salt

Nanny state regulators got it all wrong back in 1977 when the feds placed a warning label on the sugar substitute saccharine. They said it could cause cancer, but their underlying science was flimsy. It took them more than 20 years to admit to that mistake and remove saccharine from the list of carcinogens.

And federal health officials have long warned us all to cut back on salt because they say it might contribute to heart disease. Most people trust this advice, but it’s most likely not true for everyone. Salt appears to be a problem largely for individuals with hypertension, but not so much for the rest of us. Those of us who like salting our veggies and other things to make them more palatable, probably would like to know the whole story.

Yet Nanny statists at National Institutes of Health (NIH) don’t want to give us the whole story. They apparently refuse to release research that might contradict their warnings. Since 2003, that data has been subject to a Data Quality Act petition–a process that is supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn’t base policy on faulty science. Accordingly, regulators are supposed to release data when petitioned, but they usually don’t comply with the law, which lacks a good enforcement mechanism. The feds have managed to keep this research a secret for a long time. That way they can set whatever policies and recommendations they please–without any accountability.

In this case, they start by urging everyone to cut back on salt. Then local and state governments may start regulating salt based on such specious recommendations. As those laws grow, the feds might even step in. Such is the progression of many nanny state regulations.

The recent Climategate scandal underscores this point. The absence of scientific transparency gives regulators free reign. Then regulators and their collaborators can finesse the science in a way that best suits their regulatory aims while concealing inconvenient findings. Personal liberties and economic freedoms are eventually wiped out along with the facts. Bureaucrats end up more powerful, and life for everyone else is less palatable.

Photo attribution: Duchamp’s photostream on flickr.

Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration, working with the Institute of Medicine, has been considering a change in the regulatory status of salt.  The FDA cannot currently restrict the amount of salt that can be added to processed foods, and the proposed change would allow them to do so.

Advocates of the proposed regulation, like former FDA commissioner David Kessler and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, argue that reducing the sodium in foods would improve people’s health and cut public health spending.  Opponents argue that the evidence supporting health benefits of sodium reduction is by no means conclusive, and that attempts to reduce sodium intake could actually be harmful.

But a recent study by University of California, Davis nutritionists concludes that it may not even be possible to reduce salt intake through regulation.  The study shows that people are naturally inclined to regulate salt intake to physiologically determined levels by unconsciously selecting foods to meet their needs.

According to the study, measurements collected from over 19,000 individuals from 33 countries worldwide indicate that daily sodium intake is confined to the relatively narrow range of 2,700 to 4,900 mg, with the worldwide average of 3,700 mg.  This challenges the widely held belief that daily sodium consumption in the United States, which averages about 3,400 mg, has reached extreme levels.

The study also cites decades of research describing the specific mechanism by which the central nervous system, acting together with several organ systems, controls our appetite for salt.

In one cited study, a group of nearly 600 participants took part in what was to be a 3 year sodium intake intervention, with the goal of reducing daily intake to 1,850 mg.  After the first 6 months, researchers noted that participants were unable to reduce sodium intake below about 2,750 mg per day—close to the bottom of the range the UC Davis study identified.

Another study had similar findings.  In this study, subjects, through intensive dietary counseling, reduced their daily sodium intake to an average of 1,775 mg over 4 weeks.  The subjects were then randomized to receive either a 2,300 mg sodium tablet or a placebo, while still receiving counseling.

When taking the placebo, average sodium intake stabilized around 2,750 mg—again very close to the bottom of the identified range.  This means that subjects naturally increased their sodium intake when blinded to their treatment.  When this group was switched over to receive the 2,300 mg sodium supplement, daily intake rose to only 4,050 mg, far less than the predicted 5,050 mg.  This suggests that subjects naturally reduced their dietary sodium intake without consciously intending to do so.

The UC Davis study goes on to cite a number of surveys indicating that sodium intake in the United Kingdom has “varied minimally” over the past 25 years, despite a costly Food Standards Agency  campaign to reduce sodium intake in the UK.
The Institute of Medicine says that daily sodium intake should not exceed 2,300 mg, and new guidelines to be released in 2010 may set the recommended maximum even lower. Any regulatory action taken by the FDA would presumably aim to reduce intake at least to this 2,300 mg level, even though it is 17 percent lower than the bottom of the range the UC Davis study identified, and a full 38 percent lower than the worldwide average.

Given the findings of this study, it seems likely that regulation restricting sodium in foods would be ineffective because people would unconsciously adjust their diets to compensate.  As the study puts it, “[sodium intake] is unlikely to be malleable by public policy initiatives”, and attempts to change consumption would “expend valuable national and personal resources against unachievable goals.”

Denny’s has never claimed that it serves only health-food, and nutrition facts about its food are available on its web site.

But that hasn’t stopped the notoriously-unreliable Center for Science in the Public Interest from bringing a frivolous lawsuit against Denny’s over its food, claiming that it is defrauding the public by serving food that has more than a day’s supply of sodium. This lawsuit, known as DeBenedetto v. Denny’s, was filed on July 23 in Middlesex County, New Jersey. Hopefully, the judge will impose sanctions on CSPI’s lawyers for bringing this suit.

At the heart of CSPI’s complaint are its unfounded assumptions that (a) all restaurants imply that their food “has no more sodium than a meal at other restaurants,” and (b) that a typical restaurant’s food has no more salt than a person should consume in a day, such that a restaurant’s food doesn’t “contain more sodium than a person should consume in a day.”

Neither assumption makes any sense. Many common food items in grocery stores have more than a day’s supply of salt. One V-8 has nearly half a day’s supply of salt. Many frozen dinners have more than a day’s supply of salt. Why would anyone expect restaurant fare to be healthier? (Many expensive, snobby, high-brow restaurants serve saltier food than what Denny’s serves inexpensively and quickly to America’s working-class and middle-class people.) There is no limit on who can be sued if this suit were to succeed.

Moreover, expecting all restaurants to have less than or exactly equal to the average restaurant’s salt content is as unrealistic as harboring the Lake Wobegon fantasy that all children are above average. Some cuisines are just saltier than others.

If this assumption were accepted, it would be a one-way ratchet that would force all restaurants to steadily reduce their salt content to constantly remain at or below the average of their competitors in salt content. Food would become as bland as cardboard.

And, yet, these are the delusions harbored in CSPI’s court complaint, which contains the following paragraphs:

“48. Plaintiff and New Jersey Consumers have purchased and consumed Denny’s meals without knowing about the presence of excessive amounts of sodium. Plaintiff and New Jersey Consumers reasonably assume that a meal at Denny’s has no more sodium than a meal at other restaurants. As detailed above, this assumption is reasonable, but incorrect, because Denny’s hides the truth about its high sodium levels.
49. The omission of the information that certain meals at Denny’s contain more sodium than a person should consume in an entire day – and that some people should consume in a few days – is misleading. That conduct violates the rights of the Plaintiff and New Jersey Consumers protected by the CFA.”

How could consumers assume anything of the sort? How could they not taste the salt in the food?

My wife likes Denny’s, especially its club sandwiches, and its reasonable prices. When she first immigrated to America, Denny’s was one of the few restaurants she could ever afford to eat at, given her working-class roots. She was well aware that what she ordered was salty. A little extra salt in restaurant food is not a problem for most people, unless, perhaps, they not only have health problems aggravated by sodium, but also are so lazy that, despite those problems, they nevertheless eat out all the time rather than cooking their own meals, even though they could save money by cooking their own meals, as I did when I was younger and had little money to spend.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is one of the most unreliable sources of nutritional information, having once taught that trans fats were safer than saturated fat.

It has helped to blur the distinction between unhealthy and normal foods over the years, by denigrating normal food items such as baked potatoes, hamburgers, pizza, pork chops, and bacon as unhealthy. Never mind that a baked potato has only 100 calories, gives you 30 percent of your day’s supply of vitamin C (more than a banana), some protein, and many important minerals — and that potatoes are so cheap that even a person of modest means can afford them. The potato saved generations of impoverished Irish, German, and Russian farmers from starvation and diseases related to nutritional deficiencies. (By the way, I lost 10 pounts while working at McDonalds during Summer of 1988, during a 10-week period in which I subsisted largely on the hamburgers I ate for free as an employee).

CSPI’s list last year of eight supposedly awful restaurant foods both blurred the distinction between healthy and unhealthy foods, and shows ignorance of basic math. Along with some disgusting concoctions that were loaded with fat and have few nutrients, its list includes a couple dishes that are fairly healthy, such as the Twice-Baked Lasagna with Meatballs at Romano’s Macaroni Grill.

CSPI faulted the Twice-Baked Lasagna for having twice the fat of most other restaurant lasagnas. But that’s only natural, because it’s a relatively large lasagna — nearly 1360 calories. It also has much more protein than most restaurant lasagnas.

CSPI pointed to no evidence that the Twice-Baked Lasagna has a significantly unhealthier ratio than the typical restaurant lasagna, either in terms of the ratio of fat to protein, or fat to total calories. The Twice-Baked Lasagna has about your daily fat intake, but it also gives you about half your daily calorie needs. It’s a large lasagna, not an unhealthy lasagna. If you were hungry, wouldn’t you rather be served a large lasagna than a small one?

It seems that the food police at the unconscionably named Center for Science in the Public Interest are at it again.  These are the same people who’ve attacked movie theater popcorn and who called fettuccini alfredo “heart attack on a plate.”  Their new pet peeve is salt — or to be more specific, sodium.  Last week, CSPI filed a class action lawsuit against the restaurant chain Denny’s, claiming that, because most Denny’s menu items contain a “high” level of sodium, the chain is engaging in consumer fraud and breaching the implied warranty of merchantability.  The complaint itself, filed July 23 in Superior Court in Middlesex County, New Jersey, can be viewed here.

A full analysis of the case’s legal merits will have to wait for another day.  But, suffice it to say that, by alleging on page 3 of the complaint that “Sodium is the deadliest ingredient in the food supply,” these folks aren’t beyond gross exaggeration.  The gist of the argument seems to be that (1) increasing sodium intake is known to increase blood pressure; and (2) very high blood pressure is known to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke; so (3) Denny’s failure to notify customers of the total amount of sodium in its menu items is putting them at risk.

There’s a bit of sleight of hand here, of course.  Although allegations 1 and 2 are true, there is no clear relationship between the slightly higher blood pressure that results from exceding the recommended daily amount of sodium intake and the very high blood pressure levels that raise the risk of heart attack or stroke.  That’s why scientists have never been able to conclude that high sodium intake itself is associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.  It’s like arguing that mouthwash manufacturers are responsible for thousands of automobile accidents every year because we all know that mouthwash contains alcohol and that drunk driving causes auto accidents.

Unfortunately, lawsuits like these are bad news for companies like Denny’s.  Most people won’t bother to see what the facts are, they’ll just hear that Denny’s is being sued for harming customers and it’ll tarnish the chain’s reputation.  It’s one reason why so many unmeritorious lawsuits get settled — it’s much easier to pay the plaintiffs, change your behavior in small ways, and be done with it.  Still, I hope Denny’s decides to fight this one in court.  It’s about time someone started standing up to these bullies.  And, if Denny’s does go to court, I for one will make an effort to eat at a Denny’s restaurant more often.

Many people believe that salt is bad for your health, but John Tierney’s column today in the New York Times points out the body of research that shows it ain’t necessarily so. Yet New York City politicians are embarking on a “nationwide” campaign to force food companies and restaurants to reduce consumers’ salt intake by one-half.

On a somewhat related theme Megan McArdle asks why so many “green” products don’t perform as well as the standard ones. She says:

In fact, when I look back at almost every “environmentally friendly” alternative product I’ve seen being widely touted as a cost-free way to lower our footprint, held back only by the indecent vermin at “industry” who don’t care about the environment, I notice a common theme: the replacement good has really really sucked compared to the old, inefficient version.  In some cases, the problem could be overcome by buying a top-of-the-line model that costs, at the very least, several times what the basic models do.  In other cases, as with my asthma inhalers, we were just stuck.

McArdle points out that there are usually trade-offs involved, which policymakers may not recognize or consider. That’s what Tierney also showed.