Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Canadian Government Plays Deadly Politics of Salt



Health panel wants life saving, sodium lowering policies. Conservatives say "no".

Bill Tieleman's 24 hours/The Tyee column

Tuesday December 6, 2011
By Bill Tieleman
"But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt." 
- The Holy Bible, Genesis 19:26

Why would the federal government deliberately ignore the deadly results of a dangerous substance killing thousands each year and negatively affecting the health of one-quarter of Canadians?

Why would Ottawa do absolutely nothing to stop needless deaths and enormous medical costs when prevention is practically free and its own expert panel recommended quick action?

The answer is because that deadly product is salt -- and the Conservative government doesn't want to upset the culprits who deal it -- food manufacturers and restaurants.

Canadians consume way too much salt -- on average 3,400 milligrams -- when Health Canada says the recommended, safe amount is less than half that -- just 1,500 milligrams. High blood pressure results, causing heart disease and strokes.

Reducing sodium intake to 1,800 milligrams a day would prevent an estimated 23,500 cardiovascular disease events per year -- a 13 per cent reduction -- and save $3 billion a year in health costs, according to the government's own report.

The result is high blood pressure -- the leading preventable risk factor for deaths worldwide -- causing heart disease and strokes, as well as kidney disease, stomach cancer, osteoporosis and asthma.

But last month federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq rejected the urgent recommendations of the Sodium Working Group -- an expert panel appointed by the government.

Information denied

The panel's minimal steps would merely have set a voluntary target of reducing sodium intake by one third by 2016 -- to a still too much 2,300 milligrams -- or about one teaspoon a day.

The plan would only have published the results of food companies' voluntary efforts to reduce salt levels in processed food.

And the Sodium Working Group wanted food companies to use uniform serving sizes in nutrition fact tables on packaging to make it easier for consumers to compare salt content, using the reduced recommended sodium levels.

That would have had the effect of increasing the daily percentage of salt amount in the same sized portion of food -- unless manufacturers reduced the actual sodium content.

But Aglukkaq dumped even those modest ideas, saying that: "We agree we need to move forward to meet the 2016 targets, but we don't always agree about how we get to the end result."

'Blood pressure and diabetes rates don't stand still'

Instead, Health Canada will "consult" still more with the salt sellers, who apparently have no interest in even allowing consumers to decide for themselves what amount of sodium in their processed food and prepared restaurant meals is too much.

And Aglukkaq has already disbanded the Sodium Working Group, which was set up in 2007 and made extensive recommendations in July 2010.

The federal government's refusal to act on clearly established salt health risks angers the experts.

"Blood pressure and diabetes rates don't stand still while Health Canada indulges food companies' desire to conceal sodium reduction track records and perpetuate misleading food labelling," says Bill Jeffery, a member of the Sodium Working Group and Canadian national coordinator of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest.

"Menus and labels should show reliable sodium and calorie levels so customers can make informed choices and restaurants feel real pressure to remake menu items with healthier ingredients," he saidlast month.

His American counterpart is even more blunt.

"Salt, in the amounts presently used in processed foods, is the single deadliest ingredient in the food supply, contributing to the premature deaths of tens of thousands of Americans each year," says U.S. CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson.

"This has been widely acknowledged in the medical community for many years, but has been mostly ignored by food manufacturers and regulators," Jacobson said last month.

When one serving doubles your daily need

To get some idea just how badly restaurant food is being over salted, go to your local shopping mall and check out Edo Japan's menu.

A single serving of their Chicken Udon Soup will give you 3,440 milligrams of salt -- not only more than the average daily consumption but over double the recommended limit for 24 hours!

But Edo Japan is no exception -- in fast food and other restaurants way too much salt is actually the rule.

Have Denny's Restaurant’s Meat Lover's Scramble for breakfast and you've ingested 3,180 milligrams of salt to start your day.

Trying to eat healthy? Forget eating an Olive Garden Garden fresh salad. At 1,930 milligrams of saltthat's more than your daily limit.

And avoid Subway's 6" Turkey Sub with American cheese and light mayo -- unless you don't mind 1,220 milligrams of salt.

Unfortunately processed foods sold in supermarkets are just as bad. Swanson's Hungry Man Roasted Carved Turkey will inject 1,620 milligrams of salt into your body, while just one tablespoon of La Choy Soy Sauce packs a whopping 1,160 milligrams of salt!

The salty facts are sometimes available -- if you look hard for them -- but not usually anywhere near a restaurant menu or clearly explained on a packaged food label, exactly at the time of purchase when you need them.

And those facts won't be posted where they could do some good unless government demands it. All Health Canada has done to date is set up a task force to "explore the possibility" of nutrition facts signage at fast food restaurants.

Processed and dangerous

There's no question the over salting of Canadians isn't being done at the dinner table with a shaker.

Commercially processed foods make up a whopping 77 per cent of sodium intake, while 12 per cent occurs naturally, six per cent gets added at the table and five per cent is added during cooking.

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest has put together loads of information in a lengthy reporton sodium levels in our food and regularly issues news releases and reports on the salt crisis -- but the Canadian government’s latest response shows it has no interest in getting the salt out.

And B.C. Health Minister Mike de Jong doesn't seem to regard salt intake as a crisis either.

To its credit, at least the health ministry has information available on its "Healthy Living" website about sodium and is sponsoring a "sodium awareness" contest with a grand prize of $5,000.

"By increasing awareness of the risks associated with high sodium levels, we are helping British Columbian families prevent health problems, as well as lowering the number of physician visits related to hypertension," de Jong correctly says.

But these are baby steps when doctors, nutritionists and dieticians are all saying urgent action is needed on a national basis.

A 2010 American study cited by the Sodium Working Group report showed just how effective a modest salt reduction strategy could be:

"A three gram (1,200 mg sodium) reduction in daily salt intake would have approximately the same effect on rates of coronary heart disease as a 50 per cent reduction in tobacco use, a five per cent reduction in the BMI (body mass index) of obese adults, or the use of statins to treat people at low or intermediate risk of coronary heart disease events.

"A salt reduction strategy would be more cost-effective than using medication to lower blood pressure in all people with hypertension," the report concluded.

Too much salt is killing too many Canadians -- and the federal government's refusal to act is inexcusable.

.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

How would a responsible journalist go about finding out how much money salt producers and food manufacturers have 'donated' to the Conservatives?

Anonymous said...

Sure could go for a McDonald's Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, large fries and a large Coke right now.

Anonymous said...

If a processed food has too much salt, DON'T BUY IT!

Anonymous said...

Hi Bill,

at first blush one would assume that the individual should be responsible for themselves. However, given the poor physical condition of the average ever younger Canadian due mainly to diet and sedentary lifestyle, it is apparent they show little regard for their own well being, despite the information being available in two syllable words with pictures.

I can understand that we shouldn't legislate for stupidity, but this is a matter of cost in it's many forms for all of us and the individual. I don't see the difference between this issue and the succesful campaign against smoking. Different substances, same denials, same results.

I casn only assume our Govt. had been given advice by the same lobbyists that supply U.S. schools with food, were succesful in convincing the U.S. Govt. that pizza and fries were vegetables.

e.a.f. said...

I expect Harper and his clowns receive donations from the fast food and processed food industry. Of course he isn't going to deal with the "salt issue".

I personally avoid processed foods but millions of people can't or won't. Children eat what their parents serve them.

If people are dying as the result of too much salt and our government refuses to act, I'd consider that very odd. Of course if some of those M.P.s are part of the "religious right" they probably think the deceased will go to heaven or whatever.

Haper and his clowns didn't see much wrong with exporting asbestos either.

Harper has an agenda which is based on his personal beliefs. He has his majority and he is going to stick with his agenda. People voted for him so we get what we wanted. Its just Harper wasn't all that honest with the voters. But what else is new.

Too much salt in a child's diet is a form of child abuse. Perhaps he should be charged as such.

Anonymous said...

Trying to buy low-sodium food for the food bank was an eye-opener.

The easily prepared foods seniors and young families depend on are loaded in sodium. It is not realistic to think that someone who is frail or has substandard cooking facilities can cook from scratch. In addition, foods cooked from scratch require electricity, gas etc which adds an extra cost to a restricted budget.

Whatever one thinks of Walmart, their house brand is lower in sodium than their competitors. Not so long ago, Walmart announced that it was their intention to offer sodium-reduced food.

I hope food banks offer clients who are sodium sensitive special hampers.

On a final note, I wonder if BC hospitals are developing a policy with respect to sodium? Our hospital for one, did not offer sodium reduced food. As someone who routinely reached for the salt shaker, even I could barely get down the sodium packed meals.

Anonymous said...

Too much salt in a child's diet is a form of child abuse. Perhaps he should be charged as such.

So is being uneducated in common sense. The stupidity of the above statement is amazing and shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt.

Bill here is worth his salt.

Sure could use a big helping of fries and gravy right now.

Susanna said...

Hi Bill,
What an excellent article, though a disturbing revelation. Thankyou for bringing it to light.

I just found out in the past few days that I am a borderline diabetic.

I asked for help from the hospital, and the support was incredible. But the key is to want to change. It doesnt matter what people read or see, if they are not ready it will not matter the information anyone puts infront of them.

Also, I have been impressed with the BC Government for a change. The other day on tv I saw a commercial that challenges viewers to check the salt content of the foods they are purchasing and actually gives the number for which you should not go over in the daily value content. I thought it was brilliant, and I hope they produce more along these lines!

And one final note Bill, is there any chance you could remove the anonymous feature for posters on your blog? Its not as though they are sharing confidential information requiring their identity to remain private. If a person has something to say they should atleast identify themselves.

Anonymous said...

And one final note Bill, is there any chance you could remove the anonymous feature for posters on your blog? Its not as though they are sharing confidential information requiring their identity to remain private. If a person has something to say they should atleast identify themselves.

That would be censorship. Anon is an identification. It's one own choosing if they wish to persue vanity and put in a name label which does not nessesarily mean their own name is being used.

If one can't tell anons apart, I'd hate to see such persons doing research where it actually matters. Their skills in analysis would be abysmal.

But take the commentary with a grain of salt like all other commentary here. It's just entertainment anyway. Nothing catastrophic would happen if this blog disappeared, but let's hope it doesn't.

A blog salted with good commentary is very tasty.

Susanna said...

@1:31 - Using the anonymous feature is not for those who wish to avoid vanity. Nor is it a tool for censorship. It is for those who lack the courage to stand publically by their opinion.

Anonymous said...

"Susanna" squealed:

Using the anonymous feature is not for those who wish to avoid vanity. Nor is it a tool for censorship. It is for those who lack the courage to stand publically by their opinion.

Once again "anon" is an identifier, just as "Susanna" is. In fact it very may be that "Susanna" in real life is Cathy.

As for standing publically by their opinion, tell that to the fools wearing masks esp. those idiotic Guy Fawks masks at Occupy events.

Anonymous said...

Use your imagination Susanna, there are many valid reasons why one would prefer to offer commentary without being identified.

Anonymous said...

"SUSANNA'S" COMMENTS EMMIT THE NOT SO SUBTLE ESSENCE-DE-PAB.

"SUSANNA" SAYS:

"Hi Bill"

(JOURNALISM 101: REFER TO JOURNALIST BY THEIR FIRST NAME TO ESTABLISH INTIMACY.)

"SUSANNA" SPEAKS:

"What an excellent article, though a disturbing revelation. Thankyou for bringing it to light."

THIS IS NOT A REVELATION TO YOU SUSANNA, AS YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF IN YOUR LATTER COMMENTS:

"I have been impressed with the BC Government for a change. The other day on tv I saw a commercial that challenges viewers to check the salt content of the foods they are purchasing and actually gives the number for which you should not go over in the daily value content. I thought it was brilliant, and I hope they produce more along these lines!???

SURELY YOU MEAN "I hope WE produce more along these lines!???

I'M NOT REFERRING TO THE ROYAL "WE" SUSANNA.

PERHAPS YOU HAVE AN AGENDA? IS SUSANNA AN ACRONYM? YOUR TONE IS TAKEN FROM THE POLLYANNA PLAYBOOK.

OH SUSANNA! YOU ARE QUITE THE CHEERLEADER FOR A HEALTH ISSUE THAT YOU ARE NOT APPARENTLY AFFLICTED WITH.

"SUSANNA" SAYS":

"I just found out in the past few days that I am a borderline diabetic."

"I asked for help from the hospital, and the support was incredible."

SUSANNA,
I ATTENDED DIABETIC CLINIC/INFORMATION SESSIONS AT OUR HOSPITAL WITH AN ELDERLY RELATIVE. PHYSICIANS ROUTINELY REFER THEIR PATIENTS TO THE CLINIC. IT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE A SPECIAL REQUEST TO THE HOSPITAL FOR.

"SUSANNA" SAYS":

But the key is to want to change. It doesnt matter what people read or see, if they are not ready it will not matter the information anyone puts infront of them.

READ: IF THE GREAT UNWASHED FAIL TO FOLLOW THE PROGRAM IT IS THEIR FAULT. FORGET THAT AFFORDABLE, NUTRITIOUS,EASILY PREPARED WHOLESOME FOOD IS AN OXYMORON.

FORGET THAT FOOD BANK FOOD IS SUPPLIED BY THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HELP BUT ARE NOT NUTRITIONISTS.

"SUSANNA" SAYS:

"And one final note Bill, is there any chance you could remove the anonymous feature for posters on your blog? Its not as though they are sharing confidential information requiring their identity to remain private. If a person has something to say they should atleast identify themselves."

"SUSANNA' WHAT IS YOUR INTEREST IN KNOWING THE ORIGIN OF COMMENTS WHICH ARE NON-OFFENSIVE AND FROM THE HEART?

PLEASE TELL US WHAT IS YOUR CRITEREA TO DETERMINE WHAT INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL? THE CONCEPT OF CONFIDENTIALITY IS GLOBALLY ACCEPTED. GET OVER IT.

Susanna said...

Its quite clear Bill that a segment of your readership lacks maturity. Otherwise they would grasp that one persons opinion is just that. If people want to hide, that is their perogative. I wont lose sleep over it. I was merely stating my opinion. Keep up the great work Bill. However, I will reserve opinion in future. I am not interested in dialoguing with immature people in the comment section. I have more productive ways to spend my time.

health ecology said...

Thank you, thats very interesting information. I need to share with my friends.

Anonymous said...

Right here is the right blog for anybody who really wants to find out about this topic.
You understand a whole lot its almost hard to argue with you (not that I really would want to…HaHa).
You certainly put a fresh spin on a subject thyat
has been discussed for ages. Great stuff, just wonderful!


my site: web site