In response to the new UK salt-in-butter alarm, Foodbev.com reports:
Butter contributes only 1% of the overall salt intake to the diets of British adults. Both unsalted and salted butters are available in the UK and readily available for the consumer to make their own choice.
This also means that something highly dangerous to humans might make it through any testing on rats.
It’s also false biology to assume that something which causes cancer in one organism will cause cancer in any other organism. This faulty premise has been routinely falsified, even from one variety of rat to another.
And of course, this comes after the US CDC basically said this summer about decades of recommendations to reduce salt intake — Never mind!
That’s because the Delaney Clause doesn’t say anything about concentration or dose. So, if it is bad in large, unrealistic does, it is bad if at the limit of detection.
Yeah, that whole cyclamates-at-the-equivalent-of-sixty-sodas-a-day thing rings kind of false.
In fairness (something the nanny-bullies don’t practice), the only way to identify potential carcinogens in a timely factor is to use very large doses on animals where the effect will turn up very quickly. The problem is that the model is then unrealistic to transpose onto humans behaving normally.
I like the term used in the article, “appropriate amounts”. If lab studies used appropriate amounts when testing “demon” foods, they’d have to be “angelicized”.
Maybe CASH should try the zero salt diet and report back in a couple of years.
I’ve yet to notice any butter that reduced the neccessity to salt buttered popcorn.