21 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

For 2 decades we were told to avoid eggs. Now, suddenly, they are OK; perhaps essential.
Likewise salt?

More scientists doubt salt as bad for you as govt says...

For years, the federal government has advised Americans that they are eating too much salt, and that this excess contributes yearly to the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
But unknown to many shoppers urged to buy foods that are “low-sodium” and “low-salt,” this longstanding warning has come under assault by scientists who say that typical American salt consumption is without risk.
Moreover, according to studies published in recent years by pillars of the medical community, the low levels of salt recommended by the government might actually be dangerous.
If the skeptics are correct, most Americans are fine. In their view, a typical healthy person can consume as much as 6000 milligrams per day without significantly raising health risks. But consuming too little - somewhere below 3,000 milligrams - also raises health risks, they say.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 06 April 2015 - 09:59 PM.

[stocks]

Despite the mounting evidence of harm from population-wide enforced salt reduction,

 

government agencies have been passing rules, regulations, and guidelines to force the food processing industry mandatory labeling of highly salted foods by chain restaurants.

 

As in all modern scientific controversies, the faction occupying a societal Bully Pulpit, in this case the AHA, FDA, and WHO, has a huge advantage, even when the hard scientific facts are not on their side.   [“A bully pulpit is a sufficiently conspicuous position that provides an opportunity to speak out and be listened to…. a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda.”]

 

The Salt Wars are an exemplar of what can happen when a hypothesis is scientifically correct but its real-world overall effect becomes grossly exaggerated. This can lead to a “mandated solution” which is then sold as a cure-all for some existing problem. As the underlying science is in fact uncertain, scientists in support of this view must turn themselves into advocates to make their case.  Political advocates in turn pretend to be scientists, advising governments to enforce a “one-size-fits-all” solution on the whole society – even though it is probable that the claims of benefit range from uncertain, at best,  to  nonsensical [see footnote 2 for the my rationalization for this statement in the Salt Wars].

 

 

https://wattsupwitht...-the-salt-wars/