Doctors endorse push to shake the salt habit
AMA hopes campaign will cut sodium consumption in
half
By John Schmeltzer and Bruce
Japsen
Tribune staff
reporters
Published June 14,
2006
The American Medical Association on
Tuesday overwhelmingly agreed to back a campaign to halve the amount
of sodium in restaurant and processed foods over the next 10
years.
At the same time, the nation's largest doctors group
urged the Food and Drug Administration to revoke rules that have
allowed sodium to go unregulated for decades. The rule has allowed
salt and its component sodium to be treated as "generally recognized
as safe."
The move by the AMA's 544-member House of Delegates
to back revocation of the special status salt has enjoyed is similar
to a petition filed last fall by the Center for Scientists in the
Public Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group, seeking to void
the rule.
Americans consume about 4,000 milligrams to 6,000
milligrams of sodium per day, and the resulting hypertension and
cardiovascular disease costs the health-care system "tens of
billions of dollars," AMA officials said.
Dietary guidelines
released last year set the maximum daily consumption of sodium at
2,300 milligrams, while 1,500 milligrams was set as the maximum for
people with high blood pressure, blacks and middle-aged and older
adults.
"Cardiovascular disease remains the No. 1 killer of
Americans. People who reduce dietary sodium intake are taking an
important step in preventing future health problems," said Dr. J.
James Rohack, a cardiologist and an AMA board member.
Rohack
said congestive heart failure is the leading reason people over 65
who are covered by the Medicare health insurance program are
admitted to the hospital. Just one overnight stay in a hospital for
a Medicare patient can cost the government insurance program several
thousand dollars.
The AMA is now on board with the National
Institutes of Health, which also has recommended a 5 percent per
year reduction in sodium by manufacturers, restaurants and consumers
during the next 10 years to cut sodium use in packaged and
restaurant food in half.
The AMA's decision was decried by
the Salt Institute, an industry trade group.
"The American
Medical Association has misread the science, confusing blood
pressure effects with health outcomes," said Richard L. Hanneman,
the institute's president. "Following the AMA recommendation is
scientifically unjustified and a waste of time and money. What we
really need is a controlled trial of the health outcomes of salt
reduction."
Report cites risks
The AMA, however,
rejected that argument, saying in a committee report that "excess
sodium greatly increases the chance of developing hypertension,
heart disease and stroke."
"Just one cup of canned soup can
contain more than 50 percent of the FDA recommended daily
allowance," said Rohack. "A serving of lasagna in a restaurant can
put a diner over their recommended daily sodium allowance in just
one meal. These examples stress the importance of a national
reduction in the amount of sodium in processed and restaurant
foods."
"You can't deal with this on your own," said Michael
Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Scientists in the
Public Interest. "At least 80 percent of the sodium consumed by
Americans is in restaurant and processed food. ... The FDA needs to
put pressure on the entire food industry to gradually reduce sodium
levels."
AMA officials said the FDA needs to improve
requirements for the labeling of sodium in processed foods, just as
it did three years ago when it pressured foodmakers to list the
amount of artery-clogging trans fatty acids in each
serving.
The labeling prompted a three-year scramble by the
industry to reformulate foods to avoid listing high levels of heart
damaging fat in each product. The FDA estimated the food industry
spent $140 million to $250 million determining the amount of trans
fat in food products, relabeling the "nutrition facts" panel and
reformulating products voluntarily to decrease or avoid listing
trans fat.
Similar efforts expected
Efforts to
reformulate foods to reduce sodium levels are likely to be similar.
The British government, which also is seeking to drive down the use
of sodium, estimated in 2003 that it would cost food manufacturers
$65,000 to $185,000 per product line to reformulate their offerings
with lower levels of sodium.
The amount of sodium contained
in a serving is required on food labels, along with the percentage
of the daily allowance in the dietary guidelines that it represents.
But no explanation is provided, and the maximum recommended daily
amount of sodium is not listed.
Just as the removal of trans
fat was estimated to save billions of dollars and hundreds of lives,
reducing sodium consumption by 50 percent could have a similar
effect, according to the AMA and the Center for Scientists in the
Public Interest.
The center estimates that cutting salt
consumption by 50 percent would save 150,000 lives per year and
reduce medical care and other costs by $1.5 trillion over 20
years.
High sodium levels are key components in high blood
pressure and cardiovascular disease, according to the AMA, which
said it must "help change the way Americans think about
salt."
Although an AMA policy stance cannot force action, the
national group, representing 250,000 physicians, wields considerable
clout in Washington. Its support could embolden health policymakers
and make it hard for the FDA not to at least look at the issue,
observers say.
But imposition of strict sodium rules could
have huge implications for food manufacturers, many of whom are
still attempting to retool products to reduce trans
fat.
Stephanie Childs, a spokeswoman for the Grocery
Manufacturers Association, which represents the nation's food
processors, said most companies already are working on reducing
sodium levels.
"Heart-healthy food is a competitive factor
amongst the food industry," she said. "Companies are investing in
nutrition more than ever and putting it to use in reformulation for
trans fat and other
nutrients."
----------
jschmeltzer@tribune.com
bjapsen@tribune.com
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune