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

[Amused]

PepsiCo last month announced plans to reduce salt by 25%. Today, PepsiCo announces Lays brand chips will change their salt to "decrease the amount of salt we put on a snack with no compromise on taste". They claim that 80% of the salt on their chips was untasted, and thus went to waste.

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?

 

[dullard]

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?

1) There is no goverment limit.
2) No we shouldn't have carb limits just like we don't have salt limits.
3) At this point, the FDA is just working with companies to keep up the freely made company choices. If an when the FDA has legally enforcable salt limits, THEN you have very valid points.

You seem to keep confusing a possiblity to add limits with the reality of having limits.

 

[spidey07]

1) There is no goverment limit.
2) No we shouldn't have carb limits just like we don't have salt limits.
3) At this point, the FDA is just working with companies to keep up the freely made company choices. If an when the FDA has legally enforcable salt limits, THEN you have very valid points.

You seem to keep confusing a possiblity to add limits with the reality of having limits.

That it is even being suggested or talked about is enough to get outraged. The FDA should just say "this is a terribly stupid idea and oversteps our authority" immediately.

But no. Current government actions are - hey! England is doing it, we should too! England has limits. I don't want to be anything like that place. This is a free country, or at least it's supposed to be.

 

[Amused]

1) There is no goverment limit.
2) No we shouldn't have carb limits just like we don't have salt limits.
3) At this point, the FDA is just working with companies to keep up the freely made company choices. If an when the FDA has legally enforcable salt limits, THEN you have very valid points.

You seem to keep confusing a possiblity to add limits with the reality of having limits.

1. There will be. The plan is set and results in legal limits on sodium. The plan must be stopped or reversed for the legal limits not to occur.

2. See number one. I this is allowed to come into effect, I would bet that limits on added sugars won't be far behind.

3. Because it's step one of their plan. Step two is LEGAL LIMITS.

"The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods"
Now "maybe". Not "could be." Not "possibly."

 

[JSt0rm]

3. Because it's step one of their plan. Step two is LEGAL LIMITS.

step three GAYIFICATION CAMPS.

 

[Amused]

step three GAYIFICATION CAMPS.

Gawd I hope not! I don't have a thing to wear!

 

[dullard]

"The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods"
Now "maybe". Not "could be." Not "possibly."

It has been several days and you are STILL repeating that incorrect line. Your own OP article stated that there were no regulations. Here is the message from the FDA itself:

A story in today’s Washington Post leaves a mistaken impression that the FDA has begun the process of regulating the amount of sodium in foods. The FDA is not currently working on regulations nor has it made a decision to regulate sodium content in foods at this time.

Please stop repeating that clearly disproven lie. If the FDA ever proposes salt limits, then I'll support you 100%.

Until then, the FDA is working with companies to voluntarilly reduce salt. As long as that continues, I'll support the FDA, not baseless lies.

 

[Amused]

It has been several days and you are STILL repeating that incorrect line. Here is the message from the FDA itself:

Please stop repeating that clearly disproven lie. If the FDA ever proposes salt limits, then I'll support you 100%.

Right. Rueters and the WP are liars. But the government is HONEST!

Can you sell me some pot?

Just because they deny it after the FACTS were leaked and the public's reaction was deemed too negative doesn't mean that plan did not exist. Hasn't made the decision doesn't mean the plan doesn't exist.

 

[dullard]

Right. Rueters and the WP are liars. But the government is HONEST!

Fine, we'll use EXACTLY what Rueters and the WP wrote (from your OP): "The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits."

So are we to trust Reuter's and WP in the fact that officials have not set limits? Or are we to trust you? How about more from the WP in a newer article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/21/AR2010042103686.html

"The FDA said it supports the reductions made by many food makers and said it will be more thoroughly reviewing the recommendations from the report in the coming weeks. However, the FDA said it is not currently working on regulations nor has it decided to regulate sodium."

Since the WP is supposedly perfect, we must trust the newer article too.

Can you sell me some pot?

Ah, I see you want illegal drugs. No wonder you say that Reuters and WP are correct while you simultaneously think that Reuters and WP are wrong when they say there are no limits. No, I do not have pot, nor do I sell pot.

 

[Amused]

Fine, we'll use EXACTLY what Rueters and the WP wrote (from your OP): "The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits."

So are we to trust Reuter's and WP in the fact that officials have not set limits? Or are we to trust you? How about more from the WP in a newer article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/21/AR2010042103686.html

"The FDA said it supports the reductions made by many food makers and said it will be more thoroughly reviewing the recommendations from the report in the coming weeks. However, the FDA said it is not currently working on regulations nor has it decided to regulate sodium."

Since the WP is supposedly perfect, we must trust the newer article too.


Ah, I see you want illegal drugs. No wonder you say that Reuters and WP are correct while you simultaneously think that Reuters and WP are wrong when they say there are no limits. No, I do not have pot, nor do I sell pot.

Fine Dullard,

There are no legal limits YET... even though reliable sources within the FDA concede that the plan WILL eventually lead to legal limits... there are none YET.

But any plan like this will lead to legal limits unless the public makes it very plainly understood that legal limits are unacceptable. If you wait for those limits to come about, you're too late to stop them.

 

[dullard]

Fine Dullard,

There are no legal limits YET... even though reliable sources within the FDA concede that the plan WILL eventually lead to legal limits... there are none YET.

But any plan like this will lead to legal limits unless the public makes it very plainly understood that legal limits are unacceptable. If you wait for those limits to come about, you're too late to stop them.

No hard feelings, I hope.

I truely want to help you make your argument better. It is very difficult to persuade someone by shouting "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". It is better to argue that "NASA said a meteor is heading towards earth and will crash on May 28th, we should do something about it". You are quite good at convincing arguments, when you rely on facts and science. I just happen to take offense at this current "the sky is falling" tactic. That is why I asked you to wait a few weeks until the FDA releases a specific plan. THEN we can argue against salt limits (if any) with valid facts supporting us.

 

[Amused]

No hard feelings, I hope.

I truely want to help you make your argument better. It is very difficult to persuade someone by shouting "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". It is better to argue that "NASA said a meteor is heading towards earth and will crash on May 28th, we should do something about it". You are quite good at convincing arguments, when you rely on facts and science. I just happen to take offense at this current "the sky is falling" tactic. That is why I asked you to wait a few weeks until the FDA releases a specific plan. THEN we can argue against salt limits (if any) with valid facts supporting us.

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.

 

[zsdersw]

low sodium food is bland and tasteless.

Not necessarily true.

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

You're doing it wrong.. or buying stuff that was done wrong.

 

[child of wonder]

Not necessarily true.

You're doing it wrong.. or buying stuff that was done wrong.

I agree. Having lots of experience with cooking low sodium dishes, I can say unequivocably that low sodium does not equal bland.

 

[dullard]

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

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

Your point is mostly valid in my opinion. The only issue I have left is the line above. PepsiCo is already lowering salt (announced a month before this whole announcement). A small company, Bumble bee foods is also announcing reduced salt. Companies are reducing salt. Thus, I don't see the inevitable legal limits. Yes, the FDA can change it's mind; or the people at the FDA can be replaced with people who will put on limits. It is a possibility. But, it doesn't seem like a probability at least yet.

If we as a country decide to address sodium, I hope we do it better than just having legal limits. Like most of us know, sodium isn't harmful to everyone, so limiting it to those who can eat it takes away our freedoms. However, many people who are sensitive don't know it, so there must be a way we can help them too.

I'd be in support of subsidies to encourage lower sodium in food (within the legal bounds of trade agreements). That would help level the playing field. I'd support something along the lines of lowered corporate taxes for companies with less than 0.75 mg of salt per calorie on average (that number can be changed of course).

I'd be in support of lower taxes for companies that follow Lay's lead of keeping taste the same with less sodium. As well as research support to enable these projects.

I'd be in support of lower taxes for companies that add potassium chloride (within safe limits) since it is the sodium/potassium ratio that really matters far more than the specific amount of either.

I'd support better idenfication of people who are sensitive to sodium intake.

If we really must, I'd grudgingly support taxes on sodium chloride to help even the balance between high salt and low salt food choices. Although, I hope the efforts listed above are tried first.

The government can do things like this to address the sodium problem without resorting to legal limits.

 

[woolfe9999]

That is profound. So many are willing to accept the unacceptable as long as the "right" people implement it or the "right" group gets punished.

Personally I'm not at all surprised. We as a nation cannot expect to demand that government provide our health care and make our housing "affordable" and protect us financially from our own bad decisions and still expect to be treated as adults and afforded the same freedoms a free adult might expect. If we demand to be supported as if we were property, we will become property - and will be treated as such.

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

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There is nothing inconsistent about being for salt limits and against the war on drugs. I would be for a cocaine limit too if food manufacturers were dumping such large amounts into damn near everything.

 

[Descartes]

So, there's no actual issue, but a few clever people on P&N can see into the future and know what conspiratorial behavior lies behind the government walls?

Jesus, get me a tin foil hat asap. This is what gets passed for rationalism?

 

[dmcowen674]

So, there's no actual issue, but a few clever people on P&N can see into the future and know what conspiratorial behavior lies behind the government walls?

Jesus, get me a tin foil hat asap. This is what gets passed for rationalism?

Can't help that I am right all the time.

 

[ShawnD1]

There is nothing inconsistent about being for salt limits and against the war on drugs. I would be for a cocaine limit too if food manufacturers were dumping such large amounts into damn near everything.

Why would you do something silly like that?


I don't feel like reading 20 pages of name calling, so can someone tell me if it has been mentioned that you can increase the potassium in your diet to offset the effects of sodium?

 

[dullard]

I don't feel like reading 20 pages of name calling, so can someone tell me if it has been mentioned that you can increase the potassium in your diet to offset the effects of sodium?

I posted about it in post #265, and I think someone starting talking about it on the first page. But, there are multiple salt threads and it has been several days, so I may be wrong.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Can't help that I am right all the time.

Yeah, you're right. Thanks for the prediction you gave us for the $10/gallon gas. It really helped me prepare my budget.

 

[Amused]

So, there's no actual issue, but a few clever people on P&N can see into the future and know what conspiratorial behavior lies behind the government walls?

Jesus, get me a tin foil hat asap. This is what gets passed for rationalism?

The issue is this:

Sources within the FDA leaked the plan to Reuters and The Washington Post that included eventual legal limits on salt in processed foods. When the shit hit the fan, the FDA said it does not YET plan to place legal limits on salt in processed foods. Double speak for "we're not limiting it... YET."

 

[Amused]

There is nothing inconsistent about being for salt limits and against the war on drugs. I would be for a cocaine limit too if food manufacturers were dumping such large amounts into damn near everything.

So you would not allow me (or anyone else) to buy salty chips or pretzels?

How is that different from not allowing the sale and use of drugs?

 

[child of wonder]

The issue is this:

Sources within the FDA leaked the plan to Reuters and The Washington Post that included eventual legal limits on salt in processed foods. When the shit hit the fan, the FDA said it does not YET plan to place legal limits on salt in processed foods. Double speak for "we're not limiting it... YET."

That's your opinion/assumption that plans for a limit was "leaked."

Nothing more.