I want to stress what I'm saying here is perhaps not valid for poor campesinos in the DR, I do not know. I want to stress again that if salt is advertised as iodized, it needs to be iodized otherwise the consumers are being lied to. This is how this issue received attention initially, from Chiri's blog where she did the salt tests.
I am responding more to the question: "Which salt is the best?"
From the posted WHO report: "Deficiency results when
the soil is poor in iodine,
causing a low concentration in food products and insufficient iodine intake in the population."
From the posted WHO report: "Second, to assist Member States
to ensure that populations at risk have access to iodized salt by working closely with governments and WHO's partners in the area of iodine deficiency
From the posted WHO report: "In
29 countries, iodine intake was slightly too high or even excessive. Daily iodine intake above a safe level may result in iodine-induced thyroid dysfunction in susceptible groups."
So, it is clear that excessive iodine intake occurs; in 29 countries, as the WHO states here. In fact, I bet most of us eating a normal diet has excessive iodine in our systems. Studies show that those that eat a diet high in fast foods, have mega high iodine levels with concomitant thyroid problems in the population.
So, according to the WHO report, iodine deficiency occurs in populations when the
soil is poor in iodine? So, the solution is to put iodine in everyone's
salt? Huh? And cause most people in 29 countries to have elevated levels of this stuff? And is everyone a 'population at risk'?. Is the solution not to put the iodine back in the soil? Anyway ....
Traditionally many community health programs were done in this "complete penetration" way, e.g, the soil is becoming poor and therefore the food does not have sufficient iodine, therefore folks in the midwest far from the oceans are becoming mentally challenged. So, how do we get people to have sufficient iodine? So, we don't put together that we are impoverishing the soil, we say ... Well, everyone eats salt, so, we will put it in the salt and do a very large educational campaign and teach everyone to buy iodized salt.
Sounds reasonable eh? (Major social engineering, and I'm sure there was a salt lobby behind it

but that's another story!)
These types of community solutions were universally seen as 'a good thing', and I don't dispute that in certain cases, or most cases, it was indeed a very very good thing! Remember I grew up in Africa. Illnesses that you all in the first world did not even think of, I had family die of, because not all people were immunized where we were, or we were behind the curve. So, we accept these massive community solutions because this is what we learnt. Most of us would never buy anything but iodized salt for our families today as we feel it would be quite wrong for us to do so.
However it is time to relook at those '40's and '50's (where I come from - earlier in other places) style solutions to see if they are still valid today, or in a matter of speaking, are we still putting the iodine in the salt instead of in the soil?
Note that what I say here about iodine is our experience. It may perhaps not be valid for you. It certainly is not mainstream thinking yet but these things are being questioned more and more. I've only seen the salt pans in the DR outside of Monte Cristi and thought all of the DR's local salt comes from there. I was not aware that there were inland salt pans. Has anyone actually tested the iodine and selenium levels in that salt? Does anyone know what the percentage thyroid disease is in the DR comparatively (same type of population type, same type of food, same type of socio economics). Has anyone check out salt from the Monte Cristi pans vs salt from inland pans?
We do not have added iodine in our salt in our house as we use unrefined sea salt. We have a vegetarian child in our house. I am hyper aware of how much iodine is necessary for a person's health as we have a child that does not eat fish or seafood.