Support NeoGAF

[Anticitizen One]

They took our SALT!



No. People fail at this horrendously.

I guess that would be fine, if they weren't being supported by a healthcare system that is funded by tax payers. But as they are, and as making people eat healthier put less strain on that system, I'm all for government restrictions.

yup this. Plus im disgusted at having to stare at fat women all day

 

[Angry Grimace]

Not this again...

First off, there's been some credible postings by doctors in this thread, and numerous pubmed articles to read. Please tell me the PubMed articles that you take issue with. It's like the anti climate change folks all over again.

Secondly, you've probably taken administrative law or have some familiarity with the FDCA and should surely know that the regs have to have some basis in factual findings and cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

Can you even tell me what those articles said? No, because you didn't read them either. It's pretty telling you're not even mentioning the content of those articles and/or how they refute anything I said. Bringing up a baseless comparison to "anti-climate folks" isn't helping you look like anything but someone who has nothing relevant to contribute because that has literally nothing at all to do with anything at all.

The definition of "arbitrary and capricious" is open to interpretation and they haven't even made the regulation yet.

 

[FleckSplat]

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Maximus.]

finally

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I'd like to take this opportuity to let you all know that:

HERBS FUCKIN ROCK!

Thyme in particular. A new discovery of mine. I've been using it all week on my grilled chicken breasts and it's completely replaced seasoned salt.

ftw.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

There's no point in taking EmCeeGamer seriously, I think he's just trolling. He has no real basis to support his argument and isn't bringing one up, so I'm assuming he's just trying to AstroLad us now.

Hey remember when I posted the statistics that 1 in 8 Americans relied on food banks for their meals, and that of those ~37 million one-third have to choose between eating and paying bills, and therefore proving that many Americans have little choice in what they eat and therefore most likely eat the cheapest food available (which is full of preservatives and salt)?

Of course not, because you ignored that post like every other statistic posted in this thread, instead opting to listen to great arguments like "Mudkips has a nice grocery store" and "sacks of raw potatoes are pretty cheap!"

 

[captmcblack]

No, I expect them to exercise some restraint and eat foods of any kind in moderation, which really isn't an overwhelming demand.

You can't consume moderate amounts of salt, HFCS, preservatives and other things like that - there's huge amounts in virtually anything you can eat, including "healthy" foods and even in small portions of food.

 

[numble]

Can you even tell me what those articles said? No, because you didn't read them either. It's pretty telling you're not even mentioning the content of those articles and/or how they refute anything I said. Bringing up a baseless comparison to "anti-climate folks" isn't helping you look like anything but someone who has nothing relevant to contribute.

The definition of "arbitrary and capricious" is open to interpretation and they haven't even made the regulation yet.

I was actually a biology major in undergrad and have read tons of PubMed articles, especially regarding nephrons and sodium, which I had to do when I took physiology. I also have members of my family suffering from high blood pressure, which also increased my interest in these issues.

 

[daw840]

I'd like to take this opportuity to let you all know that:

HERBS FUCKIN ROCK!

Thyme in particular. A new discovery of mine. I've been using it all week on my grilled chicken breasts and it's completely replaced seasoned salt.

ftw.

Damn, my wife hates Thyme. She can taste the smallest amount that I put in anything. I like it a lot though, but I can never eat it.

 

[White Man]

While public health certainly is a legitimate area for regulation, I would rather see Congress stop subsidizing corn syrup. That alone would lead to less fatties.

One of the major arguments about put against corn-based diesel is that it would require an insane amount of corn. Meanwhile, Americans drink 150+ gallons of soda per year.

Heck, if we focused on research that could make biodiesel feasible, we'd not only be using corn for one of the best possible reasons, but we'd have to produce more sugar to make up for the use of corn elsewhere.

 

[AndyD]

I just entered the thread in this last page and this is my summary of the Grimace vs. Dreams:

Grimace - some food is bad and addictive, we should smarten up and take control of our food and eat in moderation.

Dreams - some food is bad and addictive, companies should not exploit the addictiveness to their benefit and our detriment.

If this is accurate, I agree with both. One deals with the responsibility of the consumer, one with the responsibility of the companies making/selling food. I don't think either should be let off the hook due to the problems of the other and both sides should be accountable for the stuff they control.

 

[nyong]

You can't consume moderate amounts of salt, HFCS, preservatives and other things like that

Yes, you can. For instance, everything I've eaten so far today.

My daily intake of sodium will remain well within what's recommended. And guess what: I eat processed foods too!

 

[daw840]

Hey remember when I posted the statistics that 1 in 8 Americans relied on food banks for their meals, and that of those ~37 million one-third have to choose between eating and paying bills, and therefore proving that many Americans have little choice in what they eat and therefore most likely eat the cheapest food available (which is full of preservatives and salt)?

Of course not, because you ignored that post like every other statistic posted in this thread, instead opting to listen to great arguments like "Mudkips has a nice grocery store" and "sacks of raw potatoes are pretty cheap!"

The problem with you is that you want to shift blame from people to the government on nearly all accounts. You spout that people don't have a choice, that they can't do anything about it, oh the poor poor people what can they do? Nothing! There has been no credible statement in this entire thread as to why poor people absolutely have to eat fast food and fast food only. There are ways around it, it may not be as easy, but it can be done.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Hey remember when I posted the statistics that 1 in 8 Americans relied on food banks for their meals, and that of those ~37 million one-third have to choose between eating and paying bills, and therefore proving that many Americans have little choice in what they eat and therefore most likely eat the cheapest food available (which is full of preservatives and salt)?

Of course not, because you ignored that post like every other statistic posted in this thread, instead opting to listen to great arguments like "Mudkips has a nice grocery store" and "sacks of raw potatoes are pretty cheap!"

Oh, because I was supposed to go back and read every fucking post as though I didn't start discussing this on the 5th or 6th page. Right.

I specifically asked you to post some data to back up what you were saying; why am I not surprised you spent three pages posting ad hominem attacks and terrible comparisons to single mothers eating taco bell and then randomly just now argued I should have read some random post from god knows which random page of this 9 page discussion

Does that really make sense to you?

Furthermore, your statistics don't even make sense, there aren't 900 million people in America.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

 

[daw840]

One of the major arguments about put against corn-based diesel is that it would require an insane amount of corn. Meanwhile, Americans drink 150+ gallons of soda per year.

Heck, if we focused on research that could make biodiesel feasible, we'd not only be using corn for one of the best possible reasons, but we'd have to produce more sugar to make up for the use of corn elsewhere.

Its a fairly good argument though. Corn is so highly subsidized that farmers want to grow it instead of other crops and it is very water hungry to grow. I believe I read an article back in school about how its destroying the water table in CO because so many farmers are growing it. You can't really blame them though, it's one of the most profitable crops to grow. j

 

[AndyD]

Damn, my wife hates Thyme. She can taste the smallest amount that I put in anything. I like it a lot though, but I can never eat it.

My wife is the same with rosemary. And I love rosemary pork chops. So I make them anyway and make her spicy mustard pork chops instead.

 

[TestOfTide]

The problem with you is that you want to shift blame from people to the government on nearly all accounts. You spout that people don't have a choice, that they can't do anything about it, oh the poor poor people what can they do? Nothing! There has been no credible statement in this entire thread as to why poor people absolutely have to eat fast food and fast food only. There are ways around it, it may not be as easy, but it can be done.

he's not blaming the government. he's blaming the food industry. government, specifically regulation by the fda, is the solution, not the problem.

 

[numble]

Can you even tell me what those articles said? No, because you didn't read them either. It's pretty telling you're not even mentioning the content of those articles and/or how they refute anything I said. Bringing up a baseless comparison to "anti-climate folks" isn't helping you look like anything but someone who has nothing relevant to contribute because that has literally nothing at all to do with anything at all.

If you want to read some good ones, just type in "Appel LJ" into Pubmed, he publishes constantly on the subject (most recent one being March 2010), and since these are all peer-reviewed, you can easily cross-check for citations of peer criticisms. These are in good journals too--BMJ and New England Journal of Medicine, to cite just some places he's published research and findings in.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

The problem with you is that you want to shift blame from people to the government on nearly all accounts. You spout that people don't have a choice, that they can't do anything about it, oh the poor poor people what can they do? Nothing! There has been no credible statement in this entire thread as to why poor people absolutely have to eat fast food and fast food only. There are ways around it, it may not be as easy, but it can be done.

Hey, so I have an idea. Why not make it easier for those who can, and make it possible for those who cannot (and there are those who cannot)?

You know, instead of doing nothing except blaming poor people for being lazy.

 

[fireside]

Yes, you can. For instance, everything I've eaten so far today.

My daily intake of sodium will remain well within what's recommended. And guess what: I eat processed foods too!

Good for you! But what's wrong with making it so that the processed foods you do eat contain less sodium? And don't say "personal responsibility".

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Oh, because I was supposed to go back and read every fucking post as though I didn't start discussing this on the 5th or 6th page. Right.

I specifically asked you to post some data to back up what you were saying; why am I not surprised you spent three pages posting ad hominem attacks and terrible comparisons to single mothers eating taco bell and then randomly just now argued I should have read some random post from god knows which random page of this 9 page discussion

Does that really make sense to you?

Furthermore, your statistics don't even make sense, there aren't 900 million people in America.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

37 million x 8 = 296 million. Where the hell did you get 900 million from? :lol

Also the post was a direct response to you:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20891164&postcount=392

You had already made a dozen posts in the thread, it was just last page.



Are you actually using "I don't read posts" as an argument now? :lol

 

[Angry Grimace]

37 million x 8 = 296 million. Where the hell did you get 900 million from? :lol

Also the post was a direct response to you:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20891164&postcount=392

You had already made a dozen posts in the thread, it was just last page.



Are you actually using "I don't read posts" as an argument now? :lol

Your syntax makes it difficult to read; it read as you were saying that 37 million was 1/3 of the 1/8 of Americans that rely on Food Stamps.

Even if we take that statistic at face value, it doesn't lend any support to the idea that lowering sodium in all processed foods would have some kind of positive impact, primarily because it contains little to no information about the sodium intake of those people, which in case you forgot, is the topic of the discussion.

It's a much bigger problem that those Americans have to choose between paying bills and eating. Maybe we should work on that before we work on first.

 

[nyong]

Good for you! But what's wrong with making it so that the processed foods you do eat contain less sodium? And don't say "personal responsibility".

Because I would like the option of eating junk food? Salt makes food taste better; naturally, I would like the option of eating something on occasion that I know is bad for me. Have you never reached for a Snickers bar without guilt?

I'm more than capable of feeding myself, thank you.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Even if your statistic that somehow totalled 888 million americans made any sense

:lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[phinious]

this - this is outrageous - anyone who's OK with the government restricting what you eat is a fucking fool and can't be reasoned with, i'm sorry

You realize that the FDA already does regulate what you eat...

 

[Angry Grimace]

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Again, your syntax made it difficult to read, and that wasn't the point of that argument anyways. How about you make an actual, sensical response instead of a bunch of laughey faces, which means nothing.

It's pretty apparent you literally have no idea what you are talking about and don't even have a real argument to make.

 

[nyong]

It's a much bigger problem that those Americans have to choose between paying bills and eating. Maybe we should work on that before we work on first.

Never mind that reducing sodium may result in an increase to fast food prices as the recipes will inevitably change and sales are lost. Assuming that fast food is the cheapest/easiest way to feed a family (false, but whatever...), we've just made eating MORE expensive for the poor, not cheaper. Not to mention worse tasting.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Your syntax makes it difficult to read; it read as you were saying that 37 million was 1/3 of the 1/8 of Americans that rely on Food Stamps.

Well okay, if that's your excuse.


Oh, and one other thing, food banks are different from food stamps. Food banks are for people who don't qualify for food stamps or for whom food stamps aren't adequate.

Again, your syntax made it difficult to read, and that wasn't the point of that argument anyways. How about you make an actual, sensical response instead of a bunch of laughey faces, which means nothing.

It's pretty apparent you literally have no idea what you are talking about and don't even have a real argument to make.

Every time I make an argument, you either ignore it, lie, or forget the rest of the thread. :lol

 

[soul creator]

Because I would like the option of eating junk food? Salt makes food taste better; naturally, I would like the option of eating something on occasion that I know is bad for me. Have you never reached for a Snickers bar without guilt?

I'm more than capable of feeding myself, thank you.

make your own junk food, like a real personal responsibility having man

 

[Angry Grimace]

Well okay, if that's your excuse.


Oh, and one other thing, food banks are different from food stamps. Food banks are for people who don't qualify for food stamps or for whom food stamps aren't adequate.




Every time I make an argument, you either ignore it, lie, or forget the rest of the thread. :lol

How ironic; you claim I ignore your "facts" and I just responded to the data you presented. Your response was some laughey faces based on something inconsequential.

I think we've said enough to figure out what's going on here. Hitting the laughey face button doesn't substitute for making sense or having an actual take.

 

[nyong]

make your own junk food, like a real personal responsibility having man

When I eat junk food, it's almost always when I'm out: usually a burger, fries, and a beer.. I've never understood those people who go out to eat and order steamed vegetables and plain chicken.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I <3 this thread.

just so that it's clear, I have no issue with anyone. just with the arguments presented by the crowd that demands less control over the amount of salt in their foods.

 

[CharlieDigital]

When I eat junk food, it's almost always when I'm out: usually a burger, fries, and a beer.. I've never understood those people who go out to eat and order steamed vegetables and plain chicken.

That would be me and my wife and usually only if we're just too tired to cook or away from home.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

How ironic; you claimed I ignored you and I responded to you; this post is one of your responses (which contains nothing of relevance or substance.) Your other response was some laughey faces.

I think we've said enough to figure out what's going on here.

Agreed.


You made a bunch of slippery slope arguments about government regulation then accused others of doing the same, then you ignored a bunch of statistics and admitted it was because you thought reading threads was too hard, then you said that you didn't have to read articles because OBVIOUSLY they didn't read them (for some reason), then you made a huge math error and blamed someone else instead of taking personal responsibility, then you acted like my laughing at your math error somehow makes it so that my other posts never happened, all the while attempting to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as a troll.

 

[numble]

I <3 this thread.

just so that it's clear, I have no issue with anyone. just with the arguments presented by the crowd that demands less control over the amount of salt in their foods.

You're a humorless mouthbreather that doesn't even read the articles you talk about, you have nothing to contribute. I also can't believe anybody who doesn't understand that Artest is not for offense.

 

[TestOfTide]

Never mind that reducing sodium may result in an increase to fast food prices as the recipes will inevitably change and sales are lost. Assuming that fast food is the cheapest/easiest way to feed a family (false, but whatever...), we've just made eating MORE expensive for the poor, not cheaper. Not to mention worse tasting.

price is a result of supply and demand. people like the tastier, more unhealthy foods, so they eat those more. Thus those foods are cheaper. if we reduce the amount of materials they have to put in food, how is it going to make food MORE expensive. If they are reducing sodium across the board (minus foods like pickles which people don't eat that often anyway), then which foods are people going to switch over too from the now-slightly-less-sodium-filled foods?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

You're a humorless mouthbreather that doesn't even read the articles you talk about, you have nothing to contribute. I also can't believe anybody who doesn't understand that Artest is not for offense.

<3

 

[Angry Grimace]

Agreed.


You made a bunch of slippery slope arguments about government regulation then accused others of doing the same, then you ignored a bunch of statistics and admitted it was because you thought reading threads was too hard, then you made a huge math error and blamed someone else instead of taking personal responsibility, then you acted like my laughing at your math error somehow makes it so that my other posts never happened, all the while attempting to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as a troll.

It's insanely hypocritical; try responding to:

Even if we take that statistic at face value, it doesn't lend any support to the idea that lowering sodium in all processed foods would have some kind of positive impact, primarily because it contains little to no information about the sodium intake of those people, which in case you forgot, is the topic of the discussion.

It's a much bigger problem that those Americans have to choose between paying bills and eating. Maybe we should work on that before we work on first.

rather than some nonsense about "slippery slope" arguments, which wasn't the primary point I was making.

Don't claim some high ground where I'm ignoring your facts when I responded to it right there and so far your only response is laughey faces.

 

[quadrax1s]

This is sad... I think posting the mount of sodium on packages is enough. People should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they want to put in their bodies and how much of it. I guess it's a consequence of having healthcare funded or partially funded by taxpayers, you get people telling you what to do and how you should live your life.

 

[nyong]

Thus those foods are cheaper. if we reduce the amount of materials they have to put in food, how is it going to make food MORE expensive.

They will have to find other ways to compensate for the loss of taste from reduced salt. This typically makes a product more expensive.

 

[fireside]

Because I would like the option of eating junk food? Salt makes food taste better; naturally, I would like the option of eating something on occasion that I know is bad for me. Have you never reached for a Snickers bar without guilt?

I'm more than capable of feeding myself, thank you.

There is nothing preventing you from eating junk food, but whatever. Honestly, it's kind of pathetic that your argument is "Well, when this takes place, the junk I want to eat won't be junk food-y enough!" Maybe you could like, eat two candy bars instead of one or something.

 

[grumble]

Um, what? No, you can't go out and shoot someone in the face...is there some reason you keep making arguments by making incredibly exaggerated, faulty comparisons which have no bearing on anything? :lol Even more bizarre is that you're saying "Now we'll have to control ourselves, even though it's a bitch," except that's the opposite of what you're advocating.

The problem here is the assumption that people would give a shit if they "knew better," when in reality, most people probably DO know better, but they don't care. Why are we imposing what we care about on everyone else?

Yes you can go out and shoot someone in the face. There will be consequences, but you can do it. It is both your and society's job to prevent you from hurting yourself and others. There are measures put into place which discourage this behaviour, and I advocate similar (though way less extreme) measures for regulating food content. By discouraging people from damaging themselves via their eating habits, you prevent a large amount of damage both regarding those individuals and for the society at large. You may not get the connection, but they are in the same category from a social engineering viewpoint. As such, it has a lot of bearing on the issue.

As for 'controlling ourselves', the government is us. We are a society that makes decentralized decisions as individuals and centralized, collective decisions via the government. People abdicate personal responsibility in favour of centralized decision-making, and that's fine so long as it works in people's best interest. I believe that encouraging healthy diets over unhealthy ones is in people's best interest.

I have less of an issue when someone does something that affects no one else in any way, but that's theoretical since everything people do affects others. Parents with bad diets train their kids. The obese cripple healthcare and skyrocket costs for everyone. Lack of physical fitness leads to lack of productivity and the ability to contribute your skills to the society at large over a long lifespan. Dying young can leave your family in the lurch. Excessive resource use could be better allocated elsewhere. When people get fat, it affects other people.

 

[Starchasing]

This is sad... I think posting the mount of sodium on packages is enough. People should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they want to put in their bodies and how much of it. I guess it's a consequence of having healthcare funded or partially funded by taxpayers, you get people telling you what to do and how you should live your life.

Actually banning salt would give you options. You buy the food and put YOURSELF all the salt you want.

Nowadays your only choice is to have salty food

They will have to find other ways to compensate for the loss of taste from reduced salt. This typically makes a product more expensive.

having salt dispensers available??? salt aint that expensive you know

 

[nyong]

Nowadays your only choice is to have salty food

Absolutely false. I'm starting to see the general problem, though: ignorance. Educate yourselves on how to eat, then re-visit this thread.

 

[SapientWolf]

exactly.

well no...apparently, you can just eat sacks of potatoes. all the rage, bro.

My point was that it is feasible for people to avoid eating a lot of processed food, even on a tight budget. I don't know how that got construed to mean that you have to eat potatoes, and only potatoes. Potatoes were just an example. There's a wide variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and legumes at the supermarket.

 

[Mad Max]

Because I would like the option of eating junk food? Salt makes food taste better; naturally, I would like the option of eating something on occasion that I know is bad for me. Have you never reached for a Snickers bar without guilt?

I'm more than capable of feeding myself, thank you.

The point is that (fast)food companies in america are putting more and more salt into their products, which only desentisizes your tastebuds and makes normal food taste blander. For example if mac donald's gradually increased the salt content of their big mac by 25% during the last 10 years you probably wouldn't notice a difference, but it's less healty than it was 10 years ago, and if you eat there often healty food will taste a lot worse than it did before since you've become accustomed to salty food.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Yes you can go out and shoot someone in the face. There will be consequences, but you can do it. It is both your and society's job to prevent you from hurting yourself and others. There are measures put into place which discourage this behaviour, and I advocate similar (though way less extreme) measures for regulating food content. By discouraging people from damaging themselves via their eating habits, you prevent a large amount of damage both regarding those individuals and for the society at large. You may not get the connection, but they are in the same category from a social engineering viewpoint. As such, it has a lot of bearing on the issue.

As for 'controlling ourselves', the government is us. We are a society that makes decentralized decisions as individuals and centralized, collective decisions via the government. People abdicate personal responsibility in favour of centralized decision-making, and that's fine so long as it works in people's best interest. I believe that encouraging healthy diets over unhealthy ones is in people's best interest.

I have less of an issue when someone does something that affects no one else in any way, but that's theoretical since everything people do affects others. Parents with bad diets train their kids. The obese cripple healthcare and skyrocket costs for everyone. Lack of physical fitness leads to lack of productivity and the ability to contribute your skills to the society at large over a long lifespan. Dying young can leave your family in the lurch. Excessive resource use could be better allocated elsewhere. When people get fat, it affects other people.

But obesity and sodium don't have a direct correlation beyond the fact that people that eat a billion calories probably have a billion milligrams of sodium. Mandating lower calories in all those foods would be far more efficacious in improving overall health, but I don't see anyone arguing for that.

I also think your perception of how government works is oversimplified and distorted; personal responsibility is still a real concept in the United States and decisions are not made like that at all.

 

[Starchasing]

Absolutely false. I'm starting to see the general problem, though: ignorance. Educate yourselves on how to eat, then re-visit this thread.

Do you know where i am from? thats ignorance too


BTW didnt you like the salt dispenser idea?? i think its great

 

[Angry Grimace]

My point was that it is feasible for people to avoid eating a lot of processed food, even on a tight budget. I don't know how that got construed to mean that you have to eat potatoes, and only potatoes. Potatoes were just an example. There's a wide variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and legumes at the supermarket.

Not only that, but for some reason, I got saddled with the title of Lord of Potatoes despite the fact I didn't bring it up and it was just an example of a food you could buy cheaply at the store.

 

[nyong]

BTW didnt you like the salt dispenser idea?? i think its great

Salt dispensers work fine for things like french fries or potato chips where the salt is added after the product is cooked. For many other foods, though, salt is added at different stages in the cooking process and a salt shaker would do absolutely nothing to help the taste.