The article covers its chosen areas pretty well. Additionally, there are aspects missed in the article. The Puritan angle is important. If you're not making

The article covers its chosen areas pretty well. Additionally, there are aspects missed in the article. The Puritan angle is important. If you're not making people feel guilty about enjoying something, its hard to control them, and any attack on any form of Puritanism is fundamentally an attack on all forms of Puritanism. So "salt is OK" is going to fundamentally offend innumerable superficially unrelated individuals who rely on guilt as social control in entirely non-food related areas. Tied in with the above, bland tasteless food isn't in as much demand as flavorful tasty food. If the average American were dangerously anorexic then a viable public health strategy would be to encourage salty food because it'll taste somewhat better than bland salt free food and optimistically people will eat more preventing anorexia. Obviously a visit to walmart will cure any inaccurate belief about the average American being too skinny to be healthy. So anti-salt is at least somewhat anti-obesity. Making stuff taste bad, is good, if people are fat. Finally (insert small percentage) of people are salt sensitive and it raises their blood pressure. The other (vast majority percentage) just sweat or pee out excess salt with no effect on their blood pressure. This results in two interesting political issues. One is that financially we're better off telling everyone to eat bland food so we don't have to spend money figuring out who's in the susceptible minority or provide parallel logistical tracks of food. The other is that the mere existence of differences offends certain political beliefs about equality of outcome.