Share
Delicious
Save

We keep on seeing something about iodised salt every now and them in the media. And rarely we do also find a news item telling us that forcing iodised salt on everybody is not alright–it has got its own disadvantages!

Any decision concerning the health of its masses is taken by the Governments considering recommendations of World Health Organisation by weighing all the pros and cons of the issue. When the sale of non-iodised salt was banned five years ago in this country, this decsion was widely acclaimed.

Deficiency of iodine leads to a wide range of health problems. Optimum supply of iodine is regularly required for the normal functioning of thyroid gland which is responsible for many physiological processes.

Deficiency of iodine is particularly detrimental for the well-being of women and their little ones. Deficiency state leads to goitre and there are problems with pregnancy and the intellect of the new borns or the deficiency state can lead to stillbirth.

Yesterday, i saw a news item in the vernacular print media. Its caption was — Ban on the sale of Common Salt is illegal (please read common salt as un-iodised salt). The reach of vernacular press in India naturally is quite wide and such media reports are expected to presnt facts based on available scientific evidence.

The news was that the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to review within six months its policy of allowing only iodised salt sales while retaining the ban on the non-iodised variety till then. However, the Supreme Court refused to enter into a debate on the pros and cons of forcing everyone to consume iodised salt saying it was an issue that health experts should decide. But it struck down a rule that banned sale of common salt only on the ground that food adulteration rules had such a provision.

The Centre will have to review its policy and if it decides to still retain the existing system of only permitting iodised salt for human consumption, it will have to bring in a fresh law, the judges said earlier this week while disposing of PILs filed by NGOs.

The Academy of Nutrition Improvement, one of the NGOs, argued that the sale of iodised salt should be restricted to iodine-deficient pockets. Section 44H of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 2005, says: “No person shall sell common salt for direct human consumption unless the same is iodised.” The NGOs urged the court to declare the rule unconstitutional.Although the Centre had propagated the use of iodised salt since 1962 to check iodine-deficiency disorders such as goitre, it was optional for states till May 27, 1998, when the non-iodised variety was banned across the country.

Law will take its own course — the learned judged have rightly said that the issue of going into positives and negatives of “forcing” everyone to consume iodised salt should be deliberated upon by the expert groups. I wonder if it really possible in this country to supply iodised salt to only iodine deficient areas. There could be number of problems.

Do we think that the WHO expert groups must not have thought about all this? By the way, have we done exact Iodine Mapping in this country? So, the universal availability of iodised salt is in the best interest of public. Naturally, a question crops up –suppose somebody takes iodine in excess, what would happen to him? I was looking for its answer and then i got reply to this question.

As per senior Endocrinologist, when taken in ugms(micrograms) and found in excess by the body, kidneys will throw it out on daily basis, and no side effects. When iodised salt is used, iodine intake is in micrograms, in whatever excess amount salt is taken, hence it is never harmful. So, in the light of current literature be rest assured to use iodised salt only.

By the way, there is so much evidence to support that Iodised salt is a boon for the overall well being of communities, more so women folk. However, while i tried to look at the website of the NGO filing this PIL, and declaring that some people are facing problems with iodised salt, i could not locate their site only. Is there some data substantiating this fact/view?

Related articles -

Iodine for all

Deadline to review iodised salt rule