César Pérez. Manager at Aplicaciones Biológicas a la Nutrición
Europe Salt Reduction Conferences. London, UK
February 16-17, 20
I took part as a delegate in the Salt Reduction Europe Conference which took place in London. Over two days, we brought together different professionals; cardiologists who specialise in hypertension; technicians and product managers from various food manufacturers such as Unilever, Kraft, Kellogg’s and Nestlé; members of European-wide universities and research institutes; manufacturers of salt substitution products; and companies, such as our own, which are dedicated to the study and research of the different possibilities open to clients and the implementation of such, based on each client’s needs.
If there was anything on which we were all agreed, it was the need to reduce salt intake and set it at 6g per person per day. In order to achieve this, the reduction should be between 30 and 40% based on individual circumstances (country, diet, etc)
From this point the differences begin: “Well, how soon to start?” some of us wondered…Well yes, exactly, but how are there not going to be differences when not even the EU can agree on how to legislate on or provide guidelines for this subject?
On the one hand we have the position established by a leading cardiologist, Professor G.A. MacGregor, the founder of CASH (Consensus Action on Salt & Health) and Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, who defended the position that salt substitutes should not be used. It is possible simply, he argued, to reduce little by little the salt content of processed foods and arrive at the adequate limits in the medium term.
On the other hand we have the opposing view of the salt-substitute manufacturers who explained that it was possible to reduce salt content and keep the same taste in foodstuffs, even reducing salt in those products which, like bread, need its properties to guarantee certain aspects associated with their shelf life, ease of kneading and function.
Intervention after intervention flowed from arguments around each and every challenge set:
- Taste and Texture
- Preservation and Safety
- Process and Function
- Clean Labelling
The “Clean Labelling” issue turned out to be paradoxical, really. No country has defined what it is, but everybody talks about it. It turns out that you are allowed to put “vegetable oil” on the label in Spain and it looks like it is good for the consumer, when really it refers to coconut or palm oil (saturated fats) or, TRANS fats. Alternatively, to define an emulsion like soy lecithin, you have to label it with its corresponding e-number and the consumer starts to look suspiciously at it, when many people buy it over the counter in a health food shop to eat it every day with their yoghurt…
To give you an idea, there were even arguments in the congress over whether a mineral is a natural or chemical product… well, both, I reckon…Of course, you can imagine that each side had its defendants…
