Salt Institute cites new research in call to abandon government guidelines on salt consumption (Press Release)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Dick Hanneman Phone: 703-549-4648 October 29, 2009 dick@saltinstitute.org Salt Institute cites new research in call to abandon government guidelines on salt consumption Alexandria, VA (October 29)… The Salt Institute has renewed its call to abandon numeric targets for Americans' salt consumption. In a letter to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Salt Institute president Richard L. Hanneman pointed out recently published evidence that salt intakes are unchanged over decades and in a range above that recommended in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This may represent, he said, not uneducated consumer behavior, but a physiological “salt appetite” resistant to either public education or re-engineering the U.S. food supply. The body's consistent physiological salt appetite has the perverse result of increasing caloric intake instead of curtailing dietary sodium, he added. The Institute called for further study and for replacing the numeric target in the 2005 Guidelines with a call for "moderation" as contained in Guidelines beginning in 1980 until 2000. October 28, 2009 Linda V. Van Horn, PhD, RD, LD Chair and Members Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Dear Committee members: The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) will be conducting its fourth meeting on November 4-5. We would like to supplement our earlier comments[i] by re-emphasizing our earlier endorsement of a need to focus on overall dietary quality and calling to your attention recent research on dietary salt intake that questions the fundamental strategy of the Guideline on salt, namely that inducing persons to substitute low-sodium foods into their diet will achieve the policy objective of reducing overall dietary sodium intake. We reiterate our view that evidence of the health outcomes of diets reduced in sodium show no benefit in terms of reduced mortality[ii] and remind you that the single controlled trial of this hypothesis found that subjects in the salt-reduced group of the cohort had a considerably greater incidence of mortality and more frequent re-hospitalization.[iii] These are crucial points, but suffice a short reminder at this point in your deliberations. We have also presented evidence earlier concerning the health benefits of a quality diet which we believe should be the focus of your recommendations. Specifically, we would further call your attention to the accumulating evidence – and consensus public perception – of the healthfulness of the Mediterranean Diet. Attached is an analysis of those issues prepared by Salt Institute technical director Morton Satin.[iv] Please note that the Mediterranean Diet contains significantly more salt than the American Diet. Salt intakes in this normal range are fully compatible with human health. Beyond these points that reducing Americans’ intake of salt will not improve health and that an overall improvement in diet quality is a proven, superior approach, a recent study in The Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology indicates that physiology, not public policy, will determine a human’s daily sodium intake. This research likely represents a important step forward in light of past Dietary Guidelines to reduce dietary salt and, since the 2000 Guidelines, to set progressively restrictive guidelines for salt intake among U.S. citizens. The study, “Can Dietary Sodium Intake be Modified by Public Policy?”[v] analyzed existing research to determine whether sodium or salt intake follows a pattern consistent with a range set by the brain to protect normal functions of organs such as the heart and kidney. The analysis is based upon 19,151 subjects studies in 62 previously-published surveys and reflects the differing “food environments” of 33 countries. The data reported documents that humans have a habitual sodium intake in the range of 2800 to 4600 mg/day with an average of 3600 mg/day. Currently, the U.S. consumes an average of about 3,500 mg/day. The McCarron et al study ignores any health consequences of salt reduction. It questions whether policy or persuasion affect salt intake. If physiology controls, as Dr. Geerling outlined in his paper last year, “Central Regulation of Salt Appetite” in the journal Experimental Physiology,[vi] then it should be “back to the drawing board” for the DGAC since substituting low-sodium substitutes for customarily-consumed food products will only result in consumers’ adding calories to their diets, not subtracting sodium. In fact, that has been what has been happening since the Dietary Guidelines began in 1980 – the ratio of sodium-to-calories has declined as grocery stores made available thousands of new, salt-reduced products which they and the Guidelines have promoted as healthy. While sales of these low-sodium products have increased, sodium levels have remained unchanged and the end result has been an increase in food consumption and the calories that have accompanied that development. The study confirms the conclusion of renowned Swedish researcher Björn Folkow who described a “hygienic safety range” for sodium of 2,300 mg to 4,600 or even 5,750 mg/day.[vii] If the McCarron et al study is confirmed, it would show that the entire current strategy to reduce dietary sodium below these natural levels is unachievable. We renew our appeal that the 2010 Guidelines drop the Guideline on salt/sodium altogether or, at the very least, reassert the pre-2000 Guidelines’ endorsement of “moderation” since that would seem compatible with the evidence. We further recommend that the report of the DGAC express disappointment that there has been no follow-up on the 2005 DGAC identification of a “research need” for study of the health outcomes of salt reduction (the only controlled trial was done outside the U.S.). Finally, we recommend that the DGAC report embrace the recommendation of the McCarron et al study that further research be undertaken to determine if salt intake is a neurally-directed appetite impervious to policy diktat or, as had been previously assumed, a conscious consumer choice amenable to education or, more radically, re-engineering the food supply. Sincerely, Richard Hanneman President [i] http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/Meeting1/CommentReports/Fluid%20and%20Electrolytes%20Comment.pdf, http://usda-cnpp.entellitrak.com/etk-usda-cnpp-2.8.0-prod/tracking.base.open.request.do?dataObjectKey=object.comment&trackingId=13, http://www.saltinstitute.org/content/download/8727/47374, and http://www.saltinstitute.org/content/download/8941/48368, accessed October 28, 2009. [ii] Alderman, M.H., et al., “Dietary sodium intake and mortality: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I),” Lancet, 1998; 351:781-785, Cohen, H., et al., “Sodium intake and mortality in the NHANES II follow-up study,” American Journal of Medicine, 2006; 119:275, Cohen, H.W., Hailpern, S. M., and Alderman, M. H., “Sodium Intake and Mortality Follow-Up in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III),” J Gen Intern Med., 2008; DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0645-6 and Alderman, Michael H. Presidential address: 21st Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Hypertension: Dietary sodium and cardiovascular disease: the ‘J’-shaped relation. Journal of Hypertension May 2007: 25(5): 903-907. [iii] Paterna S ; Gaspare P ; Fasullo S ; Sarullo FM ; Di Pasquale P., “Normal-sodium diet compared with low-sodium diet in compensated congestive heart failure: is sodium an old enemy or a new friend?” Clin Sci (Lond)., 2008; 114(3):221-30 (ISSN: 1470-8736). and Paterna, S., et al., “Medium Term Effects of Different Dosage of Diuretic, Sodium, and Fluid Administration on Neurohormonal and Clinical Outcome in Patients With Recently Compensated Heart Failure,” American J. Cardiol., 2009;103:93–102. [iv] Also available online at http://www.saltinstitute.org/content/download/10050/64436, accessed October 28, 2009. [v] (McCarron, David A., Geerling, Joel.C, Kazaks, Alexandra G. and Stern, Judith S., “Can dietary sodium intake bee modified by public policy?,” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 4: 18788-1882 (2009). Online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/reprint/CJN.04660709v1, accessed October 28, 2009. [vi] Geerling, Joel C. and Loewy, Arthur D. “Central regulation of sodium appetite,” Experimental Physiology 93.2: 177-209 (February 2008). [vii] Folkow, Björn, News in Physiological Sciences, 1990.
Text of the letter:



del.icio.us
Digg
A Short History of Alzheimer’s disease
By Norman A Jacobson, BSEE
$20 Trillion dollar medical bill
$20 Trillion dollars is what the Alzheimer’s Association estimates that we will pay to the Alzheimer’s industry for the treatment and care of Alzheimer’s patients (victims [family] not included).
120 year old disease.
In the 1890’s young workers in the newly established aluminum industry became demented, suffered memory loss, and died (Alzheimer’s disease). The factory owners determined that the cause of the disease was aluminum poisoning. They then implemented safety measures that effectively prevented Alzheimer’s disease in their workers. It was easy to prevent Alzheimer’s disease then.
10 years later
In 1901 a demented woman who was accusing her husband of being unfaithful became the first official case of Alzheimer’s disease. She had dementia, memory loss, died later, and had aluminum plaques in the brain as the cause of severe brain damage.
1911
This extremely rare disease of dementia, memory loss, death, and aluminum plaques in the brain was given the name Alzheimer’s disease. It was required that aluminum plaques be found in the brain to confirm that it was Alzheimer’s disease. 5.3 million people in the U.S. now have Alzheimer’s.
The European Food Safety Authority
In 2008, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) sponsored by the nations of the European Community in Europe released a report that aluminum and its salts are poisonous and set a maximum safe level from all sources of: “1mg. of aluminum per 1kg of body weight per week.”
Murder Suspect
In 2009, the husband would have been a prime murder suspect on ID Investigation Discovery for the 1901 mysterious illness and death of his wife. How did she get aluminum poisoning? There probably was a lot of publicity in the 1890s about aluminum workers dying of aluminum poisoning. And it was available in 1901. Dr. Alzheimer was a psychiatrist and probably not aware of all the factory workers dying of aluminum poisoning.
Refusal to test Aluminum
The FDA and the Pharmaceutical Industry presently refuse to test aluminum hydroxide and other salts of aluminum as possible causes Alzheimer’s disease. (They would lose $ 20 Trillion dollars in revenue, when the prevention and cause is found [Aluminum poisoning].)
Poisonous levels in food and medicine
By EFSA standards, American foods and medicines have tremendously high toxic levels of aluminum salts added to them. This explains why the rate of Alzheimer’s disease is four times higher in the US as compared to other countries such as India.
Post your comment