Is Salt Really the Problem?

06 Aug 2010 – Alex Hammer

Look in the news recently and you see a number of stories related to one small compound: salt. A few weeks ago The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the UK government’s health advisory board, made a call to reduce salt intake to 6 g (or 2400 mg sodium) by 2015 and 3 g (or 1200 mg sodium) by 2025. On the other side of the pond an external committee scientists and nutritionists recommended the FDA reduce the American Dietary Guidelines for sodium intake from 2,300 mg to 1,500 mg. In April, the Institute of Medicine, went one step further and called on the FDA enforce a maximum limit on the amount of salt that companies can add to packaged food. With all this talk, the question that comes to mind is not whether a reduction is necessary (it is) but whether it’s feasible. Within the current processed food system? Probably not.

Today, Americans and Europeans consume more than 3,400 mg of sodium daily—nearly double the new proposed targets. In order to reach the proposed FDA (and FSA) targets consumers would need to reduce sodium intake by 1,900 mgs or nearly 55% of current levels—far beyond any commitment made by the industry or government. When you think about it there are only two ways this can happen—reduce consumption levels or reduce the sodium in food. It’s no surprise that neither outcome is ideal for the food industry which relies on salt to keep food tasty and profitable.

In the wake of these numbers, government and some companies are taking action to reduce salt intake, but to date initiatives have focused on two strategies: incremental improvements to current products and consumer education campaigns. Initiatives like Michael Bloomberg’s National Salt Reduction Initiative have rallied support from health organizations, cities and states and food manufacturers and restaurants like Kraft, Mars and Starbucks to reduce sodium content by 20%. In the UK, the FSA has set salt reduction targets coupled with public health campaigns have successfully cut salt consumption levels by 11% over the past five years. While both efforts are significant, in a world where we need a 55% reduction will these efforts make a difference? Is that 55% reduction feasible?

With 75% of sodium intake already embedded in processed/packaged food a major reduction in sodium intake will depend on product reformulation. Reducing salt consumption, however, will require far more than token commitments and campaigns to alter consumer behaviour, but no less than a complete over-haul of our food system and in particular the food manufacturing business.

The problem is that salt happens to be an essential (if not the most essential) component in packaged and manufactured food. Not only is it the cheapest way to enhance taste and mask unappealing flavours generated through over-processing but it also preserves freshness and increases product shelf life. Unlike sugar, which has been targeted for contributing to obesity and diabetes, there are currently no affordable substitutes for salt. Companies who want to replace salt in their products contend that they will have to compromise taste and cost and consequently profits. Fundamentally there is only so much salt that companies can take out of processed foods before it becomes too unpalatable and expensive for them to maintain their business model. Given this fundamental reality, it’s no surprise that food companies are fighting tooth and nail against the government proposals.

Take Kellogg who in a letter to the FDA committee, wrote that lower salt guidelines were “incompatible with a palatable diet” and would cause the company to lose customers whose taste buds have become accustomed to saltier foods. Or the GMA who emphasizes the cost argument and contends that any short-term changes in salt recommendations have the potential to further raise food prices. Then there is ConAgra who suggests that salt is not the main issue and submitted a self-commissioned study to the committee which argues that far more savings in health care costs – about $58 billion – could be generated if people simply cut 100 calories from their daily diets as opposed to consuming less salt. ConAgra might be on to something—a reduction in calories will likely impact health outcomes, but would food companies actually get behind this, and is it a realistic proposition for consumers? Possibly.

The Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation, a coalition of American food and beverage manufacturers (including ConAgra) joined Michelle Obama’s Partnership for a Healthier America on May 17th in committing to cut annual calories by 1.5 trillion by the end of 2015 through new lower-calorie options, recipe alterations of current and reduced portion sizes of existing single-serve products. One can’t help but wonder—what does that commitment mean in practice? A little simple math shows not much. Americans currently consume 3,700 calories daily, which translates to 424 trillion calories annually. The reduction proposed by the HWCF signifies a reduction of .35% or 13 calories a day—nowhere near the 100 calories that ConAgra is recommending or the additional 1,700 calories that Americans need to reduce in their diets if they are to meet the daily recommendations.

Further than looking at ways to reduce salt or calories in products we use today, we need to look at the underlying systems in place which perpetuate the use of salt in our food products in the first place—subsidies which favour unhealthy products, insufficient distribution channels for fresh produce, marketing which encourages overconsumption of unhealthy products, etc. It is only when we address these complex issues that we will be able to truly make sizeable, substantial and ultimately sustainable changes to health outcomes. When those changes happen, so too will the reduced salt intake come with it.