![Reducing salt in food: should industry be forced?](https://img.passeportsante.net/1000x526/2014-03-24/i60813-reduire-le-sel-dans-les-aliments-faudrait-il-obliger-l-industrie.jpg)
November 10, 2010 – When a government forces the agri-food industry to reduce the amount of salt (sodium) used in processed foods, rather than opting for a voluntary approach, the health benefits would be 20 times greater.
This is what a study indicates1 who compared the effectiveness and cost / benefit ratios of different approaches to reducing salt consumption in Australia, including:
- an incentive-based approach based on the willingness of companies to reduce the amount of salt in the manufacture of food;
- a restrictive approach requiring industry to meet a specific sodium reduction target;
- a message-based approach to educate people at high risk or with hypertension about the importance of reducing their sodium intake.
The results show that both restrictive and incentive approaches are “cost effective,” that is, the costs they require are paid for by the improvements in health.
However, the incentive approach would reduce the number of hypertension cases or events resulting from it (stroke, heart attack, etc.) by less than 1%, compared to 18% for the restrictive approach.
Thus, the restrictive or regulatory approach would prove to be 20 times more effective than the voluntary work of the agri-food industry.
As for the messages intended directly for individuals to reduce their sodium consumption, they do not get through: a reduction of less than 0.5% in hypertension cases is obtained with this approach.
For a voluntary approach … under threat of restrictions
In an editorial published in the same scientific journal2, it is argued that this study is further proof that, in public health, the proactive approach – although more flexible and quick to implement – is less effective than a long-term law or regulation.
“The voluntary collaboration of the (food) industry in Great Britain has made it possible to modify several processed foods, which has led to an initial and impressive reduction of 1 g of salt per day in the population. But since then, the reduction has slowed, ”laments Francesco Cappuccio, one of the authors of the editorial.
According to him, the reduction of 5 g of salt per day obtained in Finland clearly shows that the regulatory or restrictive approach represents a safer value to obtain the expected results.
In Canada, the Sodium Working Group (SWG) recently recommended that Health Canada capitalize on the willingness of processed food manufacturers to reduce salt consumption in the population.
![](https://www.passeportsante.net/fr/Actualites/Nouvelles/DocumentsProteus/images/reduire-sel-dans-les-aliments-faudrait-il-obliger-industrie_20101110-2.jpg)
Bill Jeffrey
And according to Bill Jeffrey of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), who also sat on the GTS, the threat of legislation will be omnipresent.
“Recently, provincial health ministers supported the immediate implementation of proactive action, accompanied by constant oversight by the federal government which, at the same time, should prepare a law that would oblige them. companies to achieve the objectives, in the event that the voluntary approach does not prove to be effective, ”said Jeffrey.
He believes that the evidence remains to show, however, that the agri-food industry as well as the federal government really want to commit to reducing sodium consumption among Canadians.
Martin LaSalle – PasseportSanté.net
1. Cobiac LJ, Vos T, Veerman JL, Cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce dietary salt intake, Heart, 1er November 2010 (published online before print version).
2. Cappuccio FP, Capewell S, How to cut down salt intake in populations, Heart, December 2010, vol 96, noo 23, 1863-4.