FOOD entrepreneurs and exporters want to make the non-iodization of salt no longer a sin under the law.
In a position paper, multisectoral group Competitiveness Currency Forum (CCF) rallied behind House Bill (HB) 4939, filed by Reps. Ron P. Salo of Kabayan and Virgilio S. Lacson of Manila Teachers. Salo and Lacson’s proposed law seeks to exempt local sea salt from mandatory iodization. Sea salt is required to be iodized under Republic Act 8172, or the Act for Salt Iodization Nationwide (Asin).
“When the Asin law was enacted, mandatory iodization was recommended by the World Health Organization [WHO] to be the most cost-effective method to address iodine deficiency disorder [IDD] of some children,” CCF said. “However, the law proved to be a trade impediment to the development of the Philippine sea salt industry and even led to its decline.”
Citing a 2011 study by the American Nutrition Society, the CCF added that Filipinos are prone to iodine induced hyperthyroidism (IIH). It proposed that the Philippine National Health Research System be instructed to provide alternative measures in addressing IIH among the population, as well as make iodine supplementation targeted.
The group argued mandatory iodization made it difficult for food entrepreneurs and exporters to move along the global culinary trend, which it claimed to favor natural sea salt over iodized. Currently, 80 percent of salt sold in the Philippines are imported from Australia, which shall remain iodized, according to CCF.
“The imported Australian salt is less healthy because of its high sodium chloride purity,” the group said.
The CCF noted that “global culinary trend favors natural sea salt because of the presence of other chlorides and trace minerals making it more flavorful.”
“Philippine sea salt is akin to the famous fleur de sel. The Philippines is among the few countries that can fill the growing demand,” CCF explained. “The other chlorides and trace minerals in Philippine sea salt can also address other mineral deficiencies.”
In documents obtained by the BusinessMirror, Mama Sita Foundation Inc. President Clara R. Lapus conveyed to Trade Secretary Ramon M. Lopez the dilemma of food manufacturers brought about by the Asin law. Lapus told Lopez in a June meeting that dozens of local food products, such as sweet potato chips containing iodized salt, are barred from entering Japan, the country’s top export market.
Native white cheese makers are also complaining about the chemical taste of iodized salt that alters the fermentation of their products, she added. Lapus seeks amendments to the Asin law to permit food producers to make use of natural sea salt not only for export goods but also for domestic consumption.
“Just because the WHO thinks it is the cheapest way to solve the iodine deficiency of some Filipinos, even those who are not iodine deficient are forced to ingest iodized salt,” Lapus argued. “Why not develop seaweed snacks for those who need iodine?”
She appealed to Lopez to back HB 4939, to which the trade chief reportedly gave his word to push for specific amendments in the law.
HB 4939 seeks to reorder the Asin law and add Section 6 exempting Philippine sea salt from mandatory iodization. “Producers of sea salt shall register with the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which shall inspect and assess samples of their products for the purpose of determining whether it falls within the definition of sea salt,” the proposed provision read.
“The FDA shall issue guidelines and standards in identifying Philippine sea salts, maintain a registry of sea salt producers and issue the appropriate certificate or authorization for the producers’ continued operation. This certificate or authorization shall serve to protect sea salt producers from harassment of local authorities and allegations of noncompliance with iodization requirements under this act,” it added.
HB 4939, which is pending deliberations in the House Committee on Health, also intends to allow food manufacturers to use sea salt in their products. They are, however, required to prove that the use of sea salt enhances the quality of their food items.
The measure defines Philippine sea salt as salt produced from the evaporation of seawater in any of the salt farms within the archipelago. The preparation of such must involve little to no processing.
In their explanatory note, Salo and Lacson said several provisions of the 23-year-old Asin law have been contested in the past years, mostly for its adverse effect on local salt farmers.
“The Philippines being a coastal country, a significant number of small-scale salt producers have been adversely affected by the implementation of the law,” the bill said. “The Department of Trade and Industry has pointed out that the local salt industry is finding it hard to compete with the global market of salt and food products with salt ‘due to the restriction for salt producers to offer a wide array of different salt types even in the domestic market.”
“The Asin law is also seen to limit innovations on the type of salt that will fit the needs of a product, as well as leads to the loss of some nutrients during processing,” Salo and Lacson pointed out. “With this, small local salt farmers are unable to compete with large salt producers especially in the global market.”
Last year the country imported 517,405.2 metric tons (MT) of salt amounting to $24.05 million, data from the Philippine Statistics Authority showed. This was higher than the 477,507.5 MT of salt procured in 2016.
On the other hand, the country exported 439.326 MT of salt last year valued at $56,479. The volume might be higher than the 282.307 MT of salt traded outbound in 2016, but the value was 2.72 percent lower from the $58,062 collected that year.