Excess of iodine intake may lead to thyroid excess disorder

Iodine is commonly used in preparation of antiseptic applications, contrast drug used in Radiology, cough syrups and many other drug combinations. It is a micro - nutrient required in metabolic activities of human beings as iodine is essential in production of thyroxine hormone by thyroid glands.

Production of thyroxin by thyroid glands is a complex chemical process regulated by pituitary glands which releases thyroid stimulation hormone depending on the blood level of thyroxin. An increase in thyroxin leads to reduction of Thyroid Stimulation Hormone (TSH) which in turn acts on thyroid glands to reduce the release of thyroxine and vice versa.

Iodine is required in a very small quantity in the chain of thyroxine production. The body depends on the intake of iodine present in the food we take.

Iodine is available in vegetables, milk and sea foods. Unfortunately in some hilly regions, due to wash out of soil by heavy rainfall, the vegetable grown there are deficient in iodine resulting in enlargement of thyroid gland called Endemic Goiter. In such areas, the incidence of cretinism, deafness, mental deficiencies are also high (called iodine deficiency disorders).

So much so, several scientific studies were made to supplement iodine in some form or other in the food. As daily consumption of only 120 to 150 micrograms of iodine was required, iodisation of common salt was thought to reduce these iodine deficiencies diseases in these goiter - prone areas.

But the government, under pressure from multi - national companies, went a step ahead by making universal iodisation of salt mandatory and sale of non - iodised salt was made punishable under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by introducing a clause (44 - 1) in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

But many other studies had revealed that universal iodisation of salt is unnecessary and also has deleterious effects on health of large number of persons who are allergic to iodine (like persons with skin and respiratory allergies) which may be even fatal. Consumption of highest intake of iodine is also likely to produce Thyrotoxicosis and sometimes even Myxoedema.

Based on these studies, Academy of Nutrition Improvement and several other non governmental associations had filed petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the action of the Government in introducing Clause 44 - 1 in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules making production, storage and sale of non iodised salt an offence attracting criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 04. 07. 2011 after detailed discussion has held that as sale of non iodised salt does not amount to selling adulterated food, the Government has to review its decision and if it is found that iodisation of salt is necessary the Government has to introduce other appropriate legislative or other measures within six months. But in case it fails to do so, within six months from the date of judgment, Rule 44 - 1 shall cease to operate.

When Consumer Protection Act gives the right of choice to the consumers, why should the government curb the freedom of choice to the citizens.

Iodisation of salt may be required in endemic areas to prevent iodine deficiency disorders. But why citizens should be exposed to "Excess of Iodine in - take" risking Thyroid excess disorders, just to satisfy the greedy multi - national companies marketing iodised salt.

It is hoped that Central Government would take a decision to make both non iodised and iodised salts available to the general public and leave the choice to them. Persons interested in details may log in to Supreme Court website - Petition No. - Writ Petition (C) 80 / 2006 — Judgment pronounced on 04.07.2011.

Dr. S. P. Thirumala Rao,
President,
Karnataka Consumers' Forum

Note:
Sale of iodised salt may be made compulsory under law in endemic areas only to prevent iodine deficiency disorders by suitable amendments to the law and related rules.

The Supreme Court has given six months time from the date of its order (04. 07. 2011) to the government to take appropriate legislative or other measures in this regard.

Knowing the efficiency and attitude of our present government, we may as well wait for six months to see the impugned clause 44 - 1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules cease to operate, as directed by the Supreme Court in its judgment.

— Editor