The Salt War

[Archangel M]

First off let me submit this:

http://www.nasw.org/awards/1999/99Taubesarticle1.htm

It is a well written article about the battle being waged over Salt, Medicine, Public Policy and even Science itself. As with many issues involving science/medicine and public policy, the issue of Salt intake and it's effect on health is not as clear cut as many have been led to believe.

At it's core, the debate over salt comes down to a split between the "Salt kills..stop now" camp and the "wait one minute there isn't any conclusive evidence that Salt in and of itself is bad for your health" camp.

On the one side are those experts — primarily physicians turned epidemiologists, and administrators such as Roccella and Claude Lenfant, head of NHLBI — who insist that the evidence that salt raises blood pressure is effectively irrefutable. They have an obligation, they say, to push for universal salt reduction, because people are dying and will continue to die if they wait for further research to bring scientific certainty. On the other side are those researchers — primarily physicians turned epidemiologists, including former presidents of the American Heart Association, the American Society of Hypertension, and the European and international societies of hypertension — who argue that the data supporting universal salt reduction have never been compelling, nor has it ever been demonstrated that such a program would not have unforeseen negative side effects.

Now you may be asking "why is this in the study"?

Well, as I read this article many things began to pop out at me as being analogical with various political issues and divisive "hot buttons" I have seen in other areas.

At stake are politicians drafting bills to outlaw salt and get their fingers into what we are allowed to eat. One scientist put it this way:

This "modest reduction," says NHBPEP director Ed Roccella, "can shift some arterial pressures down and prevent some strokes." Roccella’s message is clear: "All I’m trying to do is save some lives."

How much does THAT sound like "How can you try to kill the Health Care Bill with a Constitutional argument..all we are trying to do is save the children. IT"S FOR THE CHILDREN YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD!!" ?

Then there is this ever present issue:

The dispute over salt, however, is an idiosyncratic one, remarkable in several fundamental aspects. Foremost, many who advocate salt reduction insist publicly that the controversy is a) either nonexistent, or b) due solely to the influence of the salt lobby and its paid consultant-scientists.

Can anybody else see where this argument has been used in other politically charged issues? How about global warming and the accusations of energy sector or "environmentalist" influence in scientific research?

Science and public policy. Science and the ability to influence it through politics, partisanship and human emotion.

I see a pattern here.

I will end with the quote that starts this article:

"Science ... warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile. My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations."

— Thomas Huxley, 1860​

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Any hot-button issue, whether this salt-war or global warming or the healthcare bill, is going to have advocates making appeals to emotion, fear, authority--anything but the reason, science, or facts behind the whole issue. Usually, both sides are guilty. On the healthcare bill, members of the left claim that resistance to the reform is motivated by insurance and Big Pharma, while members of the right accuse supporters of wanting government to control everything.

What's unfortunate is that issues like these become political ones when they should be scientific in nature (not including the healthcare reform issue, for obvious reasons). We should be listening to the pulmonologists and hypertension specialists on this salt issue; we should be listening to meteorologists about global warming. Instead it's all about Al Gore and his carbon signature; again, a political factor. With both issues, the scientists have the least say, and that's lamentable.

Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention.

 

[Shuto]

Thanks for the link. I found it very interesting to read. Your point about politics impacting these studies is a good one.

While reading your link (published in 1999 I believe) they mentioned an upcomming DASH study. I found this NIH/DASH link which concludes that salt does, in fact, influence blood pressure, as well as other dietary and nutritional factors. They describe their study in the link.

I wanted to mention this in case someone took your link as the latest data on the salt/blood pressure topic.

 

[chaos1551]

All I know is that when I eat too much salt, I feel sluggish and gross. If I eat less salt overall, it doesn't take much to make me feel bad. If I eat a lot overall, it takes tons to make me feel bad. My body reacts to sugar much the same way.

I like to eat sugar and salt in a very low to almost moderate amounts. I use salt when I cook, but never even think about the shaker that may or may not be on my table at home or in restaurants.

I feel sluggish and gross when I eat too much processed foods--I think because processed foods have higher amounts of sugar and salt than my body likes.

I like beer, though. It makes me feel sluggish and gross, but not until the next morning.

 

[Archangel M]

We should be listening to the pulmonologists and hypertension specialists on this salt issue; we should be listening to meteorologists about global warming. Instead it's all about Al Gore and his carbon signature; again, a political factor. With both issues, the scientists have the least say, and that's lamentable.

The problem is when the scientists are influenced by guys like Gore. Or are so rabidly attached to their worldview that their findings get "spun" to support what they already believe.

If we think that scientists are truly neutral and have no political beliefs...well I have this bridge.

 

[Carol]

To be honest, I think this debate has less to do with salt/sodum, and more about finding a bad guy.

The salt lobby, the food lobby, the this lobby, the that lobby...all paying millions to lobby congress to keep them from saying "eat less."

 

[grydth]

Yeah, well lobbyists aside, it is none of Congress' business what levels of salt I use with dinner.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I cook in brine. My doctor tells me to stop. I say I'll drink more water and eat a banana to balance things out. I haven't exploded yet, and my BP is well under control. Funny that.

 

[Carol]

I cook in brine. My doctor tells me to stop. I say I'll drink more water and eat a banana to balance things out. I haven't exploded yet, and my BP is well under control. Funny that.

Beats cooking in cream. Or oil. Or rich sauces....

 

[K-man]

I cook in brine. My doctor tells me to stop. I say I'll drink more water and eat a banana to balance things out. I haven't exploded yet, and my BP is well under control. Funny that.

The truth is, most people have no problem eliminating excess salt. In some people the salt is not excreted easily and to maintain the electrolyte balance their body retains fluid which causes a rise in BP and stress on a number of organs. If you can take in salt but not have an increase in BP, then go for it. It is not a problem for you. The biggest problem is, most people don't visit a doctor regularly and they don't know they have elevated BP. By the time they visit the doctor for a secondary problem the damage is done. Reducing salt levels in processed foods would have a benefit in many cases, particularly people who might be significantly overweight.

 

[theletch1]

Beats cooking in cream. Or oil. Or rich sauces....

Hey, you, stay out of my kitchen.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

All I know is that when I eat too much salt, I feel sluggish and gross. If I eat less salt overall, it doesn't take much to make me feel bad. If I eat a lot overall, it takes tons to make me feel bad. My body reacts to sugar much the same way.

I like to eat sugar and salt in a very low to almost moderate amounts. I use salt when I cook, but never even think about the shaker that may or may not be on my table at home or in restaurants.

I feel sluggish and gross when I eat too much processed foods--I think because processed foods have higher amounts of sugar and salt than my body likes.

I like beer, though. It makes me feel sluggish and gross, but not until the next morning.

And very few would condemn you for the choices you make. It is interesting, though (and I in no way am accusing you of this) that many who have decided for whatever reason, to 'cut down' on this that or the other ALSO decide that not only is it a good idea for them, it's a good idea for everyone, and BY GOD we ought to have a law FORCING everyone to go along with the program.

I like the idea of government regulation requiring DISCLOSURE of what's in our food. I do not like government trying to tell me what I can eat.

However, with the coming federal takeover of health care, it will soon be everyone's business what I eat, because if I do not take care of myself I'll get sick and the US taxpayer will be stuck with the bill; therefore the US taxpayer will have a vested interest in forcing me to live the way that costs the taxpayer the least. Watch it coming and mark my words.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yeah, well lobbyists aside, it is none of Congress' business what levels of salt I use with dinner.

But it soon will be.

With health insurance, one can argue that a person can choose whether or not to be part of a risk pool that spreads the cost of medical care among those who pay into the pool. Therefore, one can say that a person can avoid incurring additional cost by not buying that health insurance. At least in theory; few of us would choose to go without employer-provided health care, for example.

With health care provided by the government, which is where this HCR is going to end up, the US taxpayer has no choice about joining the risk pool. They are compelled to absorb their share of the costs of providing health care to not just those who have medical problems they cannot control, but those who it can be argued inflict such damage on themselves. This gives taxpayers the vested interest, if not the absolute right, to demand changes in such behavior.

That means that if I, as a taxpayer, am required by law to pay into a health care system that raises my costs by insuring fat people, I want a law forcing them to lose weight - by themselves or by surgery if necessary. If they still won't lose weight, I want them in government-run work-camps on restricted diets. No red meat, no salt, no high-fructose corn syrup, no whatever-else-the-eggheads-tell-us-is-killing-us. No smoking, of course. Exercise will be mandatory, with national physical fitness tests performed quarterly. Those who refuse will be sent to the labor camps along with the fatties.

I also want contact sports banned, and no extreme sports of any kind. No bungee jumping, no skiing, no parachuting. No snowboarding, no ice-skating. It costs me money, and if I'm compelled by law to pay into this system, then I have the legal right to demand that others not take voluntary actions that incur higher costs.

While I'm at it, I want premarital testing for genetic defects that are predisposed to diseases screened out - no marriages for people whose gene combinations might increase the risk of birth defects or inherited genetic conditions or predisposition to diseases. Mandatory sterilization of individuals who suffer genetic damage that would definitely be passed on no matter whom they mate with. I also want a stable population base, with a zero-growth policy after a few decades of negative growth to increase employment and decrease use of natural resources. That means one child per couple by law for a few generations.

Hope you're all OK with this. But frankly, anyone who thinks the government has the right to tell us how much salt we can eat in our food already agrees with me; they just don't realize it yet.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The HCR bill does not include a public option (although it certainly should, especially with the mandate as it exists). It requires citizens to either purchase insurance or pay a tax, assuming you do not qualify for the economic hardship exemption.

Consider this, Mr. Mattocks: a person eating 20 slim jims a day might never end up in the hospital. George Burns got to, what, 94 after smoking cigars his whole life? You say that the HCR bill gives the public a vested interest because uninsured individuals might become unhealthy and costs the US taxpayer unpaid medical bills. In truth, the debt becomes involved after they actually have become hospitalized. Truth be told, uninsured hospital care is already a cost being incurred.

You're viewing the mandate's purpose as being making sure all Americans live healthy. I view it as an attempt to deal with the costs that some Americans cause the public when they end up in the hospital and unable to pay. Are there other ways to deal with it? Probably. Are there better ways? Maybe. But uninsured healthcare bills are a public problem; portraying the bill as just an attempt by liberals to control private lives, I think, is a bit of disingenuous fear-mongering.

The bill does not require people to take in only certain amount of calories, or regulate how often we visit fast food. Slippery slope arguments make for bad catch-alls.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If they can punish us for NOT buying health plans, they can certainly punish us for NOT buying any other service or product they choose. No 401k? Pay a fee. No dental coverage? Pay a fee. No internet service? pay a fee. It's limitless.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The HCR bill does not include a public option (although it certainly should, especially with the mandate as it exists). It requires citizens to either purchase insurance or pay a tax, assuming you do not qualify for the economic hardship exemption.

Correct. When I am required to become a member of a risk pool by law, then I have a vested interest in the costs incurred by other members of the risk pool. When the government provides no public option, then the federal takeover is by proxy; one must purchase private insurance by law, which amounts to the same thing.

Consider this, Mr. Mattocks: a person eating 20 slim jims a day might never end up in the hospital. George Burns got to, what, 94 after smoking cigars his whole life? You say that the HCR bill gives the public a vested interest because uninsured individuals might become unhealthy and costs the US taxpayer unpaid medical bills. In truth, the debt becomes involved after they actually have become hospitalized. Truth be told, uninsured hospital care is already a cost being incurred.

And truth be told, the public is already involved in telling people what they can and cannot due with respect to risk, not just actual outlay for medical expenses.

Prior to the HCR becoming law, private companies provided most health insurance, on behalf of their employees. They paid a large percentage of the premiums, and those costs rise year after year. It is already the case that employers seek to lower health care costs by controlling what their employees may do with their own bodies on their own time. Some have offered incentives for joining 'wellness' programs and losing weight, stopping smoking, or exercising to become fit. Some have taken it a step further and required employees to join such programs or lose their health insurance. Please do not tell me this is not happening, I was an employee at a large bank that did just precisely that; and my wife lost her health care coverage for failing to comply with a directive from the company to join the company wellness program and lose a specific amount of weight.

However, no matter how bad it got, one could still argue that health insurance was voluntary. My wife lost her health insurance because she refused to accept a mandate by her employer, but she was able to join mine, and even if that had not been possible, there was no law MAKING her buy health insurance. One could always argue that it was her choice to comply or not comply.

Now that the federal government has intervened, employers will have to choose between purchasing health insurance for their employees or paying a small fine per employee for not providing any insurance at all. Given skyrocketing costs, which the HCR does not address in any way, the smart move will be for employers to drop health care coverage for their employees en masse. Especially in an economy where employees are glad to have jobs at all, there is no incentive to keep paying for such benefits when they can simply dump the responsibility onto the employees themselves to buy private insurance on the private market.

And just like the employers, the private exchanges will seek to control costs by modifying risk. Just like employers all over the USA, the insurers on the private exchanges will begin to require members to join wellness programs, to lose weight, to stop smoking, to control salt and sugar intake, and so on. Since they can no longer exclude pre-existing conditions, their costs will also rise precipitously anyway, causing massive spikes in premiums for everyone, and now of course everyone will be forced to purchase this insurance by law.

You're viewing the mandate's purpose as being making sure all Americans live healthy. I view it as an attempt to deal with the costs that some Americans cause the public when they end up in the hospital and unable to pay. Are there other ways to deal with it? Probably. Are there better ways? Maybe. But uninsured healthcare bills are a public problem; portraying the bill as just an attempt by liberals to control private lives, I think, is a bit of disingenuous fear-mongering.

Considering it already happens, I don't see it that way at all. The effort to modify behavior will simply shift from private companies to public policy. And considering (well, sorry, have to say it) liberals typical desire to control behavior (anti-smoking, anti-meat, anti-transfats, and now anti-salt), it will be the liberals leading the charge to force people to live in healthy ways; not just because liberals love them all so much, but also because unhealthy people are costing us a fortune and will do so even more now that there is no lifetime cap on insurance and no one can be turned down, so we'll all be forced to buy into insurance that contains a whole lot of sick people, including those who are sick because they don't take care of themselves.

The bill does not require people to take in only certain amount of calories, or regulate how often we visit fast food. Slippery slope arguments make for bad catch-alls.

No, the bill does not require it. New bills will. That's a promise.

 

[grydth]

Most have no concept of just what "limitless" means for them...

When the government presumes that it is the source of your health protections and benefits, your life becomes a "risk" that it needs to aggressively "manage". No salt for you!

Then there is the government's endless thirst for your money... under this train of thought, you are being robbed for your own good. At least that's the pretext. The "soda tax" would fall upon the svelte as well as the chubby.... because, in reality, it isn't about reducing your waistline....its about lightening your wallet.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Most have no concept of just what "limitless" means for them...

When the government presumes that it is the source of your health protections and benefits, your life becomes a "risk" that it needs to aggressively "manage". No salt for you!

Then there is the government's endless thirst for your money... under this train of thought, you are being robbed for your own good. At least that's the pretext. The "soda tax" would fall upon the svelte as well as the chubby.... because, in reality, it isn't about reducing your waistline....its about lightening your wallet.

So-called 'sin' taxes work like this:

The government decides that prostitution is bad. So in order to reduce prostitution, they pass a law requiring those who patronize prostitutes to pay a financial penalty in order to do so. Every time a prostitute plies his or her trade, the government gets a share of the profits.

In other words, they're pimps.