Civilization is built on salt. The discovery of its power to preserve food enabled wandering tribes to put down roots. Men and women could hunt and gather today and eat tomorrow. A life that was no longer hand-to-mouth allowed time to sit and think. Salt became as precious as any metal, was traded between nations and offered as gifts and payment. Its influence lingers in our linguistic value judgments: a good man is the salt of the earth and worth his salt, but a social inferior sits below it.
But the white crystals have lost their magic. "It wasn't a gift for civilization. It was a poison," says Graham MacGregor, a British professor of cardiovascular medicine and one man who has probably done more than any other to shake our confidence in a substance traditionally offered with bread as a sign of friendship to strangers.
MacGregor is chairman of CASH (Consensus Action on Salt and Health) and is this week savoring the sweet taste of success. Ten years after he and fellow experts on blood pressure began pressing for limits on the amount of salt we eat, which they say is implicated in 120,000 heart attack deaths a year in the UK, the UK Food Standards Authority (FSA) has launched a ?4 million campaign to persuade people to eat less of it -- and manufacturers to cut the sackfuls they pour into processed foods.
But it isn't the salt on your table that does the damage -- it's the salt in your lasagne and, more alarmingly, your bread. The FSA says that 75 percent of a person's salt comes from processed foods, and that an adult consumes 9.5g a day, though we don't need more than 6g. Baked beans, breakfast cereals, pizza, soup and cooking sauces tend to be salt-lavish, but so are some sweet foods, such as cookies and hot chocolate.
Why does our food contain so much salt? Not only because manufacturers found it made their products taste more interesting, but also because it binds in water, thus cheaply adding "texture" or bulk. It also makes you thirsty -- another knock-on effect for the food and drink industry.
MacGregor argues that thousands of lives could be saved by cutting the salt content of processed foods by 10 percent to 20 percent.
"If salt intake was reduced to 6g a day, it would prevent 70,000 heart attacks per year, 35,000 of which are fatal. It is as big an improvement as when they put drains [sewers] into London," he says.
Unusually for a bunch of scientists, CASH is extremely media-savvy. It was naming and shaming high-salt foods, lambasting individual manufacturers and barbecuing supermarkets long before UK Health Minister Melanie Johnson got in on the act.
This month it scored a direct hit on the UK supermarket chain Sainsbury's, fingering the company's "Be good to yourself" flakes and orchard fruits as one of "the UK's saltiest foods." One 50g portion contains 1.84g of salt, it said. Sainsbury's immediately pulled the product off the shelves.
Back in 1994, the UK government's advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition (known as COMA) recommended a model diet for the UK, including a reduction to 6g of salt a day. The food industry obtained a leaked draft and four heavyweight food manufacturers -- Cadbury Schweppes, Tate and Lyle, United Biscuits and Mars -- demanded a meeting with the department of health. They did not get the answer they wanted.
That same year, United Biscuits and Tate and Lyle cut their contributions to the UK Conservative Party.
MacGregor is convinced that this contributed to the government's rejection of the recommended salt level, which has now been espoused by the FSA. "That really infuriated us -- that for a few thousand pounds, the health policy of the UK could be altered," he says.
CASH was formed in 1996 to press the case through the media instead of polite government channels. It has worked better than they imagined. "If you had said to me in 1996 that in 2004 the FSA would launch a ?4 million campaign about the dangers of salt, I'd have said you were joking," says MacGregor. It took almost 40 years to get serious action on smoking, he points out.
As any schoolchild knows, salt is scientifically known as sodium chloride. It's a simple combination of two molecules, easily extracted from water. Salt's primitive appeal must have to do with its bodily familiarity: our tears are salty, our blood is salty.
But the question is how much we need of it. Chimpanzees and orangutans get their sodium from plants they eat, not the salt shaker, and they have perfect blood pressure of around 90 over 70. High blood pressure, increasingly common in the UK where it rises steadily with age, is responsible for half the heart attacks and strokes that kill people here -- 120,000 out of 240,000 a year.
MacGregor claims there is virtually no scientific dispute in the UK over the link between salt, high blood pressure and heart attacks. Excess salt, says MacGregor, leads to water retention.
People who eat too much salt could have a liter and a half of extra fluid sloshing around in their veins, he says. That means there is more blood for the heart to pump, and the blood pressure goes up.
The question of how much is too much, however, seems to vary from person to person. It's quite possible that some of us can eat salt without living dangerously. Five years ago a team from the University of Utah school of medicine (in Salt Lake City, of course) identified three variations in a bit of human machinery called the angiotensinogen gene.
High levels of a hormone produced by this gene also correlated with high blood pressure. They reported in 1998 that variants in the gene made some people much more sensitive to salt. So for some, a low-salt diet had a significant effect on blood pressure.
There is more than one cause of high blood pressure. But most people in the field believe that maybe one third of all hypertension sufferers are reacting to the buildup of sodium. Yet some humans feel they need salt, and some feel the need for salty food at all times.
Six years ago Ilene Bernstein, of the University of Washington, proposed that babies might arrive with a taste for salt implanted at birth.
It depended, she and colleagues claimed, on just how nauseous and uncomfortable their mothers felt during early pregnancy. They reported in 1998 that adult children of mothers who had experienced morning sickness at conspicuous levels were also very keen on salty snack foods. Babies at 16 weeks old were more likely to show a fondness for salty water if they had previously sent their mothers-to-be retching to the bathroom. Her guess was that dehydration linked with vomiting might have something to do with a fondness for salt.
"Fluid depletion in the mother triggers the hormonal system in the blood and kidneys to restore the normal fluid level," said Bernstein.
"We don't know if these hormones cross the placental barrier and affect the baby or if dehydration causes the baby to release its own hormones to restore fluid balance. These hormones can have powerful effects on the brain."
Such claims are contentious. But they do illustrate the complex link between salt and the functioning of the human machinery. Some babies show a distinct response to (very slightly) salty tastes within three days of birth, the response being strongest in those babies who have at least one grandparent with a history of hypertension, according to the journal Hypertension in 2002.
A team from Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge Massachusetts tested 283 babies in their sucking response to the taste of salt and sugar. The 67 babies that seemed to like salt most already had, at three days, higher blood pressure levels than those who seemed to object to the taste.
Such research seems to suggest that appetite, inheritance and environment all play a part in the link between salt and hypertension. But this is not saying very much: appetite, inheritance and environment play a role in practically everything. Nobody is yet prepared to suggest that a warm response to a hint of the flavor of salt is really an indicator of some future cardiovascular troubles to come.
Salt manufacturers are unsurprisingly unhappy at the turn of events in the UK, in spite of the fact that most of what they produce ends up on the roads rather than in our baked beans.
"The biggest problem we have is that the deer on the roads lick up the salt -- they like it just as we do," says Peter Sherratt, general secretary of the UK Salt Manufacturers' Association.
While the food manufacturers agree to salt reductions here and there -- although not as comprehensively as the FSA and CASH want -- Sherratt insists much of the science is nonsense.
"A heck of a lot of literature says the government is wrong," he said.
He cites two documents that have come out within recent months. The national diet and nutrition survey commissioned by the government says salt has no effect on the blood pressure of healthy people, while the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence says that people with high blood pressure should be on drugs to control it.
"I don't understand where salt comes into the equation," he says. "There is no problem with a healthy person, and an unhealthy person should be on drugs."
If some of us are more susceptible to salt-related damage than others, maybe there is an element of sense in that, but that's not how public health strategies work. We all have to eat less salt because we don't know who the lucky people are who can eat it with impunity. And if we won't even notice a small cut in our salt intake, then it's hard to see the problem for anybody except a salt manufacturer -- or a processed food company that has to have another think about how to make its pizzas taste good.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers