On Monday I wrote about the controversy over salt. The article I linked to was written over 10 years ago. 1999 to be exact. So now it's over a decade later and do you think the salt debate is any clearer?
Of course not.
First may I present the summary for the position of salt reduction via the New York Times. A little light on the controversy and harder on the corporate backlash at being told to reduce salt. This approach emphasizes that the controversy is over and now it's a matter of how public health and government can control salt in foods.
Then may I present a counterpoint from an editorial in the Financial Post. A lot more emphasis on the science and the still controversial nature of the debate. Emphasizing the numbers and the changes (or the lack of changes) in blood pressure.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next decade or two. Will salt reduction become public policy? Will it be shown to have any beneficial impact? Or will it have no effect or worse a negative effect? If different countries take different approaches to salt then we may all end up as part of one large study into the effects of salt.
Meanwhile I'm going to do what I think is sensible. I'll add salt to my food when it improves the flavour and when I think it's required. I'm not going out of my way to avoid salt.
Post a Comment