The uncomfortable truth about Campbell's salt u-turn

By Elaine Watson

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags: Sodium, Nutrition, Campbell soup

Reduced sodium is not a killer USP for most consumers
Reduced sodium is not a killer USP for most consumers
It’s enraged dieticians and delighted the Salt Institute. But Campbell Soup’s high-profile u-turn on sodium raises some difficult questions about reformulation for all stakeholders.

In case you missed the howls of outrage that immediately followed, after an “unsparing analysis​” of “strategies that are working and not working”​,​Campbell has resolved to boldly go back - to almost where it was before - and add some salt back ​into its Select Harvest soups.

Predictably, dieticians are not happy and lobby groups have accused bosses of taking the easy way out.

After all, points out the Center for Science in the Public Interest, there are plenty of ways to compensate for reduced sodium, from salt replacers and enhancers to extra herbs, spices, veg or other ingredients, provided you are prepared to pay for them.

Where the business case?

But is Campbell really sacrificing consumers’ health to preserve its bottom line, or is it just saying publically what many firms are saying privately, that while we say​ we want products with less fat, salt and sugar, we don’t always put our money where our mouth is?

As Paul Newberry, co-founder of UK-based fruit snack maker Stream Foods pointed out at a conference run by our sister title last year, coming up with products that impress angry dieticians is one thing, getting consumers to buy them is another.

“At one time, I was seduced by nutritionists saying I should be doing this or that and I launched 100% fruit desserts with vitamin C. They got into Sainsbury and Tesco, and they met all the nutritional criteria, but nobody bought them and they were delisted. I lost £200,000 but it taught me a lesson: my job is to make products that sell."

And as Campbell's incumbent chief executive Denise Morrison made very clear in her frank analysis of the soup market last week, sodium reduction is not a killer USP for many consumers, whether we like it or not.

Reformulation by stealth

Indeed, many firms have chosen to conduct their costly and technically challenging sodium reduction work ‘by stealth’ rather than shouting about it on pack precisely because telling consumers what they are up to does not​ sell more products, and may even have the opposite effect.

Firms trying to reduce saturated fat face similar problems, with claims to this effect proving a selling point for consumers on some products, but by no means on all.

The bottom line is that cutting salt, fat and sugar is expensive and difficult, and while manufacturers are facing intense pressure from politicians, health lobbyists and NGOs to get on with it, making a business case, particularly on high-volume, low margin products, is not easy.

Healthy flak

Another aspect to this debate that is often overlooked is that some companies are doing a lot (no one can accuse Campbell for not trying) and others are doing nothing – because they can.

Big brands get all the flak – perhaps rightly so – while many smaller players slip under the radar and continue to produce eye-wateringly salty, fatty and sugary wares without a whiff of bad publicity.

However, the roll out of front-of-pack labelling – which will highlight products’ sodium, saturated fat and added sugar content – will go some way to address this issue by helping consumers make comparisons between products, although the precise scope of these labels is the subject of heated debate.

Chickens, eggs and compromise

So where does all this leave us? And was Campbell right to reach for the salt shaker?

I’ll give the last word to Lori Colman of marketing agency Colman Brohan Davis, who takes a pragmatic view.

Packaged foods have been so laden with sodium for so long that consumers believe that’s what food tastes like … and when there isn’t as much sodium, they complain that food is bland. CPG companies have essentially ‘hooked’ people on the flavor and now use ‘people want flavor’ as a reason to keep it going.

“So, I get it ​[Campbell’s decision]. But I also think that an iconic brand like Campbell’s has missed a real leadership opportunity in consumer education. What if instead of delivering a massive dose of sodium to all, they could have added sodium education on the label? ‘Add ¼ tsp salt if you like your soup more salty. The maximum recommended level of sodium intake is 2300 mg per day. 1/4 tsp salt = 500 mg sodium..'

“Taking personal responsibility for your sodium intake is really hard because of our desire for convenience. But everyone can reach for the salt shaker.”

Elaine Watson is a correspondent on and An award-winning journalist, Elaine has been writing about the food industry for more than 10 years for a range of print and online trade publications including The Grocer, Food Manufacture and Food Ingredients, Health & Nutrition.

Related topics: Views, Suppliers



Posted by Laszlo G Meszaros,

There are some new data concerning salt intake, according to which it might not be that bad for you. So, we should hope for clearing up this mass, shouldn't we? It seems that we might need to rethink a lot of stuff regarding nutrition...

Report abuse

low sodium costs more

Posted by Cheri,

The reason that the low sodium did not sell as well is that it costs more and poor people who eat lots of soup buy the cheapest and suffer the consequences. If healthy food was available at the same cost as the garbage they try to push on us everyone would buy it. Salt is cheap and if someone wants it they can always add. I generally don't cook with salt and let the table salt for itself. Because of the MSG I only buy soup during the holidays for my bean casserol and use the low sodium. I am in the process of makng a new recipe that uses healthy substitutes for the soup. People can want healthy foods but not be able to afford them.

Report abuse

Follow us

Featured Events

View more


View more