"Salt shakers are being removed from fish and chip shops in a nanny state ruling on what we can eat."
That's the intro to this splash in today's Daily Express.
It continues: "The petty diktat is supposed to be part of a healthy living drive to lower salt consumption which has been linked to high blood pressure."
Hang on. Does that mean every fish and chip shop across the nation? No, two paragraphs on we discover it is an initiative by Stockport council.
Does it mean that shops are banned from placing salt shakers on their counters and tables?
No, but you have to read between the lines because it transpires that it is a voluntary scheme called "out of sight, out of mind". And five Stockport shops have signed up for it.
Yet an Express editorial, headlined A chip on their shoulders, says: "For Stockport council to force food outlets to withdraw salt from view is daft", adding:
"Any council official turning up at a fish and chip shop to check the ban is being enforced rigorously may run the risk of getting battered."
But no official will be turning up - because it isn't a ban, there is no "diktat", there has been no "force". In fact, it is not even a Stockport council decision.
It is part of a Greater Manchester campaign, known as ASK, which is aimed at cutting excessive salt consumption, which is linked to high blood pressure, stomach cancer and asthma.
How do we know that too much is bad for us? Well, as Tabloid Watch points out, an Express health feature just nine days ago explained the dangers of salt in an article headlined Ditch the salt and protect your heart.
The Daily Mail also presents the story falsely: Town that's banned salt.
Its opening paragraphs are both sneeringly sarcastic and wholly inaccurate:
"It began with the food police reducing the number of holes in salt shakers.
Now they have gone a step further and removed the shakers altogether to hide them from view.
Fish-and-chip shops, cafes, restaurants, takeaways and curry houses will take salt containers off their counters and table tops under the latest push by a council to cut its residents' salt consumption."
It goes on to point out that it is a voluntary scheme, but it is clear that it disapproves of the initiative. Why report it in such negative terms?
Have the Mail executives forgotten what their staff writer Sophie Borland wrote last November: Cutting salt from your diet 'would prevent one fifth of heart disease deaths'.
