’.
This is why people are starting to ignore medical politicians like this. Public policy based on a lot of moralizing and wishful thinking. And because somebody thinks the ‘know’ something, never mind the data.
The one message that I think is not being promoted with all this “reduce the sodium” studies, reviews, etc. is that by eating more fresh fruits and vegetables, one can have better potassium-sodium balance which really changes the health equation.
Now, on to the vegetable education which is what so many people really need. They won’t eat food that seems unfamiliar so here I go again. I have my life’s work cut out for me, and that’s good.
I think as Americans, we have a tendency to view salt as the only thing that can add flavor to our foods. We neglect things such as fresh herbs and other spices that give our lives flavor, and contain helpful phytochemicals rather than having a detrimental effect on our health. That is not to say that salt is bad; all good things in moderation. I think Michael Pollan makes a wonderful point when he says, “we vote with our forks three times a day”, and choosing these heavily processed, overly-salted foods over fresh fruits, veggies, and other ingredients is voting for something that will shorten our lives, constrict our food options, and put good, hard-working farmers out of work.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada give a “Health Check” symbol to products that meet their categories IF the product’s company pays for the symbol, which costs thousands of dollars. Per product. So really only multinationals can afford this system (much like David Katz’s proposed Nu-Val system).
A Campbell’s soup I bought recently had the Health Check symbol. This meant it had to have no more than 480 mg of sodium per 250 mL and per on-pack serving. The nutrition label said, sure enough, 480 mg sodium in a 250 mL serving.
But the can held 540 mL, or 2.16 servings. Who in their right mind would serve 46% of the can (250 mL) to themselves, 46% of the can to another person, and chuck out the remaining 8% of the can? Campbell’s would I guess, because otherwise a 1/2 can serving would exceed the sodium limits of the Health Check program.
I wrote the H&S Assoc of Canada a letter. Got a standard response, so wrote back a second time and got a practical response.
We must be vigilant about food labels and health claims.
PS. I only bought the canned soup to 1) have on hand in case of emergencies (freezer fails, or very ill), and 2) so I could have the label so I could hassle Heart&Stroke about it.
Usually I make all my own soup from scratch and freeze it for convenience.
very simple,dont eat processed foods-ever ! let the almighty food companies ruin their products by salting them 2 death. dont buy them.same goes 4 sugar & transfats-dont buy them,period ! u demand it someone wil supply it.