What’s your definition of basic? How can standards not change when knowledge is constantly changing (not to mention eating habits, food preparation technology, disease prevalence, health costs…)? What differentiates fads from science? Surely not simply your opinion versus mine?In my lifetime, it appears that standards of wholesomeness changes more in response to fads than anything science. I do not trust changing standards. I guess I can agree with you, if you would use my definition of “basic.”
Basic means nothing dangerous (e.g. carcinogens). I know you said that salt is deadly in too large a quantity. True, but so are many things that we eat. If I by a liter of whiskey and take it home and drink the whole bottle, it might well kill me. Should we require liquor to be alcohol free?What’s your definition of basic? How can standards not change when knowledge is constantly changing (not to mention eating habits, food preparation technology, disease prevalence, health costs…)? What differentiates fads from science? Surely not simply your opinion versus mine?
I loved your illustration. Now consider if a single can of beer contained the same amount of alcohol as that whole bottle of whiskey; you wouldn’t have to drink to excess to risk your life…Basic means nothing dangerous (e.g. carcinogens). I know you said that salt is deadly in too large a quantity. True, but so are many things that we eat. If I by a liter of whiskey and take it home and drink the whole bottle, it might well kill me. Should we require liquor to be alcohol free?
I think the whole salt thing will be very bad for health. I have broken the habit of using salt. If I have to start adding again, it is very likely that I will add more and more and actually increase salt intake. I bet a dollar to a donought that if this issue was researched and not blindly jumped into by do-gooders, this would be shown as a realistic scenario.
I noticed you mentioned health care cost. I knew once this government meddling in health care started the next step would be controling the health of the proliteriat.
I can hardly know where to begin on the fad issue. Once it was no-fat, then no bad fats, but good fats, then no carbs. Alcohol is bad, but then wine became good. Other science issues are things like the next ice age we were heading for followed by global warming.
It is noto science I doubt. I question when people use science as a lever to gain political power and control others.
You’ve clearly missed the point I’ve made pains to clarify. I’m not disputing the need for less sodium in our diets. I am disputing the right of a government to force that change.I assume nothing. I just happen to value life and health greatly and to place great stock in the scientific process and rationally presented data rather than in knee-jerk reactions to the powers that be". The real power lies in seeking knowledge and applying it practically to the conundrums of life…
You are wrong. You can produce all the data you wish to show that sodium in excess is bad for health. But no where in that data will you be able to show how that data justifies government intrusion into the private market and into individuals lifestyle choices.Data please…
Incidentally, hypertension is not the only condition aggravated by a diet high in salt, neither is salt the only culprit in hypertension (genes, weight, lifestyle, diet and more also contribute). Of course this is the type of discussion that really should precede (rather than follow) forming an opinion on whether gov’t does or does not have a role in telling food producers how much salt should be in their products…
The government would simply be regulating the salt content of food produced for consumers. The consumers’ salt shakers remain in their own hands. Much the same as pasteurization of milk produced for public consumption is mandated - that doesn’t prevent any individual from drinking milk straight from the source! It simply says that if you’re going to put milk on store shelves for people to buy, it has to be pasteurized.You are wrong. You can produce all the data you wish to show that sodium in excess is bad for health. But no where in that data will you be able to show how that data justifies government intrusion into the private market and into individuals lifestyle choices.
Apples and oranges. Non-pasteurized milk is far more likely to carry disease, and thus it is banned. A more equivalent law would be a ban on whole milk- it’s far too high in fat! You can still throw in your own fat if you so desire!The government would simply be regulating the salt content of food produced for consumers. The consumers’ salt shakers remain in their own hands. Much the same as pasteurization of milk produced for public consumption is mandated - that doesn’t prevent any individual from drinking their mild straight from the source! It simply says that if you’re going to put milk on store shelves for people to buy, it has to be pasteurized.
The government isn’t dictating my salt consumption, they are regulating the food industry’s use of salt. Two distinct issues - only one of which they have the right to enforce.
Foods high in salt are more likely to contribute to disease. Don’t see how it’s apples and oranges at all.Apples and oranges. Non-pasteurized milk is far more likely to carry disease, and thus it is banned. A more equivalent law would be a ban on whole milk- it’s far too high in fat! You can still throw in your own fat if you so desire!
Low sodium foods do exist- but the fact that you don’t see as much of them as you do other ‘alternative’ foods should tell you something- people who like low fat foods have their own well-developed market, people who like organic foods have their own well-developed market, people who like vegan/vegetarian foods have their own well-developed market: but not so much for the low sodium group. I would assume this is because people really don’t feel the desire to reduce their sodium intakes.Guess we use very different grocery stores or we disagree on the definition of high sodium. Unless you live like the Amish (not a bad lifestyle actually) the majority of present modern food choices are usually: ‘too much salt’ or ‘make your own at home’. I know because I read the labels on everything I buy…The market can only correct high sodium content of foods if there are enough healthy alternatives, which at present, there are not (in the average grocery store).
I agree that government has no right to tell an individual how to eat, but they do have a right to promote the public good and that, in my mind, includes making sure the food being sold to the public meets basic standards of wholesomeness, which are constantly changing as our knowledge and health risks change. Once food manufacturers are held to good nutrition standards, I’m personally free to eat whatever junk I want and account to God for it later…
As are high fat foods, as are high cholesterol foods, as are every other food that is unhealthy at certain dosages.Foods high in salt are more likely to contribute to disease. Don’t see how it’s apples and oranges at all.
Your rationale is self-effacing. You claim the government has a right to regulate salt content to improve public health, but you also say the government isn’t regulating salt intake.The government would simply be regulating the salt content of food produced for consumers. The consumers’ salt shakers remain in their own hands. Much the same as pasteurization of milk produced for public consumption is mandated - that doesn’t prevent any individual from drinking milk straight from the source! It simply says that if you’re going to put milk on store shelves for people to buy, it has to be pasteurized.
The government isn’t dictating my salt consumption, they are regulating the food industry’s use of salt. Two distinct issues - only one of which gov’t has the right to enforce.
You’re the one trying to have it both ways: salt content and salt intake are distinct issues; the former can be regulated, the latter is up to the individual.Your rationale is self-effacing. You claim the government has a right to regulate salt content to improve public health, but you also say the government isn’t regulating salt intake.
You can’t have it both ways. If the government is to improve public health by reducing salt intake it must regulate an individual’s consumption of salt. Hence, the government IS dictating salt intake by regulating the food industry’s use of salt. If not, it would be pointless.
The only way for you to be correct in saying that the government is not regulating a person’s intake of salt is if a salt shaker were the only means by which a person gets salt. But that is clearly not the case.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Furthermore, if the government is really going to force a food manufacturer to change its recipe, is it a big stretch to start regulating the sale of salt to individuals? I think not.
The entire raison detre for a salt ban is to reduce individual salt intake. Elsewise, it would be pointless.You’re the one trying to have it both ways: salt content and salt intake are distinct issues; the former can be regulated, the latter is up to the individual.
First, regulation of a corporation is not the business of the government. Secondly, the only reason the government is regulating the corporation is to control the individual’s diet.How does regulation of the corporation become regulation of the individual or do you agree with the supreme court that a corporation is a person?
A generation ago no one would have predicted lawsuits against tobacco companies, banning of trans-fats, or the government telling food companies which recipes they could use. Banning salt shakers, in light of those facts, don’t seem so far fetched.Is the government likely to ban the sale of salt? Not without revolt of the “let them eat cake” variety.
People already make a conscious choice about what they eat. You are trying to circumlocute to avoid the obvious fact that a salt ban is simply a way to dictate what individuals should eat.As long as salt is sold in stores, regulating salt content of food products in no way forces individuals to eat less salt - they simply would have to add it themselves, thereby making a conscious decision regarding salt intake, rather than leaving it up to the manufacturers or the government.
They’re not forcing YOU to curb that amount. They’re forcing manufacturers of processed foods to curb that amount, in the interest of public health.There is talk afoot of the FDA regulating how much salt food manufacturers can use. It occurs to me this is a perfect litmus test on a person’s political beliefs. Supporting or opposing this bill would tell you a lot about a person’s politics.
Now, I’m not asking whether eating less salt is a good idea. It seems pretty clear that most Americans get way too much salt in their diet. But, should the government force you to curb that amount?
Exactly. They are forcing the food companies to give the individual more choice over how much salt he/she takes in. Right now, those who don’t have the time or capability to prepare their own hotdogs from a pig, essentially have to choose between 100’s of mgs of excess sodium or no hotdogs at all.They’re not forcing YOU to curb that amount. They’re forcing manufacturers of processed foods to curb that amount, in the interest of public health.
You’re quite free to put more salt onto your dinner plate if you want to.
If they put little silicon chips in salt shakers with a view to monitoring your salt habits, then it would be an imposition on your freedom. You know, the sort of Orwellian scenario where you shake the salt too many times for breakfast, and the next thing you know a SWAT team crashes down your chimney, machine guns the dog, arrests the cat and plants sachets of salt in your pockets as evidence.
Choose four brands of hotdog in the next Walmart you visit and let me know how much sodium there is in a SINGLE hotdog. Then let’s talk about choice.Choice exists now, just like the choice of how much fat intact one eats exists. One can always choose to eat fewer hotdogs, it that is what one wants. God forbid eating less be considered an option, or that freedom take priority over fascism.
Salt is the least of your worries in a hot dog.Choose four brands of hotdog in the next Walmart you visit and let me know how much sodium there is in a SINGLE hotdog. Then let’s talk about choice.
It is not the government’s place to force corporations to change their recipes.Exactly. They are forcing the food companies to give the individual more choice over how much salt he/she takes in. Right now, those who don’t have the time or capability to prepare their own hotdogs from a pig, essentially have to choose between 100’s of mgs of excess sodium or no hotdogs at all.
That is all dance around a question with a false distinction. Let’s try a little catechism to figure this out.They’re not forcing YOU to curb that amount. They’re forcing manufacturers of processed foods to curb that amount, in the interest of public health.
You’re quite free to put more salt onto your dinner plate if you want to.
If they put little silicon chips in salt shakers with a view to monitoring your salt habits, then it would be an imposition on your freedom. You know, the sort of Orwellian scenario where you shake the salt too many times for breakfast, and the next thing you know a SWAT team crashes down your chimney, machine guns the dog, arrests the cat and plants sachets of salt in your pockets as evidence.