U.S. Plans Drive to Limit Salt in Foods -- Welcome to the nanny state!

[Amused]

They've said they have no plans to place sodium limits or regulations. You're the one that's insinuating that the regulation is definitely forthcoming.

I did no such thing. Sources within their own agency did.

 

[feralkid]

President and Ambivalent Dictator for Life of The Amused O.C.D. and Whine ad Nauseum Brotherhood.

Oy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





D:

 

[child of wonder]

I did no such thing. Sources within their own agency did.

That's right. That's part of their plan to leak that information then back pedal on it within a matter of hours based on a brief chance to gauge public response.

 

[ShawnD1]

That's because unsalted chips suck and nobody would buy them.

This. I bought some salt and vinegar Lays a few weeks ago and they were so harsh that my tongue hurt after eating them. They were good.

 

[bfdd]

This. I bought some salt and vinegar Lays a few weeks ago and they were so harsh that my tongue hurt after eating them. They were good.

Those are the fucking bomb. To much salt to much vinegar to the point that it's damn near unbearable except you cannot stop eating them because it's so goddamn good.

 

[paperfist]

Sounds like a freely made choice along with COUNTLESS other "low sodium" food choices ALREADY out there.

So why do we need the government to effectively ban salty foods by placing legal limits on salt?

As I asked before, should we have sugar/high GI index carb limits/bans to accommodate diabetics?

You ever buy canned soup, packaged chips, or pre-cooked foods? OMG the amount of salt they pack in there is insane. The alternative 'healthy' foods tastes like ass. It's like manufacturers want to kill their customers...or make you drink more of their products after you've eating from their salt licks

They should do the same for sugar.

When your mom makes macaroni on Sundays is it better when she loads it up with salt or when she used just enough for taste and then on the table is a salt shaker for you to make the choice of how much more you want to add if any.

Now I know what you are saying, the government has no business telling us what to consume in salt, but they aren't exactly telling you that's enough salt.

 

[werepossum]

What's so profound about it? The fact that people can and do support the government banning some things and not others, regulating some things and not others, doing some things and not others? Guess what, this is the position of every person on the face of the earth except for true anarchists who believe in no government at all.

Look, I oppose both the regulation of food ingredients and the war on drugs, so I'm not "inconsistent" on these particular issues. However, his broader point is pure sophistry. It's nothing more than an expression of ideological purism, which always sounds good in theory until you consider where the reductio ad absurdum leads. His logic is of course reversible - if he opposes the government banning or regulating x, then in order to be consistent, he *must* then oppose the government banning or regulating y, where y could be literally *anything* a government might ban or regulate, with no exceptions.

- wolf

The issue is not whether government can ban some things and not others; that, to use the favorite phrase of the left here, is a straw man. If you are against the war on drugs but in favor of the government controlling the amount of salt in food, you must either be willing to believe that salt is more dangerous than drugs, or base your whole decision on which party supports which policy. Too much salt MAY contribute to an eventual heart attack. Too much salt stands no statistical chance of striking you dead each time you take it. It will not cause you to swerve your automobile into oncoming traffic - or a pedestrian. It will not ruin your life, cause you to be unable to hold a job, make you steal from family, friends and strangers to buy more salt. Salt is not peddled to school kids to get them hooked - in fact, salt is no more addictive than any other pleasant thing. There is simply no rational way to be against the war on drugs and in favor of the government regulating salt in food. It cannot be done.

 

[werepossum]

Why would I have hard feelings? My point still stands.

The only way to do this is to pass laws much like the CAFE standards, or it won't work. Why? Because the maker with the saltiest chips, etc will ALWAYS have an edge.

The overall sodium intake will NOT reduce even if EVERY food maker makes a low sodium counterpart of every product. Not only do 75% of the people have no ill effect from high sodium diets, low sodium food is bland and tasteless.

Salty foods aren't salty because of some evil plot. They are salty because humans naturally crave salty foods AND salt, just like MSG brings out a LOT of other flavors.

Try eating unsalted or even low sodium Turkey. It sucks.

So my point stands. It starts with asking people to reduce sodium. And when they won't, along come the legal limits.

And with healthcare becoming more socialized, you can BET more and more restrictive laws on foods will be coming along.

This is the progressive way. First the government goes to the manufacturers and "suggests" that they do something. That something is almost always something their customers don't want or the manufacturers would be doing it already - or their competitors would. So when the "suggested" product (in this case, low sodium foods) fails to replace the original, government steps in and mandates the "suggested" product because "voluntary compliance didn't work!"

 

[djmartins]

I got news for you....you can't fight the movement towards more government in our lives. Just going to be a fact of living here. Sure it might not be ideal, but it is what it is. Honestly there are more things to be worried about that the "tyranny" of sodium limits.

Maybe I'm just getting old and tired...I dunno.

Ever hear of the American Revolution?
I didn't think so.....

 

[Carmen813]

This practical solution provided free of charge.

 

[Amused]

This practice solution provided free of charge.

Yeah, works great for potato chips, right?

Right?

There is no solution for government limits on freedom other than to stop them from passing in the first place.

 

[Carmen813]

Yeah, works great for potato chips, right?

Right?

There is no solution for government limits on freedom other than to stop them from passing in the first place.

Ever make your own potato chips? It works just fine.

I refer you to your own article, which implies that companies have already started reducing salt content in their foods without the government destroying their ability to compete. In fact it seems like the companies have taken this action voluntarily, as a result of increased public awareness about the dangers of having too much salt.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Interesting that a state (NY) and Bloomberg (a Republican) did this, not Obama and the evil Feds.

Oh, and it's voluntary not a law.

So, the OP is correct aside from being 100% wrong.

 

[woolfe9999]

The issue is not whether government can ban some things and not others; that, to use the favorite phrase of the left here, is a straw man. If you are against the war on drugs but in favor of the government controlling the amount of salt in food, you must either be willing to believe that salt is more dangerous than drugs, or base your whole decision on which party supports which policy. Too much salt MAY contribute to an eventual heart attack. Too much salt stands no statistical chance of striking you dead each time you take it. It will not cause you to swerve your automobile into oncoming traffic - or a pedestrian. It will not ruin your life, cause you to be unable to hold a job, make you steal from family, friends and strangers to buy more salt. Salt is not peddled to school kids to get them hooked - in fact, salt is no more addictive than any other pleasant thing. There is simply no rational way to be against the war on drugs and in favor of the government regulating salt in food. It cannot be done.

I'm late in replying to this, but I have to disagree. For this analogy to hold, you'd have to be talking about banning salt, and not just in food products, but banning its sale and even its possession, everywhere. Because that is what we have with drugs. It's isn't inconsistent to support some kind of upper limit on salt content, that is imposed as an industry regulation, with no ban on the sale or possession of salt and individuals being able to freely add it, and opposing the criminalizing of drugs. So, if I believed in regulating salt in food products, I might support legalizing drugs, but also support the government regulating the newly de-criminalized drugs, for purity, lack of toxity, etc. The fallacy is in equating every form of government regulation as being equal in severity and intrusiveness.

As I've said, I don't support either of these things. I just don't see the logical inconsistency between the two positions.

- wolf

 

[shira]

I haven't read the responses to this thread, but I find it amazingly ironic that whenever a proposal is made that would REDUCE COSTS (in this case, by slowly reducing the sodium levels in processed foods, the hope is that the rate of hypertension in the general population can be reduced, improving health and thereby reducing health-care costs), conservatives are opposed.

Want another example? Last fall, a "blue ribbon" panel issued recommendations on changing the standard for who should receive routine mammograms. The effect of those changes would have been to eliminate routine mammograms for women between 40 and 49 (except for those at high risk for breast cancer), and reduce routine mammograms to once every two years for women 50 and over (again, excepting those at high risk). The basis for the new recommendation was a cost/benefit analysis. The response? Screams of "Healthcare rationing!!!" (albeit from BOTH the right and the left).

Another?: The public option in Obamacare was intended to give private insurance companies stiff competition, in order to hold down cost increases. The right's response: "Government takeover."

Another?: The tax on "cadillac" health plans is intended to shift more of the up-front costs for routine procedures onto consumers. Thus reducing demand ==> reducing costs. The right's response: "Tax and spend! Tax and spend!"

So, why doesn't the right tell the rest of us how costs can be substantially reduced if they routinely respond to actual proposals to reduce costs with catcalls? And, no, "tort reform" is not the panacea that will balance the budget. Not even remotely close.

 

[Amused]

I haven't read the responses to this thread, but I find it amazingly ironic that whenever a proposal is made that would REDUCE COSTS (in this case, by slowly reducing the sodium levels in processed foods, the hope is that the rate of hypertension in the general population can be reduced, improving health and thereby reducing health-care costs), conservatives are opposed.

Want another example? Last fall, a "blue ribbon" panel issued recommendations on changing the standard for who should receive routine mammograms. The effect of those changes would have been to eliminate routine mammograms for women between 40 and 49 (except for those at high risk for breast cancer), and reduce routine mammograms to once every two years for women 50 and over (again, excepting those at high risk). The basis for the new recommendation was a cost/benefit analysis. The response? Screams of "Healthcare rationing!!!" (albeit from BOTH the right and the left).

Another?: The public option in Obamacare was intended to give private insurance companies stiff competition, in order to hold down cost increases. The right's response: "Government takeover."

Another?: The tax on "cadillac" health plans is intended to shift more of the up-front costs for routine procedures onto consumers. Thus reducing demand ==> reducing costs. The right's response: "Tax and spend! Tax and spend!"

So, why doesn't the right tell the rest of us how costs can be substantially reduced if they routinely respond to actual proposals to reduce costs with catcalls? And, no, "tort reform" is not the panacea that will balance the budget. Not even remotely close.

Wanna know how to reduce costs? STOP PAYING.

"Cost to society" has been used to take away far too many freedoms already. It is proof positive that socialism IS anathema to freedom.

The right and libertarians hold dearly to INDIVIDUAL freedom and responsibility. The left seems to think that society should pay for, and dictate how we live.

So your loaded question is moot. The simple answer is, STOP PAYING. If you don't want to pay for people's irresponsible behavior, STOP PAYING. Do NOT think you can tell them what they can, or cannot do with their own bodies.

Keep your laws off my body. Oh, and keep your money too.

 

[zsdersw]

The right and libertarians hold dearly to INDIVIDUAL freedom and responsibility.

No, it's just the libertarians. The "right" trends toward fascism the further you go.