Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elliott, P.
Right arrow Articles by Stamler, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elliott, P.
Right arrow Articles by Stamler, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2002;31:316-319
© International Epidemiological Association 2002

Point-Counterpoint

Commentary: Evidence on salt and blood pressure is consistent and persuasive

Paul Elliotta and Jeremiah Stamlerb

a Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, London, UK.
b Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL, USA.

Professor Paul Elliott, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College, St Mary's Campus, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK. E-mail: p.elliott@ic.ac.uk

Alderman's paper1 gives a selected and unbalanced account on salt and blood pressure, and reaches unsound conclusions. Time and again when the totality of evidence has been scrutinized by independent expert committees, they have concluded that the average sodium consumption at the population level is too high, that reductions to no more than 100 mmol sodium/day (6 g salt/day) is desirable, and that public health benefits would accrue.2–5 Alderman obliquely notes these recommendations, but quickly dismisses them as ‘... dogma ...' without any attempt at specific refutation. These recommendations have received wide acceptance among professional organizations and government departments responsible for protecting the health of the public,6,7 but they have been opposed by powerful commercial interests among the salt manufacturers (represented by the Salt Institute in the US) and some food companies.8,9 Alderman's argumentation lends justification to the ‘do nothing' position of the Salt Institute and others at the expense . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Randomized Clinical Trials and Evidence from Clinical Practice and Anthropology

Observational Studies of Salt and Blood Pressure

Conclusions

References


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
C. K. Chow
Does potassium-enriched salt or sodium reduction reduce cardiovascular mortality and medical expenses?
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, December 1, 2006; 84(6): 1552 - 1553.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin TrialsHome page
J. Wittes
A tale of three species rabbits, chickens and humans: an interview with clinical trials pioneer Jeremiah Stamler
Clinical Trials, June 1, 2006; 3(3): 320 - 334.
[PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
H.-Y. Chang, Y.-W. Hu, C.-S. J. Yue, Y.-W. Wen, W.-T. Yeh, L.-S. Hsu, S.-Y. Tsai, and W.-H. Pan
Effect of potassium-enriched salt on cardiovascular mortality and medical expenses of elderly men
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, June 1, 2006; 83(6): 1289 - 1296.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Policy Politics Nursing PracticeHome page
S. K. DeCrane
Have We Underestimated the Effects of Sodium Excess on the Health of the Public?
Policy Politics Nursing Practice, February 1, 2004; 5(1): 25 - 33.
[Abstract] [PDF]