????“我們將繼續(xù)致力于為消費者提供低鈉食品選擇，但我們認(rèn)為《新英格蘭醫(yī)學(xué)期刊》近期發(fā)表的文章應(yīng)該引起公共健康部門的認(rèn)真思考。尤其是奧唐納及其同事的文章更是提供了更多科學(xué)證據(jù)，證明低鈉攝入可能增加心血管風(fēng)險，盡管文章所指的低攝入量為公共健康組織建議的水平。因此，我們必須進(jìn)行權(quán)威研究，確定低鈉攝入對健康的正面和有害影響，確保旨在降低鈉攝入量的公共健康干預(yù)會對公眾帶來好處，而不是造成損害?！?/p>

????“此外，美國聯(lián)邦政府必須對《膳食營養(yǎng)參考攝入量》（Dietary Reference Intakes）進(jìn)行獨立可信的重新評定，因為該參考標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是目前鈉攝入量建議的依據(jù)。為了制定不會損害美國消費者健康的公共健康政策，這次重新評定至關(guān)重要?！?/p>

????食品行業(yè)嚴(yán)重依賴鹽，而且只要食品公司還希望銷售加工食品，未來也離不開鹽。而且，食品行業(yè)目前已經(jīng)形成了一個專門生產(chǎn)和銷售低鈉食品的子行業(yè)。據(jù)市場調(diào)查機構(gòu)MarketsandMarkets去年公布的數(shù)據(jù)，“低鹽市場”正在以每年11%的速度增長，至2018年其規(guī)模將超過10億美元。所謂“低鹽市場”，包括各種旨在減少含鈉量的鹽晶替代原料。

????這些投資雖然規(guī)模龐大，但并不意味著食品行業(yè)將不再嚴(yán)重依賴鹽。如果食品制造商無需擔(dān)心鹽的問題，他們的日子會好過得多。

????如今研究認(rèn)為過多和過少的鹽，都可能造成健康危害，食品制造商應(yīng)該怎么辦？他們應(yīng)該采取中庸之道，宣稱他們的食品的含鹽量“正合適”？這種理念在標(biāo)簽上很難解釋清楚，尤其是到目前為止，究竟多少才是“正合適”，業(yè)界也沒有就此達(dá)成共識。

????但與此同時，食鹽行業(yè)卻并不擔(dān)心食品行業(yè)面臨的營銷挑戰(zhàn)。美國鹽業(yè)協(xié)會（Salt Institute）負(fù)責(zé)科研的副主席莫頓?薩坦表示：“我希望食品行業(yè)能夠拿出一點勇氣?！泵绹}業(yè)協(xié)會是代表食鹽生產(chǎn)商的行業(yè)機構(gòu)。他表示，營銷“低鈉”食品只是大型食品制造商“迎合美國食品藥品監(jiān)督管理局”和公共利益科學(xué)研究中心（Center for Science in the Public Interest）等行業(yè)批評者的一種方法而已?！八麄冎皇窃谧駨乃麄儗τ诿褚獾睦斫狻?，而不是美國鹽業(yè)協(xié)會認(rèn)可的研究成果，例如鹽并非導(dǎo)致高血壓的主要原因。

????當(dāng)然，在這方面，有許多觀察者并不認(rèn)同美國鹽業(yè)協(xié)會的觀點。營養(yǎng)學(xué)家馬里昂?奈斯德便是其中之一。她認(rèn)為食品行業(yè)努力減少食品含鹽量是好事。她在電子郵件中寫道：“食品行業(yè)的策略是逐漸減少食品中的含鹽量，使消費者不會注意到這種變化，并習(xí)慣低鹽口味。而這需要所有食品公司的參與?！?/p>

????新研究結(jié)果或許是食鹽批評者的一次勝利。我們攝入的鈉，有75%來自加工食品和餐廳食物。而后者往往也包含大量加工食品。

????與此同時，食品行業(yè)正在為如何理順這個高度復(fù)雜的問題而頭疼。然而，不論會有哪些最新研究結(jié)果顯示鹽攝入量過少對身體有害，攝入過多鹽會帶來健康風(fēng)險，仍將是批評者們抨擊食品行業(yè)的一件有效武器。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

????“And while we are committed to continuing in our efforts to provide consumers with these lower sodium product options, we think that the articles such as those recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine warrant serious consideration by some public health authorities. In particular, the article by O’Donnell and colleagues further adds to the scientific evidence that low sodium consumption, at levels recommended by public health organizations, may actually increase cardiovascular risk. Therefore, it is vitally important that we undertake definitive studies to resolve the health impacts, both positive and adverse, of low sodium consumption to ensure public health interventions aimed at lowering sodium consumption provide benefit and do not cause harm.”

????“In addition, the U.S. Federal government needs to conduct an independent credible reassessment of the Dietary Reference Intakes, which form the basis for current sodium intake recommendations. This reassessment is critical to establishing public health policy that does not harm the health of US consumers.”

????The food industry depends heavily on salt, and as long as it wants to sell us processed foods, it always will. But it also has created a whole sub-industry devoted to creating and marketing low-sodium products. According to data released last year by MarketsandMarkets, the “salt reduction market” — which includes substitute ingredients and various manipulations of salt crystals to reduce their sodium content — is growing by about 11% a year and will surpass $1 billion by 2018.

????But those investments, while substantial, don’t mean the industry isn’t still heavily reliant on salt. Life for food makers would be much easier if they didn’t have to deal with the salt question at all.

????But what do they do when research shows that both too much and too little salt might be harmful? Do they take a Goldilocks approach, claiming that their products contain the “just right” amount of salt? That would be very difficult concept to get across on a label, especially since there is little agreement on how much is “just right.”

????The salt industry, meanwhile, isn’t too worried about Big Food’s marketing challenges. “I really wish the food industry would have a little guts,” said Morton Satin, vice president in charge of science and research for the Salt Institute, the trade group representing the salt producers. Marketing “l(fā)ow sodium” products is just a way for big food producers to “mollify the FDA” and industry critics like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, he said. “They’re just conforming to what their perception of public opinion is” rather than to what the Salt Institute believes the research to show — for instance, that salt is not a major contributor to hypertension.

????Of course, plenty of observers differ with the Salt Institute on this score. One of them is nutritionist Marion Nestle, who sees the food industry’s efforts to reduce the salt in its products as a good thing. “The strategy is to reduce salt in food products gradually so people don’t notice it and get used to a lower salt taste,” she wrote in an email. “To do this, all food companies need to participate.”

????That would be a major win for critics of salt. About 75% of the sodium we eat comes from processed food and restaurant meals, which are themselves often composed of a lot of processed foods.

????Meanwhile, the industry is stuck trying to navigate through this highly complex problem. But whatever new research might come out on the harms of too little salt consumption, the ill-effects of overconsumption will continue to be an effective weapon wielded by critics of the food industry.