The decision to allow the food and drink industry to take voluntary control over salt reduction has been linked by a new study with 9,900 additional cases of cardiovascular disease and 1,500 cases of stomach cancer.
Researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Liverpool analysed the salt intake of the population in England across 13 years to compare the effect of changes in regulations on how much salt manufacturers could use in their products.
The research blames the controversial Responsibility Deal, under which companies no longer have an independent FSA monitoring salt levels, for the UK’s programme of reduction stalling.
From 2003 to 2010, the FSA monitored salt content and agreed on targets for salt reduction with industry, including all food manufacturers reducing salt content in 85 categories by 10% to 20%.
In 2011, this policy was replaced by the Responsibility Deal, under which the food industry signed up to voluntary pledges.
The study says that prior to 2011, salt intake was falling annually by 0.2g a day for men and 0.12g a day for women. However, post 2011, when the regulations were relaxed, annual declines slowed to 0.11g per day for men and 0.07g per day for women.
It claims the Responsibility Deal lacked robust and independent target setting, monitoring, and enforcement.
Researchers, who used data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, estimated the number of cases of cardiovascular disease and stomach cancer associated with the slowing reductions in daily salt intake seen under the change of policy in 2011. They found that an extra 9,900 cases of cardiovascular disease, and 1,500 cases of stomach cancer, could be attributable to the policy change.
The study comes with Public Health England already months behind on its pledge to set out new salt reduction targets by Easter this year, after a progress report last year showed nearly half the salt reduction targets for 2017 had been missed by the industry.
It found manufacturers were hitting just 37% of the targets.
“Evidence from around the world is now showing that mandatory approaches are much more effective than self-regulation by industry in reducing the amount of salt and sugar in our diet,” said Dr Anthony Laverty, lead author of the research from Imperial’s School of Public Health.
Professor Martin O’Flaherty, co-author of the University of Liverpool study, said: “The FSA approach was one of the most robust strategies internationally.
“Our research shows that we now need an equally robust mandatory programme to accelerate salt intake reduction. This will require clear targets and penalties to ensure the food industry reduces salt content in foods.
“Softer, voluntary measures could generate additional heart attacks, strokes and cancer cases.”
Graham MacGregor, chairman of campaign group Action on Salt, welcomed the report.
“This paper confirms once more that the Responsibility Deal was a disaster for public health in that it slowed down salt reduction in the UK, resulting in thousands of strokes, heart failure and heart attacks every year,” he said.
No comments yet