Two points. First, let’s not dismiss the point raised by “Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King’s Fund health think-tank, said in reality it may be cheaper not to intervene as the costs of the health care can be less than the cost of changing lifestyles.” It may seem cheap to change the food supply in hopes this will change the diet, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach — as contrasted with a one-on-one doctor/patient model — is unproven.

Second point, is even more compelling. Reducing dietary salt is promoted to reduce blood pressure on the assumption that however blood pressure is reduced will lower the risk profile for heart attacks and cardiovascular deaths. That’s where the “savings” NHS projects originate. But there are no data confirming this hope. In fact, only a dozen studies have examined the health outcomes of people on lower sodium diets and they show, if anything, that there is a HIGHER RISK of heart attacks. How can that be? When salt is reduced, the body compensates with other metabolic changes: insulin resistance is increased, sympathetic nervous system activity increases and, most of all, the body secretes vastly more renin, a hormone produced in the kidney that has been shown by the president of the International Society of Hypertension to cause four times more heart attacks.

Anyone can build a model and project an outcome (£6bn a year), but the model depends on the assumptions of its creators and NHS’ model reflects is the triumph of hope over the realities of the scientific data.