The War on Food

[The Irish Doggy]

NY Times

 

New York Seeks National Effort to Curb Salt in Food

 

By WILLIAM NEUMAN

Published: January 10, 2010

 

First New York City required restaurants to cut out trans fat. Then it made restaurant chains post calorie counts on their menus. Now it wants to protect people from another health scourge: salt.

Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image

Yana Paskova for The New York Times

 

In 2008, New York City began forcing chains like Subway to post calorie counts, a requirement that restaurants resisted.

Readers' Comments

 

On Monday, the Bloomberg administration plans to unveil a broad new health initiative aimed at encouraging food manufacturers and restaurant chains across the country to curtail the amount of salt in their products.

 

The plan, for which the city claims support from health agencies in other cities and states, sets a goal of reducing the amount of salt in packaged and restaurant food by 25 percent over the next five years.

 

Public health experts say that would reduce the incidence of high blood pressure and should help prevent some of the strokes and heart attacks associated with that condition. The plan is voluntary for food companies and involves no legislation. It allows companies to cut salt gradually over five years so the change is not so noticeable to consumers.

 

“We all consume way too much salt, and most of the salt we consume is in the food when we buy it,” said Dr. Thomas Farley, the city health commissioner, whose department is leading the effort. Eighty percent of the salt in Americans’ diets comes from packaged or restaurant food. Dr. Farley said reducing salt from those sources would save lives.

 

Since taking office, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who just began his third term, has gained a reputation as an advocate for healthy living, initiating prominent campaigns against smoking and harmful trans fats. To combat obesity, he has campaigned for calorie labeling on restaurant menus and warned consumers about sugary soft drinks.

 

The city’s salt campaign is in some ways more ambitious and less certain of success than the ones it waged against smoking and obesity. For one thing, the changes it prescribes require cooperation on a national scale, city officials said, because major food companies cannot be expected to alter their products for just the New York market.

 

And removing salt from many products can be complicated. Salt plays many roles in food, enhancing flavor, preventing spoilage and improving shelf life. It helps bread to rise and brown.

 

The city’s campaign against salt resembles its push to cut trans fat from restaurant foods, which began with a call for voluntary compliance. When that did not work, the city passed a law to force restaurants to eliminate trans fat.

 

But city officials said it would be difficult to legislate sodium reduction.

 

“There’s not an easy regulatory fix,” said Geoffrey Cowley, an associate health commissioner. “You would have to micromanage so many targets for so many different products.”

 

He said officials hoped the campaign would work through public pressure. Companies that complied would benefit from good publicity.

 

The city has been discussing the program with the food industry since late 2008, yet only a few companies appear ready to jump on board. One of those is A.& P., the supermarket chain.

 

“We think it’s a very realistic set of criteria that our suppliers can adhere to,” said Douglas A. Palmer, vice president for store brands at A.& P.

 

He said the company expected to embrace the city’s salt reduction goals for the hundreds of store brand products it sells under labels like America’s Choice and Smart Price in 435 supermarkets throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. In Manhattan, the chain operates under the name Food Emporium.

 

Subway, the fast food sandwich chain, also said it expected to commit to the city’s salt guidelines at its nearly 23,000 stores across the country.

 

Lanette R. Kovachi, Subway’s corporate dietitian, said the company has reduced salt in stores in several other countries, including Britain and Australia, in response to government programs there.

 

“We view these as achievable goals,” she said.

 

The company’s best-selling item, a six-inch turkey sandwich, is already below the city’s five-year average target for lunch meat sandwiches in restaurants. But the chain also has a six-inch spicy Italian sub whose salt content is well above the city’s goals.

 

On Monday, after a year of consultations with industry, the city will release preliminary targets for sodium content. After a review, the city will unveil final targets in the spring and ask companies to commit to the program.

 

The system proposed by the city is complex, with reductions ranging from 10 to 40 percent for 61 classes of packaged foods and 25 classes of restaurant foods.

 

It would measure the average salt content of a company’s entire line of a particular type of product, like canned vegetables, breakfast cereals or frozen dinners, adjusted to give greater weight to products with the highest sales. That would allow companies to maintain a range of sodium levels but would create incentive to cut back on salt in the most popular items.

 

While most food companies say they agree at least with the goal of reducing salt, some medical researchers have questioned the scientific basis for the initiative, saying insufficient research had been done on possible effects. While agreeing that reducing salt is likely to lower average blood pressure, they say it can lead to other physiological changes, some of which may be associated with heart problems.

 

An elaborate clinical trial could weigh the pluses and minuses of cutting salt in a large group of people. But that would cost millions, and it has not been done.

 

Dr. Michael H. Alderman, a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said the city’s initiative, if successful in reducing salt, would amount to an uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.

 

“I’m always worried about unintended consequences,” he said.

 

The federal government recommends that sodium intake from salt be limited to 1,500 to 2,300 milligrams a day, with the latter figure equaling about a teaspoon. But the average adult in this country consumes about 3,400 milligrams a day.

 

Several major companies, including some that have been leaders in reducing salt, said they would not join the city initiative.

 

“One of the things we want to bring across to New York City is that sodium reduction does not always follow a prescribed time or prescribed progress,” said Chor-San Khoo, vice president for global nutrition and health at the Campbell Soup Company. “There’s no one size fits all.”

 

Campbell has already made significant reductions in the amount of salt in many of its products, including many canned soups, V8 beverages and Pepperidge Farm breads.

 

“We will continue to reduce sodium as long as there’s consumer acceptance in the marketplace,” Ms. Khoo said.

 

ConAgra, which makes a wide array of products, including Hunt’s canned tomato products and Chef Boyardee packaged meals, said it would continue with previously announced plans to cut the sodium in its portfolio of products by 20 percent by 2015.

 

“We don’t have plans to join other organizations’ pledges,” the company said.

 

I'm generally against this kind of initiative coming from the government. If you don't like the salt in your food, go somewhere else.

 

I'm reminded of a conversation I've had with a couple people recently. We've noticed a general increase in the saltiness of restaurant food in the last couple years (mostly fast food and chain restaurants). I've stopped going to a few places, which is probably a good thing. Anyone else have the same experience?

[dmarc117]

we need to limit all preservatives in our foods

[Yukon Cornelius]

we need to limit all preservatives in our foods

no no no more regulations. I am sure that the big companies will look out for the common man even if it means cutting into profits.

[TimC]

I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to salt. I think it masks the flavor rather than bring it out. It is way overused in restaurants nowadays IMO.

Edited January 11, 2010 by TimC

[dmarc117]

no no no more regulations. I am sure that the big companies will look out for the common man even if it means cutting into profits.

 

 

i would think that cutting preservatives would help out big co's. we would have to buy more freq. stuff wouldnt last as long. imo. its also whats killing us.

[bpwallace49]

we need to limit all preservatives in our foods

 

Salt has been used to preserve foods for thousands of years . . . ..

[Pope Flick]

I'd rather them just have them post salt/sodium levels along with their calorie counts so people can make a fair choice. Looked at campbell soups lately? PACKED with sodium so I don't eat them anymore.

[dmarc117]

Salt has been used to preserve foods for thousands of years . . . ..

 

 

which is why i said.....all

[Kid Cid]

Yes, let's blame the manufacturers for putting the salt in there, not the consumers that are buying it and shoving it down their gullets at warp speed.

 

You cannot save people from themselves. You can give them the tools to make smart decisions, but that is the best you can hope for. Legislating personal behaviors is an exercise doomed to failure.

[dmarc117]

I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to salt. I think it masks the flavor rather than bring it out. It is way overused in restaurants nowadays IMO.

 

 

my buddy went down to the duke fat-camp. their main strategy is to ween you off of salt. he said after a few weeks, you no longer crave it. went to a restaurant during one of the breaks and asked for no salt. they skrewed up and he almost puked when he tasted the salt.

[BeeR]

You cannot save people from themselves.

That's pretty much the govt's job.

 

In fact, human beings are such a stupid/loony species that we should probably be much more thankful for govt (I can't believe I'm saying that), even if they are a "necessary evil."

 

And really BFD on this thing; how many people eat out so much that this will have a drastic impact in their lives?

 

PS I love salt as much as anyone. But I learned the hard way that I have to cut WAY back.

Edited January 12, 2010 by BeeR

[detlef]

That's pretty much the govt's job.

 

In fact, human beings are such a stupid/loony species that we should probably be much more thankful for govt (I can't believe I'm saying that), even if they are a "necessary evil."

 

And really BFD on this thing; how many people eat out so much that this will have a drastic impact in their lives?

 

PS I love salt as much as anyone. But I learned the hard way that I have to cut WAY back.

That's the thing, isn't it? Either we tell Campbells to stop putting 1/4 cup of salt in their soup and selling "Soup is Good Food" or we all end up picking up the tab for an entire generation of idiots with a litany of health issues because they're too stupid to know better. Seems like the lesser of evils to me.

[TimC]

That's the thing, isn't it? Either we tell Campbells to stop putting 1/4 cup of salt in their soup and selling "Soup is Good Food" or we all end up picking up the tab for an entire generation of idiots with a litany of health issues because they're too stupid to know better. Seems like the lesser of evils to me.

 

Somebody explain to me why it's ultimately the Government's responsibility to keep it's citizens healthy again? When did we cross this threshold?

[Avernus]

That's pretty much the govt's job.

 

In fact, human beings are such a stupid/loony species that we should probably be much more thankful for govt (I can't believe I'm saying that), even if they are a "necessary evil."

 

And really BFD on this thing; how many people eat out so much that this will have a drastic impact in their lives?

 

PS I love salt as much as anyone. But I learned the hard way that I have to cut WAY back.

 

it has to do with the conditioning.....

 

TV, among other things tells men that it isn't manly to watch what you eat...a man eats what he wants and asks nobody if it's good for him....and then he grunts....

 

if a man reads the labels telling you how much fat and cholesterol and whatnot is in the food, you are pretty much a woman....

 

our society is a joke....and we should never have to rely on big government, no matter how stupid people are...

[dmarc117]

Somebody explain to me why it's ultimately the Government's responsibility to keep it's citizens healthy again? When did we cross this threshold?

 

 

as long as the govt takes more and more of my tax dollars to insure people, i want those people to be as healthy as possible.

[Kid Cid]

So let me get this straight. People are too stupid to live therefore we are going to have the government force them to live longer because they are too stupid to do it themselves. Oh, and in the process we are going to force additional government regulations on those business and individuals to help expand the role of government.

 

It seems clear to me that the lot of you are the same people at the core of the problem. You refuse to take responsibility for the tiniest aspect of you lives, instead foisting it all upon outside agencies whether that be government or religious institutions or other social organizations. Then you sit back and blame the system or society when something goes wrong. Therefore, the answer is more of these failed programs or institutions or what not. Seriously, you all sicken me.

[westvirginia]

So let me get this straight. People are too stupid to live therefore we are going to have the government force them to live longer because they are too stupid to do it themselves. Oh, and in the process we are going to force additional government regulations on those business and individuals to help expand the role of government.

 

It seems clear to me that the lot of you are the same people at the core of the problem. You refuse to take responsibility for the tiniest aspect of you lives, instead foisting it all upon outside agencies whether that be government or religious institutions or other social organizations. Then you sit back and blame the system or society when something goes wrong. Therefore, the answer is more of these failed programs or institutions or what not. Seriously, you all sicken me.

 

I <3 KC...

[dmarc117]

So let me get this straight. People are too stupid to live therefore we are going to have the government force them to live longer because they are too stupid to do it themselves. Oh, and in the process we are going to force additional government regulations on those business and individuals to help expand the role of government.

 

It seems clear to me that the lot of you are the same people at the core of the problem. You refuse to take responsibility for the tiniest aspect of you lives, instead foisting it all upon outside agencies whether that be government or religious institutions or other social organizations. Then you sit back and blame the system or society when something goes wrong. Therefore, the answer is more of these failed programs or institutions or what not. Seriously, you all sicken me.

 

 

accountability. there is none.

[Grimm74]

Somebody explain to me why it's ultimately the Government's responsibility to keep it's citizens healthy again? When did we cross this threshold?

 

 

Medicaid, Medicare and social security is making our bodies assets of the government. The only thing humans really own now is our time and I am sure that will go away soon.

 

How the Patriot Act scared more people then this crap is beyond me?

[i_am_the_swammi]

as long as the govt takes more and more of my tax dollars to insure people, i want those people to be as healthy as possible.

 

Exactly how much have the taken from you? More and more? really?

 

But I'm with you....the government takes my tax dolllars and funds rehab programs, underpriviledged schools, roads where I don't drive, space programs...all the bs stuff that doesn't help ME....after all, I don't live in a scoiety, why should I contribute to it?

[dmarc117]

Exactly how much have the taken from you? More and more? really?

 

But I'm with you....the government takes my tax dolllars and funds rehab programs, underpriviledged schools, roads where I don't drive, space programs...all the bs stuff that doesn't help ME....after all, I don't live in a scoiety, why should I contribute to it?

 

 

you believe in socialism, i do not. so we wont see anything the same, thankfully. if im going to pay for someone elses problems, either thru taxes or higher insurance premiums, then i also want a say in what causes those problems. thats crazy talk!!!

 

let everyone pay their own way and i will be happy.

Edited January 12, 2010 by dmarc117

[Pope Flick]

Medicaid, Medicare and social security is making our bodies assets of the government. The only thing humans really own now is our time and I am sure that will go away soon.

 

How the Patriot Act scared more people then this crap is beyond me?

 

 

Regulating salt = robbing an American of Due Process. Gotcha.

[bpwallace49]

That's pretty much the govt's job.

 

In fact, human beings are such a stupid/loony species that we should probably be much more thankful for govt (I can't believe I'm saying that), even if they are a "necessary evil."

 

And really BFD on this thing; how many people eat out so much that this will have a drastic impact in their lives?

 

PS I love salt as much as anyone. But I learned the hard way that I have to cut WAY back.

 

Go drink some water . . right now.

[i_am_the_swammi]

if im going to pay for someone elses problems, either thru taxes or higher insurance premiums, then i also want a say in what causes those problems. thats crazy talk!!!

 

 

that not just "crazy talk".....that line of thinking borders on absurd.

[Avernus]

So let me get this straight. People are too stupid to live therefore we are going to have the government force them to live longer because they are too stupid to do it themselves. Oh, and in the process we are going to force additional government regulations on those business and individuals to help expand the role of government.

 

It seems clear to me that the lot of you are the same people at the core of the problem. You refuse to take responsibility for the tiniest aspect of you lives, instead foisting it all upon outside agencies whether that be government or religious institutions or other social organizations. Then you sit back and blame the system or society when something goes wrong. Therefore, the answer is more of these failed programs or institutions or what not. Seriously, you all sicken me.

 

you speak only in facts....