Who didn't see this coming? For those who wanted governement to pick up the tab on health care, you can now expect them to have even more say in what you shovel down your cake hole. Legislators are already buying into it.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2010/04/21/experts-want-mandatory-salt-restrictions.html?sid=101
WASHINGTON - A new report urges the Food and Drug Administration to end America's love affair with salty food.
After more than 40 years of failed efforts to get voluntary reductions in salt in processed and restaurant food, the Institute of Medicine calls for establishing new mandatory standards that gradually reduce sodium content.
The report recommends that the FDA, working with the food industry, set limits on the amount of salt that restaurants, food manufacturers and food-service companies could add.
Yesterday, two members of Congress urged the FDA to move quickly, calling the matter a "public-health crisis" that needs a swift response from government.
"I understand they want to do in a phased kind of a deal, but I don't want it to be too long," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. He plans to hold hearings on the matter. "This is crying out for change that's long overdue."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., agreed, saying: "I don't want this to take 10 years. I don't want this to go on and on and on. This is a public-health crisis."
Because most dietary salt is consumed through prepared meals and processed or packaged foods, the recommendations to reduce sodium intake are directed at food manufacturers and the food-preparation industries.
The report calls for increasing FDA staffing and funding to implement the changes and monitor compliance with the new initiative."
What a freaking nanny state we are turning into. It's hard for me to imagine that grown people don't comprehend the ramifications of their diets. Take the salt out of the processed foods they buy, and they will simply add salt at the table (or on their lap as they drive). How do you police that? All you wind up with is a larger and more deft bureaucracy, and more costly restrictions on business which drives up consumer prices. Those of you who believe that increased costs of compliance and regulation isn't passed on to the consumer are living in an alternate universe. The government cannot save people from their own stupidity no matter how hard government tries.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 21, 2010, 09:33:48 AM
It's hard for me to imagine that grown people don't comprehend the ramifications of their diets.
Your kidding right? lol
As a slug enthusiast, I approve.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 21, 2010, 09:53:43 AM
Your kidding right? lol
As an adult, you know if you over-eat or have a diet high in sugar and fat content, you gain weight. You know that exercizing aids in the loss of weight and promotes cardiac and emotional well-being. There's also plenty of information available as to the dangers of high-sodium diets, the dangers of smoking, and sedentary lifestyles. If people don't know this by the time they get out of high school then it's obvious throwing money at our education system isn't working.
I didn't say that having this knowledge makes people change their habits or get off their arse ;)
Quote from: TheArtist on April 21, 2010, 09:53:43 AM
Your kidding right? lol
Yeah, seriously. Conan, the target here isn't your personal choice to dump three fingers of table salt all over your morning eggs, it's what prepared food people do to the stuff in cans and bottles and boxes that you never see. They're regulating the stuff you either have no choice about or currently don't know about. How does that infringe on your personal liberty?
Quote from: we vs us on April 21, 2010, 10:35:48 AM
Yeah, seriously. Conan, the target here isn't your personal choice to dump three fingers of table salt all over your morning eggs, it's what prepared food people do to the stuff in cans and bottles and boxes that you never see. They're regulating the stuff you either have no choice about or currently don't know about. How does that infringe on your personal liberty?
Sure, I've got a choice. I don't have to buy processed pre-packaged crap and there's very little which I do buy.
It's not a matter to me of personal liberty near as much as how the government keeps justifying ways to make itself bigger, more expensive, and to keep raising the cost of doing business to the end consumer. It simply irritates the foo out of me that government keeps taking more of a stance that the citizens are far too stupid to figure out what is good and bad for them and to leave them alone and allow them to live as healthy or unhealthy a lifestyle as they want.
It won't end with sodium, just wait... I forsee black helicopters sucking fat out of cows and pigs next muwahhahahahaha!
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/04/weekend_diversion_do_tinfoil_h/tinfoil-hat.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 21, 2010, 11:21:25 AM
It's not a matter to me of personal liberty near as much as how the government keeps justifying ways to make itself bigger, more expensive, and to keep raising the cost of doing business to the end consumer. It simply irritates the foo out of me that government keeps taking more of a stance that the citizens are far too stupid to figure out what is good and bad for them and to leave them alone and allow them to live as healthy or unhealthy a lifestyle as they want.
Well . . . isn't this kinda justified? It's both a health risk to the population at large and business will continue to pump salt into prepackaged food if it's not given a reason not to. I mean, business won't reduce its use of salt on its own. There's no incentive.
And people will keep eating this stuff. You know they will. It's obvious because we've had nutrition information available for awhile now and they keep eating it. It might be because they're lazy, or they're ignorant, or they don't care, or whatever. They may just not be able to be vigilant all the time. But either way they keep eating it.
In some cases, the science is very clear: our bodies are predisposed to respond favorably to things like salt (and sweet, and umami, which is the pleasurable taste of meaty fat, etc). So, in many ways, no matter what that nutritional information is or isn't saying, our bodies are going to crave it naturally anyway. Why do you think McDonald's invented the McGriddle? It's salt, sugar, and fat all rolled into a fantastically disgusting package.
I guess being vigilant against the nanny state is all fine and good, but government is the only thing protecting us from increasingly sophisticated markets and marketing, much of which are hidden from us to such a degree that we can't make intelligent decisions about them.
Quote from: we vs us on April 21, 2010, 12:13:12 PM
Well . . . isn't this kinda justified? It's both a health risk to the population at large and business will continue to pump salt into prepackaged food if it's not given a reason not to. I mean, business won't reduce its use of salt on its own. There's no incentive.
And people will keep eating this stuff. You know they will. It's obvious because we've had nutrition information available for awhile now and they keep eating it. It might be because they're lazy, or they're ignorant, or they don't care, or whatever. They may just not be able to be vigilant all the time. But either way they keep eating it.
In some cases, the science is very clear: our bodies are predisposed to respond favorably to things like salt (and sweet, and umami, which is the pleasurable taste of meaty fat, etc). So, in many ways, no matter what that nutritional information is or isn't saying, our bodies are going to crave it naturally anyway. Why do you think McDonald's invented the McGriddle? It's salt, sugar, and fat all rolled into a fantastically disgusting package.
I guess being vigilant against the nanny state is all fine and good, but government is the only thing protecting us from increasingly sophisticated markets and marketing, much of which are hidden from us to such a degree that we can't make intelligent decisions about them.
I guess I'm too in tune with personal responsibility to accept that easily Wevus, and I'm tired of government metastasizing. As well, we seem to be selectively applying the standard of "freedom of choice".
I also can foresee as the government accepts more of the burden of paying for health care that they will come out with more ways for us to remain healthy (via restrictions on activities and what we put in our bodies) which wind up costing them the least amount of money. There are lots of people who will think that's justified because the government is on the hook for the cost of fixing what we break or neglect.
This example is getting way out in hyperbole land: I'd prefer to have the choice as to whether or not I want to ride my mountain bike at Turkey Mountain or snow ski double diamond slopes in Colorado without some bureaucrat deciding those activities have unacceptible risks.
I accept that whatever I eat which I did not prepare myself isn't as good for me as what I do prepare (other than whole fruits, etc.) and recognize there's an attendant risk. I generally try to avoid chain restaurants and eat places where they use more whole ingredients and choose items from the menu which would have been processed the least. I also realize what the risk of a sedentary lifestyle is and how much better I feel about taking control of my life instead of expecting someone to do that for me while I sit on the couch eating microwave dinners. I do realize you stay active and athletic as well.
They did touch on this in either the article I cited or another I read that restaurants could become subject to these stricter rules. Who in your hotel would be responsible for revamping all recipes and making sure the recipes would be complied with at each property? Head chef, I suppose. Would it require some sort of regular reporting?
I simply think the government is getting into too many aspects of our lives.
I agree Conan. But do you think taxes on cigs should be eliminated? Besides, it's all in our genes....or in your case, jeans. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on April 21, 2010, 12:59:22 PM
I accept that whatever I eat which I did not prepare myself isn't as good for me as what I do prepare (other than whole fruits, etc.) and recognize there's an attendant risk. I generally try to avoid chain restaurants and eat places where they use more whole ingredients and choose items from the menu which would have been processed the least. I also realize what the risk of a sedentary lifestyle is and how much better I feel about taking control of my life instead of expecting someone to do that for me while I sit on the couch eating microwave dinners. I do realize you stay active and athletic as well.
Sadly, many Americans are ignorant to these things or are unable to take advantage of the opportunities that you and I enjoy. We can get into a whole discussion about subsidies and such, but the fact is that it is more affordable (and according to new reports: biologically tastier) in the short-term to eat calorie- and sodium-dense fast food and prepared meals.
I understand and appreciate your concern, but I don't think this is that big of an issue, seeing as you can manually add sodium to your meal.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 21, 2010, 12:59:22 PM
I guess I'm too in tune with personal responsibility to accept that easily Wevus, and I'm tired of government metastasizing. As well, we seem to be selectively applying the standard of "freedom of choice".
You write as if the government is going to take away your salt shaker, or regulate the amount of salt you put in foods you prepare, which it is not.
I can't say I really consider this a great thing, but I can't say it's all that bad, either. Given that high sodium intake over long periods of time leads to high blood pressure, which leads to arteriosclerosis and eventually a likely heart attack, there's as much justification for doing it as there is for any other regulation on food that keeps the industrialized food manufacturers (of whose product I regularly partake) from poisoning us with e.coli or whatever.
Given that the alternative is to spend a bunch of money on TV ads telling people not to eat salty processed foods, I'm sure the industry likes the regulation better, too.
Isn't the amount of sodium all ready printed on these products?
Quote from: guido911 on April 21, 2010, 01:40:34 PM
Isn't the amount of sodium all ready printed on these products?
Why yes, yes it is. By law they are required to inform consumers of the amount of salt in their product AND tell us as a %. We have had the information for a very long time.
But consumers continue to make bad choices. Easy answer: big brother takes away the choice. Simply because we, as citizens, are too stupid to know what's good for us. Uncle Sam will make it so.
I understand government dictated health criteria are good for the great ignorant masses, but direct regulation on this scale has no end. Many, many products are unhealthy simply because people prefer it that way. Let's lower alcohol content on everything, mandate sunscreen at all outdoor activities, floaties at public swimming pools, and dental dams for all blowjobs.
Or, let me act like an adult and eat a salty can of spaghettios if I want to.
Don't ya just love how the pickle sniffer, as a smoker, tells us how we should be more healthy?
One part of our society will eat right, support organic food, shop at Whole Foods and similar stores, and live green lifestyles. The other uneducated simple society will continue to engage in unhealthy lifestyles. These two diverse groups will continue to have members who cross over now and then. The fact remains, there are those of us believers in choice who know what freedom really means. As poison is poison, do not eat as if it doesn't cost our society more in taxes health care. And as all the Marshallheads here will testify, moderation.
Quote from: guido911 on April 21, 2010, 03:48:49 PM
Don't ya just love how the pickle sniffer, as a smoker, tells us how we should be more healthy?
Isn't it funny how in that whole article, they don't mention the President, Tony?
The ODS runs rampant with you. The only people mentioned are the legislators who introduced it.
Not like it's surprising, or like you'll respond to me.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 21, 2010, 03:11:11 PM
I understand government dictated health criteria are good for the great ignorant masses, but fear of direct regulation on this scale has no end.
Fixed that for you.
This thread is just chock full of the slippery slope. It's as if there's no difference between keeping a healthy level of an everyday substance in your most common products -- as guided by science -- and the minute control of every little choice you make. This is definitively the first and not the second. And there's simply no comparing the two. These are not goons or death squads or brownshirts or local militia knocking down your door to force you to think right. These are also not portly, taser-happy cops writing you citation after citation for not complying with their obscure moralisms. These are simple questions of health which, if we're clear-eyed, we can see have nothing but upside, and a downside that amounts to you not wanting new stuff in your old Wheaties.
And re: "individual responsibility" . . . why must every half-step I take be an exercise in personal morality? You guys are essentially insisting that a choice should exist where maybe there doesn't need to be one. Why, if the answer to the choice is both obvious and not earth-shattering, why does a choice still need to exist? I have a whole host of new options and opportunities to exercise my personal liberty in the 21st century; why can't we take some of the old and unexciting ones out of the portfolio?
Looks like the FDA is interested in regulating salt (unofficially of course).
http://eatdrinkandbe.org/article/index.0420_law_salt1
Let's see, the FDA. Isn't that an agency underneath the authority of the Dept. of HHS?
Quote from: guido911 on April 21, 2010, 03:48:49 PM
Don't ya just love how the pickle sniffer, as a smoker, tells us how we should be more healthy?
W T F is a pickle sniffer?
Dunno. Some Tea Partier told me Lindsay Graham was one....
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pickle%20sniffer
Quote from: we vs us on April 21, 2010, 04:40:48 PM
W T F is a pickle sniffer?
I think it's like snorkeling.
What shoudl be taken into concideration on this, beyond the nanny state implications, is the reasons that so much salt is used in these foods. There are plenty of people out there that would like to imagine a corporate meeting where the maniacle heads get together to figure out a way to screw over the public some how or another, but this is not how it works. It's more like the heads get together to figure out a way to make a profit, even if it means screwing over the people. So we must ask how pouring salt into foods makes them more profitable. The obvious is because it makes it taste better. There is also that it is used as a perservative. So if we restrict how much salt they can put in the food, then reason stands that the food companies will replace it with something else to increase the taste or preserve it. The question that now becomes the focus is what will the food companies be pouring into the foods to help their bottom line and what effect that will have on the general health of the community.
I do wonder, however, if this would stand up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court if it is ever challanged. I'm curious as to which clause in the constitution congress points to in order to constitute them writing legislation to control the food industry in this way.
Quote from: custosnox on April 21, 2010, 10:10:11 PM
I'm curious as to which clause in the constitution congress points to in order to constitute them writing legislation to control the food industry in this way.
That would be the regulation of interstate commerce, the same thing that lets them regulate meat packing plants and require nutritional labels.
And most likely, the food companies will replace some of the sodium chloride with potassium chloride, which has fewer detrimental effects, so long as you don't eat way too much of it. (sort of like sodium chloride, actually)
Quote from: nathanm on April 21, 2010, 11:52:57 PM
That would be the regulation of interstate commerce, the same thing that lets them regulate meat packing plants and require nutritional labels.
let me rephrase, I wonder how they will twist it to say that it gives them the power. Commerce != Individual Health (I know, this is about what the companies put in the food and not individuals, but it still boils down to Congress saying that we don't care enough about ourselves to monitor what we buy for better health, so they are going to remove the choices from us)
Quote from: nathanm on April 21, 2010, 11:52:57 PM
That would be the regulation of interstate commerce, the same thing that lets them regulate meat packing plants and require nutritional labels.
And most likely, the food companies will replace some of the sodium chloride with potassium chloride, which has fewer detrimental effects, so long as you don't eat way too much of it. (sort of like sodium chloride, actually)
Yeah...They will if they want the food to taste like fertilizer..... ::)
Quote from: Breadburner on April 22, 2010, 09:08:56 AM
Yeah...They will if they want the food to taste like fertilizer..... ::)
I've had occasion to use potassium chloride salt instead of the standard table salt. I couldn't tell much of a difference. Maybe it would be different if there were a couple of grams of it in my meal.
Quote from: nathanm on April 22, 2010, 02:48:40 PM
I've had occasion to use potassium chloride salt instead of the standard table salt. I couldn't tell much of a difference. Maybe it would be different if there were a couple of grams of it in my meal.
Try about 100 mEq and see how that works...
Quote from: Conan71 on April 22, 2010, 03:07:05 PM
Try about 100 mEq and see how that works...
Potassium chloride is no more toxic than sodium chloride. Both will kill you if you eat too much, and you will die without enough salt, whether potassium or sodium. I think the LD50 of eaten KCl is on the order of ounces for an adult human.