Click the image for details 1 The biggest reason for the salt monopoly is 'universal iodine supplementation', but now those with excess iodine have to suffer from the single sale of iodized salt China's current salt monopoly system is not necessarily as 'historically significant' as tracing back to Emperor Wu of Han's 'salt and iron monopoly'. Instead, it is quite 'young', starting with the salt iodization program in the 1990s. The first article of the 'Salt Monopoly Measures' issued by the State Council in 1996 states that these measures are formulated to strengthen salt management, ensure effective implementation of salt iodization, and protect citizens' health. From this, ensuring salt iodization is the biggest reason for the monopoly in the salt industry. Currently, the vast majority of salt sold in supermarkets is still iodized salt. Since the mandatory 'universal salt iodization' measure was implemented, 21 years later, China is still promoting the uniform use of iodized salt for all people, which has led to new health problems. In the field of iodine and thyroid disease research in China, the most famous expert is Professor Teng Weiping from China Medical University. In 2006, his team published a study that conducted a 5-year epidemiological survey on 3,761 residents in Panshan, Liaoning (mild iodine deficiency), Zhangwu, Liaoning (more than adequate iodine), and Huanghua, Hebei (excess iodine). The results found that excess iodine can induce and promote hypothyroidism. Almost at the same time, in 2005, the World Health Organization described China as 'more than adequate' based on monitoring of median urinary iodine in children. When the State Council issued the 'Regulations on Salt Iodization to Eliminate Iodine Deficiency Disorders', it fully considered local conditions. For example, Article 15 of the regulations stipulates that except for high-iodine areas, iodized salt should be gradually supplied to all people. For high-iodine areas such as Liaoning, Zhejiang, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Fujian, iodized salt was not required. But in practice, iodized salt was introduced nationwide at the same time, and 'iodized salt' became the biggest bargaining chip for the salt monopoly. It is difficult to buy non-iodized salt in supermarkets. Moreover, from international experience, popularizing iodized salt is not necessarily linked to the salt monopoly. According to statistics from the International Council for Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorders (ICCIDD), more than 30 countries have iodized salt coverage over 90%, and only a few countries like China implement a salt monopoly system. 2 Industrial salt is toxic is a long-held belief we've been taught, but it is often a means to win public trust On many occasions, salt companies emphasize that the salt monopoly is for consumer food safety, to prevent the infiltration of industrial salt. This argument that it's for food safety is easy to accept. So, is industrial salt really that scary? According to science writer Fang Zhouzi, there is no need to worry about 'industrial salt soy sauce', 'industrial salt salted eggs', or 'industrial salt pig blood' being harmful to health. Industrial salt has a wide range; some is large-packaged salt used in industrial production, which does not have more heavy metals than edible salt and does not contain sodium nitrite. The purpose of prohibiting industrial salt for food is for the salt industry's huge profits, not because industrial salt is harmful. The salt monopoly has always been promoted as beneficial to the country and the people. Of course, industrial salt sometimes also refers to sodium nitrite, nitrite. The so-called poisoning from eating industrial salt is actually accidental ingestion of sodium nitrite, and the salt industry's year-round propaganda about 'industrial salt poisoning' is also about sodium nitrite ingestion incidents. Conflating industrial salt with sodium nitrite seems to be a deliberate confusion. A salt industry expert said, 'Industrial salt has long been hyped as toxic and demonized, largely a propaganda effort by the salt system to maintain the monopoly system.' In recent years, both media and policy research have increasingly called for salt industry reform, making the salt interest group feel threatened. According to an interview by columnist Jing Chengzi with a former official of the Salt Management Office of the State Economic and Trade Commission, whenever there is news of 'salt reform', salt companies will publish full-page reports in the 'Enterprise Style' section of central newspapers, exaggerating the dangers of industrial salt. This is similar to how the Welfare Lottery Center regularly publishes bizarre lottery winner stories in various metropolitan newspapers; it's actually advertising. 3 Even from a historical perspective, the reason of 'ensuring tax revenue' no longer exists In Chinese history, the salt monopoly was long implemented. The financial officials at that time firmly advocated the monopoly mainly for tax considerations, because salt is an indispensable necessity for the people. Controlling salt meant controlling the lifeline of tax revenue. But with social development, the contribution of the salt industry to tax revenue has changed. The role of the salt monopoly in increasing fiscal revenue has gradually diminished: salt tax as a percentage of national tax revenue has dropped from 5.49% in 1950 to 0.04% in 2006, and now it is even lower. With the rapid development of well and rock salt and salt lakes, China's edible salt has long been in oversupply. Since 'universal iodine supplementation' is no longer necessary, industrial salt is not as scary as portrayed, and the salt monopoly's contribution to fiscal revenue is negligible, what other reasons are there to continue the salt monopoly? It is hard to find any convincing reason to support the continuation of the salt monopoly. Source: Salt Encyclopedia