doubt Americans consume too much salt, mainly in processed foods. No
doubt the companies that make salt and use it in their products ought
to try to use less. And no doubt the government should do more to
discourage salt consumption. All this is the burden of a long expose in
the Sunday New York Times. I believed all these lamentable things about
salt before I read the Times story. Now I believe them somewhat less.
piece begins strong, quoting a food celebrity in an absurd salt company
video urging people to use salt in their coffee and "make sure you have
plenty of salt in your kitchen at all times." Then comes the dubious
statistic that "Government health experts" say "deep cuts" in salt use
"could save 150,000 lives a year." This sent me Googling and it was the
work of under a minute to find a column in the New York Times in
February casting doubt on this very factoid. The column was by John
Tierney, whose specialty is poo-pooing studies that suggest the need
for more regulation. I don't necessarily trust him either. But still,
the Sunday piece might at least have mentioned that this figure has
been contested. And that "deep cuts" turns out to mean cutting in half,
which is about as likely as "deep cuts" of that magnitude in the
Having established the peril, the Sunday piece
then names the enemy: It's "the industry," which "is working overtly
and behind the scenes...using a shifting set of tactics" that unnamed
"industry insiders" call "delay and divert." In other words, the
industry would rather not be more heavily regulated and is taking steps
to try to prevent it. There is no suggestion that any of these steps
are illegal, and no evidence that they are even unseemly, though that
is the implication. (OMG shifting tactics! Will these salt peddlers
stop at nothing?) And while I cannot prove that no salt industry
employee has ever used the term "delay and divert," I'd be reassured by
two examples, wouldn't you?
Among the nefarious industry tactics exposed by the New York Times:
* Sponsoring research "aimed at casting doubt on the link between salt and hypertension."
* Arguing "that foods already low in sugar and fat would not sell with less salt."
Writing a letter to a federal nutrition advisory committee referring to
"the virtually intractable nature of the appetite for salt," which the
story characterizes as "blaming consumers for resisting efforts to
reduce salt in all foods."
* Presenting this committee with "two
studies" suggesting that urging Americans to eat a little less in
general would be better for our health than zeroing in on salty foods.
Is that obviously ridiculous? The piece treats it as such.
author duly lets the industry feed him a few popular products--Cheez-It
crackers, corn flakes, Campbell's chicken soup--with the salt removed,
and in this part of the piece he is somewhat sympathetic to their
challenge. Then he cites Michael Jacobson, whom he describes as "an
M.I.T.-trained microbiologist...studying food additives" who "noticed
the growing research" about problems with salt and asked the Food and
Drug Administration to reclassify salt as a food additive that could be
regulated. This makes Jacobsen sound like the head-in-the-clouds
scientist in a science fiction movie who accidentally knocks over a
vial of liquid in his lab and creates the Blob Who Ate Rush Limbaugh.
In fact, Michael Jacobsen is the long-time head of the Center for
Science in the Public Interest and the nation's leading food alarmist.
Jacobsen and CSPI were the ones who promoted that 150,000-deaths stat.
He does a lot of very good work, and in fact is something of a hero.
Also, something of a zealot. (a common pairing of traits). And
certainly a paranoid. To describe him as a "microbiologist...studying
food additives" is like describing Dr. Kevorkian as "a medical
researcher concerned with end-of-life issues."
critics will interpret this Times story as just another example of
left-wing, anti-capitalist bias among the nation's liberal elite. I
have no idea whether the author is a liberal or not, but I suspect the
story is better explained as an example of a reporter with a good idea
getting carried away. This is inevitable and in some ways a good thing.
You want enthusiasm in your reporters. It's the editors who ought to
add a few more grains of salt to the stew.
"The Hard Sell on Salt
" by Michael Moss, New York Times, May 30, 2010Salt: The Forgotten Killer
, Center for Science in the Public InterestMore From Michael KinsleyMy Country, 'Tis of Me
(June 2010 Atlantic)Bribery and Blackmail, Pot and Kettle
(6/1)Clinton, Sestak, and 'His Girl Friday'
(5/30)Cut the Boomers a Break
(5/28)Show Me Your Documents
(5/26)An Immigration Meme
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
mkinsley at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.