Salt as a Litmus Test

[Pug]

Reducing sodium content is not going to make ripe, well-handled fruit more available. The magic I’d like to see performed is to make good food easily available to people. Mandating that pretzels contain less salt will mean that people will eat ice cream instead. There are plenty of things to eat at the supermarket with small amounts of sodium. I can eat fruit, vegetables, meat, and grains. The trick is that the better of these are not cheap, and many of us did not grow up eating decent foods, so they are unfamiliar. Also, you need someone with the time, knowledge, and inclination to prepare them.

So, who is lobbying for this thing? Is it just some advisory agency, or are some food manufacturers interested in this?

 

[seekerz]

Salt is the least of your worries in a hot dog.

Kindly elaborate.

 

[seekerz]

That is all dance around a question with a false distinction. Let’s try a little catechism to figure this out.

What reason does the government invoke to regulate salt content?
Public safety.

What is the public safety hazard of salt?
Excessive amounts of salt in one’s diet can lead to premature death.

How is this risk reduced?
By reducing the amount of salt a person ingests.

What means has the government taken to reduce the amount of salt individual ingest?
Regulate the recipes of food manufacturers.

As long as you argue that the government MUST cut down the salt in food for public safety but simultaneously maintain that the government isn’t controlling the amount of salt a person takes in, you’re contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. Enabling greater control over one’s salt intake IS in the interest of public safety. I used to spend twice as long in the grocery store when I had to shop for an elderly hypertensive relative and even then the low sodium (in a single serving) choices were so few, she needed someone at home who had the time to prepare most meals from scratch. In how many homes is this practical?

 

[MikiBee]

Reducing sodium content is not going to make ripe, well-handled fruit more available. The magic I’d like to see performed is to make good food easily available to people. Mandating that pretzels contain less salt will mean that people will eat ice cream instead. There are plenty of things to eat at the supermarket with small amounts of sodium. I can eat fruit, vegetables, meat, and grains. The trick is that the better of these are not cheap, and many of us did not grow up eating decent foods, so they are unfamiliar. Also, you need someone with the time, knowledge, and inclination to prepare them.

So, who is lobbying for this thing? Is it just some advisory agency, or are some food manufacturers interested in this?

I couldn’t agree more. Without the salt, many of the processed foods would be bland, so people would be looking for even more less-healthy foods to fill that flavor gap. Maybe the government ought to outlaw processed foods altogether. That other junk in the ingredient’s list is worse for you than salt.

 

[seekerz]

I couldn’t agree more. Without the salt, many of the processed foods would be bland, so people would be looking for even more less-healthy foods to fill that flavor gap. Maybe the government ought to outlaw processed foods altogether. That other junk in the ingredient’s list is worse for you than salt.

Nothing is going to be “without the salt” for the forseeable future. Hopefully, many single servings of products will less salted than they are now.

 

[Pug]

I couldn’t agree more. Without the salt, many of the processed foods would be bland, so people would be looking for even more less-healthy foods to fill that flavor gap. Maybe the government ought to outlaw processed foods altogether. That other junk in the ingredient’s list is worse for you than salt.

What people need are tasty, nutritious, convenient, cheap options, however that might be achieved. Some processed food does taste good and is decent, though, like the right frozen peas. (Yes, I am a pea snob ).

 

[MikiBee]

What people need are tasty, nutritious, convenient, cheap options, however that might be achieved. Some processed food does taste good and is decent, though, like the right frozen peas. (Yes, I am a pea snob ).

Haha… for me it’s frozen white corn. Since I moved to Texas, I can’t find fresh white corn in season. But then again, I don’t consider frozen veggies processed. In fact, I’m quite sure they’re healthier than their “fresh” counterparts.

And I correct myself… I meant "without all the ‘added’ salt, food would taste bland. People get used to their favorite foods tasting a certain way. These companies stand to lose a great deal of money if people don’t like the way their foods taste anymore, so that leads me to think they might just add more “fake” stuff in their foods to make up for the difference of the less salt. That’s what they did to fat free foods when people got on the no fat band wagon, or the artificial sweeteners that, depending on what expert you read, have the potential to be harmful.

I would prefer salt to artificial any day. I would hate to see what flavor additives they add to make up for the salt-- MSG?

 

[Darkbloom]

There is no contradiction. Enabling greater control over one’s salt intake IS in the interest of public safety. I used to spend twice as long in the grocery store when I had to shop for an elderly hypertensive relative and even then the low sodium (in a single serving) choices were so few, she needed someone at home who had the time to prepare most meals from scratch. In how many homes is this practical?

1. It is very clearly a contradiction, as I’ve explained. The public safety hazard in sodium is individuals eating too much salt. Any move to correct this problem is necessarily going to involve reducing the amount of salt people eat.

Instead of denying the obvious, it would be better to say something to the effect that “yes, the government is trying to regulate an individual’s salt intake, and it is justifiable for X.”

1. If the government introduces some upper limit to how much sodium a food may contain, there will be no net increase in choices. Those products that are above the limit will become lower in sodium.

 

[seekerz]

1. It is very clearly a contradiction, as I’ve explained. The public safety hazard in sodium is individuals eating too much salt. Any move to correct this problem is necessarily going to involve reducing the amount of salt people eat.

Instead of denying the obvious, it would be better to say something to the effect that “yes, the government is trying to regulate an individual’s salt intake, and it is justifiable for X.”

1. If the government introduces some upper limit to how much sodium a food may contain, there will be no net increase in choices. Those products that are above the limit will become lower in sodium.

1. One man’s contradiction is another man’s perfectly sensible thought I suppose…Don’t see how I can get any clearer short of putting a salt shaker in you hand.
2. There will be increased choice because with less salt in each particular meal component, you can increase variety on your plate AND you can bring out the salt shaker if your palate demands more salt YET for the person who wants less, he can still sit at the same table and share the same meal.

 

[Pug]

Haha… for me it’s frozen white corn. Since I moved to Texas, I can’t find fresh white corn in season. But then again, I don’t consider frozen veggies processed. In fact, I’m quite sure they’re healthier than their “fresh” counterparts.

And I correct myself… I meant "without all the ‘added’ salt, food would taste bland. People get used to their favorite foods tasting a certain way. These companies stand to lose a great deal of money if people don’t like the way their foods taste anymore, so that leads me to think they might just add more “fake” stuff in their foods to make up for the difference of the less salt. That’s what they did to fat free foods when people got on the no fat band wagon, or the artificial sweeteners that, depending on what expert you read, have the potential to be harmful.

I would prefer salt to artificial any day. I would hate to see what flavor additives they add to make up for the salt-- MSG?

I completely agree about “fresh” veggies not being as fresh as frozen.

I also agree about that they will try to make their product taste good, so if they can’t do it with salt, they will find something, no matter how deleterious to health, so long as it is legal. I’m sure it will involve things like “autolyzed yeast extract”, which has an MSG type effect on taste, apparently. Maybe that is already in every item of processed food already, though.

I wonder if this means the USA will outlaw Marmite and such? (Just a silly poke at odd food products from other countries. The Vegemite lovers are sooo easy to rile up, and they post overnight, so I can come back in the morning and see if any of them took the bait.)

 

[Darkbloom]

1. One man’s contradiction is another man’s perfectly sensible thought I suppose…Don’t see how I can get any clearer short of putting a salt shaker in you hand.

Logic isn’t subjective

1. There will be increased choice because with less salt in each particular meal component, you can increase variety on your plate AND you can bring out the salt shaker if your palate demands more salt YET for the person who wants less, he can still sit at the same table and share the same meal.

That still doesn’t equate to more choices being offered by food manufacturers, and even if it did, that doesn’t rise to the level of mandating government intervention.

 

[seekerz]

Logic isn’t subjective

That still doesn’t equate to more choices being offered by food manufacturers, and even if it did, that doesn’t rise to the level of mandating government intervention.

Regardless, the end result would be MORE choice for the individual consumer, (whether or not there is more variation in salt content in products on the shelf). Seems to me that is a very appropriate role for the government…

 

[Darkbloom]

Regardless, the end result would be MORE choice for the individual consumer, (whether or not there is more variation in salt content in products on the shelf). Seems to me that is a very appropriate role for the government…

Giving people more choices for what to have for dinner is a justifiable reason to use the coercive powers of the government to interfere with private economic transactions? If that is so, what wouldn’t the government have a license to do?

 

[seekerz]

Giving people more choices for what to have for dinner is a justifiable reason to use the coercive powers of the government to interfere with private economic transactions? If that is so, what wouldn’t the government have a license to do?

When the choices are between health and illness, impacting life and death, why not? Isn’t the primary role of the government to protect? Excessive salt or terrorism, if it stops your heart it’s a threat.

 

[pnewton]

Giving people more choices for what to have for dinner is a justifiable reason to use the coercive powers of the government to interfere with private economic transactions? If that is so, what wouldn’t the government have a license to do?

Currently, this answer is, “Nothing.” There are no limit to what the current regime is willing to dictate to the masses.

 

[tjm190]

When the choices are between health and illness, impacting life and death, why not? Isn’t the primary role of the government to protect? Excessive salt or terrorism, if it stops your heart it’s a threat.

You’ve said it yourself- self content≠salt intake. If something has 100% of my recommended daily salt intake, and I eat it everyday, and no other salt then I’ll be fine.
Even if the content of salt is regulated, that doesn’t do anything to improve public health- people will still consume all the salt they want. All this does is limit consumer choice.

 

[Moscati]

I’m not sure I buy the “there are no low-salt options” and “I don’t have time to eat healthy” arguments. I mean, my college roommate and I ate very little processed food for the last two years, spending about $50 a week. Veggies, fruit, lean meats . . . all from the ****** corner grocery store. The only packaged food we ate on a regular basis was Cheerios. Use other spices!

 

[portarica]

Yep, my suspicions have been confirmed.

Because a person suggests that some limits should be placed on salt, that makes them somebody you suspect is “something” you won’t identify.

But the implication is “something” is a negative because they don’t agree with you.

I guess that makes you a supporter of big government because all those that seem to favor the growing influence of corporations on government like government being more involved in our daily lives by restricting the choices available to us.

Peace

 

[Darkbloom]

Regardless, the end result would be MORE choice for the individual consumer, (whether or not there is more variation in salt content in products on the shelf). Seems to me that is a very appropriate role for the government…

Are you really saying the government should use the coercive power of its arms to force private manufactures to stop producing items which (based on their brisk sales) have a strong demand among the public, all in the hopes that there may be more choice in what someone may eat?

And while you’re at it, why not answer the question I asked in the last post in this thread?

And please, don’t skirt the issue or pound sand. Actually answer the question forthrightly.

See, I was right. Salt is a fantastic litmus test to show exactly what someone thinks the government should and shouldn’t do.

 

[Darkbloom]

When the choices are between health and illness, impacting life and death, why not? Isn’t the primary role of the government to protect? Excessive salt or terrorism, if it stops your heart it’s a threat.

Salt is freely chosen, terrorism is not.