Salt is Salt - Part 2

Almost seven years ago I wrote here about the sea salt scam. In that piece I quoted Mayo Clinic as saying, “Sea salt and table salt have the same basic nutritional value, despite the fact that sea salt is often marketed as a more natural and healthy alternative.” The American Heart Association (AHA) agreed.

But then a few weeks ago, I ran across an article with the headline: “How Pink Salt Took Over Millennial Kitchens.” Immediately it goes on to explain that, like sea salt, it’s not healthier than common table salt. It’s labeled as Himalayan, but does not come from the Himalayas. “Most of that comes from the enormous Khewra Salt Mine, situated between Islamabad and Lahore in Punjab, a bit south of the actual Himalayas in Pakistan.” 

Despite that, it has become another foodie fad, skyrocketing in popularity, featured at Trader Joes with it’s own grinder. The popularity stems not only from the color – it’s prettier than plain old white salt – but because it’s also rumored to be healthier. Take the warnings from the AHA and others about salt consumption, combine that with the fact that salt makes food taste good, mix that with the mistaken notion that this special salt is really healthy because of some mythological “trace minerals” and voila! - gullible people are willing to pay $2.70 a pound at Costco in bulk. For comparison, sea salt at Costco goes for 1.76 per pound and Morton Salt at a restaurant wholesale site is $0.38. Those must be some expensive trace minerals!

Contrary to what pink salt enthusiasts claim, real nutritionists agree that the amount of trace minerals in any salt “is too minuscule to make any difference, and we already get plenty of the same trace minerals from other foods.” Another site confirms that “The ‘84 minerals’ in himalayan salt is an unsupported claim.” It’s all marketing hype.

It’s so easy to go on line, though, to find glowing endorsements of pink salt pushing these imaginary health benefits. This one is a good example: “Many people believe that this pink salt is the purest salt that can be found on the planet.” Maybe so, but many people believe a lot of things that aren’t true.

In case you aren’t convinced by the purity and naturalness alone, it goes on to claim that pink salt stores “vibrational energy,” whatever that is. Supposedly it aids vascular health, supports respiratory functions, reduces the signs of aging, promotes healthy sleep patterns, increases libido, lowers blood pressure, and detoxifies the body of heavy metals – among other benefits. (Apparently, to get some of these benefits, we must add it to our bath water.)

First, the word detoxify should raise warning flags to anyone with any scientific understanding of how the human body functions. Second, the idea that any salt lowers blood pressure flies in the face of all medical understanding. Increased salt consumption increases the risk of high blood pressure. Finally, supports and promotes are words often used by snake oil salesmen regarding all sorts of magical supplements, potions and ointments to cure all sorts of ailments. Promoting and supporting cannot be measured, thus they are meaningless. It’s junk science at it’s finest.

But don’t let that stop Millennials searching for the magic potions allowing them to live forever. Set the grinder of pretty pink salt on the table to impress friends and mix it with the bathwater to increase libido and conquer aging. Then wonder why you are no healthier or younger looking and can’t afford to retire when you expect to. They fall for hype and fads in the same way their parents do. Gullibility must be hereditary.

Salt: More or Less?

Here is an interesting dilemma.  Within 24 hours CBS and NBC each posted an article on Americans’ salt intake.  One said it’s a problem and the other said it was OK.

CBS (at 4:27 PM on August 14) says we consume too much salt, almost three to four times as much as recommended and that it leads to high blood pressure and other problems.  “A new study from the New England Journal of Medicine says more 1.5 million heart-related deaths worldwide can be blamed on eating too much salt.”  Recommendations range between 1500 mg per day from the American Heart Association and 2300 mg from the FDA.  Later in the story they mention that another study addressed the problem of too little salt, but discount the findings of that study with a severe critique from their expert.  Then they go on to blame packaged foods for most of the problem, 65% from groceries, 25% from restaurants, and only 10% added at the table or in cooking.

Meanwhile NBC (at 5:02 PM on the evening before) told us that it’s not a problem.  They cite a different article from the same source, the New England Journal of Medicine.  “New research suggests that healthy people can eat about twice the amount of salt that’s currently recommended — or about as much as most people consume anyway.”  In a study of 100,000 people this study concludes that:  “people who consumed 3,000 to 6,000 milligrams per day had a lower risk of death and cardiovascular events than those who had more than 6,000 mg or less than 3,000 mg.” They, in turn, acknowledge the study cited by CBS, but their expert defends this too-little-salt study admitting some weaknesses, “but called it massive and said it ‘well might be the best data we’re going to get.’ ”  Their expert goes on to say that the study cited by CBS also had flawed data and concludes by pointing out: “Japan, one of the highest salt consumers, has one of the longest lifespans.”  Needless to say, the American Heart Association is not pleased with this idea and urges the FDA to ignore it.

The first question that comes to mind is:  Are we eating twice as much or three to four times as much salt as recommended?  Are they even using the same recommendations to compare?  The only place the two seem to agree is that if you are over 60 or already have high blood pressure, you should watch your salt intake.  Does anyone have an answer to this one?  A question that goes to the heart of the matter is: why does one network website choose to headline one study and interview an expert who promotes it and dismisses the other study, while the other network takes exactly the opposite approach?  Wouldn’t it be more honest, balanced, and “journalistic” to report the apparent controversy instead of picking sides?  Are they just competing to see which headline is more inflammatory?  It certainly shows that what we get is not necessarily news, but what the networks choose to report.  If this is the way they act one simple issue like salt, how can we trust them on others?

Salt is Salt

Here we go again with an attempt to disguise sea salt as natural and healthy, and the advertisers trying to do it work for a fast food chain.  Telling us that it’s “time to indulge,” Arby's is advertising, for a limited time, a “Salted Caramel Shake topped with whipped cream and a sprinkle of Hawaiian Sea Salt.”

They do present it as decadent, but I can’t help thinking that the reference to Hawaiian Sea Salt is meant to appeal to those 61 percent who believe – incorrectly –that sea salt offers a low-sodium, healthier alternative to table salt.  (See “Sea Salt Scam?” from January 11, 2013)

Push the nutritional information tab on the ad and discover that it contains 680 calories (190 from fat) and 1400mg of sodium.  That’s almost 1/3 of the USDA recommended daily calories for a moderately active adult and over 93% of the maximum daily sodium intake recommended by the American Heart Association.  This is just the drink or dessert that goes with the rest of a meal!

Why would a national corporation offer such a product?  It’s because they have sales objectives and rightly expect people to buy it.  This is not meant to imply that Arby's is evil or unethical.  They are just doing business, using the same tactics to get us to buy their products as many others do.  They tell us to relax, indulge, that we have earned it.  Then they use the sea salt as a supposedly healthy justification.  As long as we give in to such rationalization and continue to be taken in by these (so-called) health food marketing ploys, relying on labels like all-natural, green, chemical-free, organic and sea salt instead of getting the real science from reliable sources, we are vulnerable.

Once again we must ask ourselves, is the obesity epidemic something for the government to solve?  Should they outlaw this and every other high-fat, high-sodium goody that businesses dream up and promote?  Will strict federal rules about school lunches keep kids away from this when they're out of school?  Face it, the obesity epidemic is of our own making and only we can solve it, through courage, hard work, understanding and a lot of discipline.  As long as there is a market for shakes, and sea salt continues to be viewed as a healthy alternative, temptation will be out there.