Support NeoGAF

[SouthernDragon]

According to the study, for some people this may be the case. Yes.

Good thing salt isn't being banned, then.

 

[nyong]

Good thing salt isn't being banned, then.

Are you intentionally misreading the article? If salt was banned, we would be dead...so obviously this isn't the case. The study refers to a "reduction" in sodium intake. Meaning a decrease in the amount of salt ingested from whatever the former amount of salt ingested was, even if this former amount of salt happened to be higher than what many people in the medical community and on the neogaf.com message board would consider is ideal.

Not banned, only reduced.

 

[BobJustBob]

Fucking nanny state.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Are you intentionally misreading the article? If salt was banned, we would be dead...so obviously this isn't the case. The study refers to a "reduction" in sodium intake. Meaning a decrease in the amount of salt ingested from whatever the former amount of salt ingested was, even if this former amount of salt happened to be higher than what many people in the medical community and on the neogaf.com message board would consider is ideal.

Not banned, only reduced.

We've made our points of view known and are starting to repeat the same arguments, so there's not much more to discuss until they either actually implement this or reveal what kind of sodium thresholds they are talking about.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Are you intentionally misreading the article? If salt was banned, we would be dead...so obviously this isn't the case. The study refers to a "reduction" in sodium intake. Meaning a decrease in the amount of salt ingested from whatever the former amount of salt ingested was, even if this former amount of salt happened to be higher than what many people in the medical community and on the neogaf.com message board would consider is ideal.

Not banned, only reduced.

So, adding salt to a snack or a meal shouldn't be that difficult. It's much harder to reduce the intake than increase it.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Regulating sodium, tearing down people's homes to build businesses.....what is going on with our country?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Regulating sodium, tearing down people's homes to build businesses.....what is going on with our country?

USS

Spoiler

A

R

 

[numble]

Are you intentionally misreading the article? If salt was banned, we would be dead...so obviously this isn't the case. The study refers to a "reduction" in sodium intake. Meaning a decrease in the amount of salt ingested from whatever the former amount of salt ingested was, even if this former amount of salt happened to be higher than what many people in the medical community and on the neogaf.com message board would consider is ideal.

Not banned, only reduced.

Your article:

Dr. Michael Alderman, head of the American Society of Hypertension, America's biggest organization of specialists in high blood pressure, wrote in a review of the science in 2000:

Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/04/20/the-war-on-salt-goes-national/#ixzz0lmIEupV0

Alderman has been a consultant to the Salt Institute since 1996, the lobbying group for the salt industry, and has received honorariums to participate in their events. He has not headed or been significantly involved in the American Society of Hypertension since 1998, all of which Stossel neglects to point out.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Another thing to consider is that the food industry has a tendency to replace lost ingredients with other equally or more questionable ingredients; i.e. a lot of the dietary fat in sweet foods is replaced with more sugar which is basically a zero sum since more sugar is almost equally as bad as dietary fat.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Alderman has been a consultant to the Salt Institute since 1996, the lobbying group for the salt industry, and has received honorariums to participate in their events. He has not headed or been significantly involved in the American Society of Hypertension since 1998, all of which Stossel neglects to point out.

Fair & Balanced (tm)

 

[Mudkips]

I fixed this posting.

No, you just:
Cried about not having the choice to buy healthier foods
Then got told that you could buy whatever you want
Then cried that it wasn't a real choice because healthier foods are more expensive (when they're NOT)
Then said that the government regulating what people can sell as prepared food items is somehow not limiting choice

Derp much?

Bullshit. BMJ published a meta-analysis in November 2009 which refutes your claim. I'm done providing links and text in this board since only a small handful here actually know how to read a clinical paper. It's easy to find in PubMed if you want to take a stab at it and flounder like others have.

Tell me, does the study put forth a hypothesis for a biological mechanism that results in higher salt intake causing heart disease? If so, did they that hypothesis in any scientifically-sound manner? Oh, it's a "meta-study", meaning they read the data of other studies and drew some conclusions without doing ANY science of their own or having ANY oversight as to the data collection controls and methods?

Show me the science. I want to know what does what and why. As a scientist, I like to learn things. As a person who consumes salt, I would like to know if it is killing me and to what degree. As it stands, the science says it isn't. You may be a doctor, but you're not siding with the science.

Until someone scientifically proves salt causes heart disease, bullshit regulation is bullshit founded on bullshit.
And if it ever happens, the regulation would still be bullshit. Bullshit regulation founded on valid science, but still bullshit regulation, because it's not the fucking government's job. Slap a label on it and let people choose. If you don't like the personal choices people make, too fucking bad.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Fair & Balanced (tm)

Alderman has been a consultant to the Salt Institute since 1996, the lobbying group for the salt industry, and has received honorariums to participate in their events. He has not headed or been significantly involved in the American Society of Hypertension since 1998, all of which Stossel neglects to point out.

I love it.

Rule #1: Don't get your news from Fox.

Rule #2: If you do, don't use it to back your position; you'll embarrass yourself.

Show me the science...As a scientist...

:lol

 

[SouthernDragon]

Your article:


Alderman has been a consultant to the Salt Institute since 1996, the lobbying group for the salt industry, and has received honorariums to participate in their events. He has not headed or been significantly involved in the American Society of Hypertension since 1998, all of which Stossel neglects to point out.

Nice.

This seems to be more about the principle of the thing for conservatives here. Admirable, but I'm much more practical.

I dunno about the right to live and die in an unhealthy manner.

This should be noted:

The salt crystals on potato chips only dissolve about 20 percent of the way on the tongue, while the center of each tiny cube-shaped crystal remains intact until after it's swallowed. Thus, most of the salt you're eating on your chips is not contributing to the taste of the chip, but it is dissolving further down your digestive tract and causing whatever the FDA alleges that increased dietary sodium intake causes.

The redesigned salt crystal, with more surface area, should dissolve completely on the tongue, thus theoretically allowing each chip to taste just as salty with only 20 percent as much salt.​

Also, science and the market win! We set the rules, and the market figures out how to maximize it.

 

[soul creator]

my dumb question concerning the whole "personal responsbility" thing.

isn't "personal responsibility" maintained either way? The only difference would be that now you would have to practice personal responsibility to eat more unhealthy foods rather than needing to practice personal responsibility to eat more healthy foods. Which was kind of the point of my sarcastic previous reply about making your own junk food.

People still have choices, the only different is that the "default" should be healthier.

 

[McLovin]

They should limit sugar too. And no more of this 2.5 servings BS on juice and soda bottles. Nobody drinks 40% of a coke bottle.

 

[fireside]

Your article:


Alderman has been a consultant to the Salt Institute since 1996, the lobbying group for the salt industry, and has received honorariums to participate in their events. He has not headed or been significantly involved in the American Society of Hypertension since 1998, all of which Stossel neglects to point out.

Far more important in my opinion is that he works for a Salt lobbying group.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

They should limit sugar too. And no more of this 2.5 servings BS on juice and soda bottles. Nobody drinks 40% of a coke bottle.

that'll come too.

 

[numble]

I found out he was a consultant by seeing if he wrote anything since 2000 (he wrote essentially the same thing this year--"we don't know if reducing salt is good or not") but I saw the financial disclosure at the bottom.

The link probably won't work since I'm getting the article through my university library, but here is the quote:

Dr Alderman reported that he has been a member of the Diet and Cardiovascular Risk Advisory Committee of the Salt Institute since 1996. This has involved participation in an annual scientific consultants meeting for which he received honorarium but has not been compensated in any way since, either by the Salt Institute, its member companies, or any organization or agency connected with it, including the related food industry. Dr Alderman reported that he has not served as a speaker (paid or otherwise) for the Salt Institute or any associated institution, and that he has not received research funding from the Salt Institute or any connected organization.

A New York Times article from 2006 that also reports the connection:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/business/13salt.html?pagewanted=print

“There are a variety of effects that can happen with lowering sodium, some of them negative, so I don’t think we should be just considering the one effect of lowering blood pressure,’’ said Dr. Michael H. Alderman, professor of epidemiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. Dr. Alderman says he is a consultant to the Salt Institute but that he is not paid for his work.

Dr. Agwunobi did not return calls seeking comment.

Most other health experts, however, long ago accepted that excessive sodium consumption leads to various health problems. Along with the American Medical Association, groups like the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine and the government’s National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute say it has been known for at least two decades that salt-induced high blood pressure, or hypertension, is a significant contributor to heart disease and stroke, the No. 1 and No. 3 causes of death in the United States. (Cancer ranks second.)

In 2004, researchers at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute published a study in The American Journal of Public Health concluding that 150,000 lives could be saved annually if sodium levels in packaged and restaurant foods were cut in half.

Yes, they say that he is not directly paid for his work, but that is standard practice in these type of consultation deals. They don't pay for you to research it, they give you "honorariums" to "consult" them on the findings of your research.

You can go to the American Society of Hypertension website to see that he was the President in 1996-1998, when Fox makes it look like he is the head now.

http://www.ash-us.org/index.html

 

[CharlieDigital]

This thread continues to deliver.

numble FTW.

You should send that info to some blogs; MediaMatters, HuffPo, etc.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Either way, once those fat asses start having health problems and they can't afford to pay for the healthcare costs, it ends up being shifted to the taxpayers. Well, I guess not anymore since we now have HCR. :lol

 

[numble]

This thread continues to deliver.

numble FTW.

You should send that info to some blogs; MediaMatters, HuffPo, etc.

I really should be studying for finals--hopefully other people have found that. Most people are skeptical of John Stossel anyway, I hope.

But I didn't really go into this with bad intentions--I skimmed his 2000 article, and it basically said "We need to study this more." So I thought, maybe he changed his mind, people surely have been studying it in the past decade--nope, in 2010, he has another article that says "we need to study this more." Then I saw the financial disclosure at the bottom, and I wondered--WTF, how can this guy be head of the American Society of Hypertension?! And I checked and saw that he's not.

 

[Bboy AJ]

numble, shouldn't you be studying for finals instead? Suffer with me! :lol

edit: That's what I thought!

 

[Angry Grimace]

I found out he was a consultant by seeing if he wrote anything since 2000 (he wrote essentially the same thing this year--"we don't know if reducing salt is good or not") but I saw the financial disclosure at the bottom.

The link probably won't work since I'm getting the article through my university library, but here is the quote:



A New York Times article from 2006 that also reports the connection:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/business/13salt.html?pagewanted=print



Yes, they say that he is not directly paid for his work, but that is standard practice in these type of consultation deals. They don't pay for you to research it, they give you "honorariums" to "consult" them on the findings of your research.

You can go to the American Society of Hypertension website to see that he was the President in 1996-1998, when Fox makes it look like he is the head now.

http://www.ash-us.org/index.html

This seems like a lot of effort to prove an obvious point; he works a fucking SALT LOBBY. I think we can take what he says with a grain of ...... awwww shit.

 

[nyong]

This seems like a lot of effort to prove an obvious point; he works a fucking SALT LOBBY. I think we can take what he says with a grain of ...... awwww shit.

Disappointing as that revelation is, it's also unimportant: whether sodium is harmful to some, most, or even all people is a side-issue. I'm well aware that things like fried chicken, a burger and brew, a Snickers, or countless other junk foods are bad for me. Sometimes I like to indulge, and I want a continued option to indulge in whatever I want, whenever I want. Yes - generally speaking - sodium increases water retention and blood volume which in turn increases blood pressure...in some people. It has no impact in others, even if the negative impact article turns out to be garbage. In general, though, people should watch their sodium intake....and alcohol/saturated fat/sugar intake....and exercise regularly. The government shouldn't mandate that we do these things, however.

Secondly, if the issue is poor people, do what Obama does best and spread a bit more of the wealth around (somewhat sarcastic). If the poor have so little money that all they can afford are Swanson TV Dinners, mandating lower sodium is going to do nothing to help them as the cost goes up - because somehow taste will need to be compensated for elsewhere and, let's face it, salt is cheap - and their food suddenly becomes a whole lot shittier tasting. This solves none of the poor's problems.

 

[grumble]

Disappointing as that revelation is, it's also unimportant: whether sodium is harmful to some, most, or even all people is a side-issue. I'm well aware that things like fried chicken, a burger and brew, a Snickers, or countless other junk foods are bad for me. Sometimes I like to indulge, and I want a continued option to indulge in whatever I want, whenever I want. Yes - generally speaking - sodium increases water retention and blood volume which in turn increases blood pressure...in some people. It has no impact in others, even if the negative impact article turns out to be garbage. In general, though, people should watch their sodium intake....and alcohol/saturated fat/sugar intake....and exercise regularly. The government shouldn't mandate that we do these things, however.

Secondly, if the issue is poor people, do what Obama does best and spread a bit more of the wealth around (somewhat sarcastic). If the poor have so little money that all they can afford are Swanson TV Dinners, mandating lower sodium is going to do nothing to help them as the cost goes up - because somehow taste will need to be compensated for elsewhere and, let's face it, salt is cheap - and their food suddenly becomes a whole lot shittier tasting. This solves none of the poor's problems.

To your last point, they'll just use more artificial flavouring to disguise the taste, which is insanely cheap;.

 

[nyong]

To your last point, they'll just use more artificial flavouring to disguise the taste, which is insanely cheap;.

And chemicals as preservatives, etc.

 

[grumble]

And chemicals as preservatives, etc.

I have a real hatred for the processed food diets. It's cheaper to buy whole food, tastes better and is better for you. The only reasons people eat processed crap is because they're lazy (or too busy).

 

[CharlieDigital]

I have a real hatred for the processed food diets. It's cheaper to buy whole food, tastes better and is better for you. The only reasons people eat processed crap is because they're lazy (or too busy).

I think, actually, that there has been a huge loss of culinary skills over the last two generations.

Part of this is due to the availability of cheap, pre-processed foods starting from the end of WWII.

Part of this is due to changes in lifestyle where nowadays, you have many more families where both parents work. This makes it increasingly difficult to get meals on the table in time from scratch if two parents are working 9-5 so they rely on takeout, fast foods, and frozen meals.

What compounds this issue then, is that due to these changes, kids these days learn less culinary skills from their parents than in the past since the parents cook less and less. They spend less time in the kitchen with their mother or father preparing meals and helping out and those skills are not passed on. The skills and knowledge required to prepare meals from fresh ingredients is lost to a generation and it gets worse with each generation.

 

[Angry Grimace]

To your last point, they'll just use more artificial flavouring to disguise the taste, which is insanely cheap;.

There is no artificial substitute for salt beyond potassium chloride, which is essentially worse than salt.

 

[nyong]

I have a real hatred for the processed food diets. It's cheaper to buy whole food, tastes better and is better for you. The only reasons people eat processed crap is because they're lazy (or too busy).

Yep, the "price" argument for processed foods is basically false. It's a bit maddening to see threads defending the footstamp/lobster diet as totally plausible, while also seeing threads like this where fast food is suddenly the poor's only choice.

I think, actually, that there has been a huge loss of culinary skills over the last two generations.

This I agree with.

 

[teh_pwn]

This seems pretty absurd because a lot of times the body only retains too much salt because high insulin from too much refined carbohydrates limits the kidney's ability to excrete salt into the urine.

Maybe instead of the food pyramid of death, people should eat more fruits, vegetables, meat, nuts, and low GI carbohydrates. And maybe the government shouldn't subsidize so much corn.

 

[Eaten By A Grue]

I have a giant box of Saltines sitting on my fridge. Fuck this shit, the government is NOT going to take my Saltines away!!! FREEEEEEDDDOOOOOMM!!!!

 

[jman2050]

ITT people still believe the myth that salt consumption is intrinsically unhealthy.

There are tons of factors that go into why processed foods are bad, and singling out salt is going in completely the wrong direction.

 

[Desperado]

There is no artificial substitute for salt beyond potassium chloride, which is essentially worse than salt.

?

 

[teh_pwn]

This is just like the food pyramid in the 1970s and 1980s. The public has already been convinced without scientific evidence that fat (now salt) is inherently bad. Through a positive feedback loop of the media, common knowledge, and the government, the bullshit is recycled and strengthened.

How long will it take for people to see that in 1977 and earlier, obesity and diabetes were way way lower than it is now. Americans ate more fat and protein, less refined carbohydrate (HFCS didn't exist yet too). And we didn't do 90 minutes of cardio like the government now recommends per day. Why can't we start by saying "hey, we were healthier back then, let's eat like we did back then" instead of going on some religious crusade on urban myths while ignoring how everyone is getting so damn sick.

 

[way more]

Disappointing as that revelation is, it's also unimportant: whether sodium is harmful to some, most, or even all people is a side-issue. I'm well aware that things like fried chicken, a burger and brew, a Snickers, or countless other junk foods are bad for me. Sometimes I like to indulge, and I want a continued option to indulge in whatever I want, whenever I want. Yes - generally speaking - sodium increases water retention and blood volume which in turn increases blood pressure...in some people. It has no impact in others, even if the negative impact article turns out to be garbage. In general, though, people should watch their sodium intake....and alcohol/saturated fat/sugar intake....and exercise regularly. The government shouldn't mandate that we do these things, however.

You can still do this things. Christ, is reducing the salt in Chips Ahoy really tantamount to removal of rights in your view?

 

[Angry Grimace]

?

What's not to get? The only "salt substitute" on the market is made of potassium chloride, which is equally as bad for you as sodium, if not worse. Plus, it tastes rather metallic.

 

[Desperado]

What's not to get? The only "salt substitute" on the market is made of potassium chloride, which is equally as bad for you as sodium, if not worse. Plus, it tastes rather metallic.

How is it worse?

 

[teh_pwn]

and when it tries for twenty odd years and fails what then?

Ban protein. I heart from some guy that it causes kidney damage. All Americans should limit protein intake. It's an epidemic!

 

[daw840]

You can still do this things. Christ, is reducing the salt in Chips Ahoy really tantamount to removal of rights in your view?

It's a very small right. An almost insignificant right you are correct. But this is how things get taken away. Very slowly, almost imperceptibly slow. So slow that the public doesn't get into an outrage about it.

 

[Angry Grimace]

How is it worse?

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm181577.htm

Q. Are salt substitutes safe?

A. Many salt substitutes contain potassium chloride, which could be harmful to people with certain medical conditions, such as diabetes, kidney disease, and heart disease. Check with your doctor before using salt substitutes.

 

[nyong]

You can still do this things. Christ, is reducing the salt in Chips Ahoy really tantamount to removal of rights in your view?

No, actually I cannot. The government is saying that certain junk foods are forbidden because they are too unhealthy. If Chips Ahoy no longer tastes like Chips Ahoy, which is quite plausible given changes to the Chips Ahoy recipe, for all intents and purposes I am no longer allowed to eat Chips Ahoy.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

I'm conflicted by this. On one hand this is good because salt (as well as sugar consumption) is really killing america slowly. On the other hand it should be up to the individual as to whether they want to kill themselves. After my mother was diagnosed with renal failure, I limited my salt intake heavily and use it rarely in food.

 

[BeEatNU]

Let me know when they start restricting cigs.

 

[teh_pwn]

I'm conflicted by this. On one hand this is good because salt (as well as sugar consumption) is really killing america slowly. On the other hand it should be up to the individual as to whether they want to kill themselves. After my mother was diagnosed with renal failure, I limited my salt intake heavily and use it rarely in food.

No need to be conflicted. Sugar can be the cause of both. Normally the body lets go of too much salt in the urine.

Lots of sugar->Lots of insulin->Renal retention of sodium->hypertension

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC301822/?page=1

Conclusion. Fructose-fed rats appear to have lost the feedback mechanism that limits insulin-induced sodium retention through a down-regulation of the renal insulin receptor when the dietary NaCI content is increased. This abnormality might possibly contribute to the elevation of blood pressure in these rats.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15288805

There's a lot more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...retention+insulin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=


But it's too late. Everyone has been told by CNN and other media that salt is bad, and that it is the cause of hypertension, so salt is evil and the FDA that doesn't believe in the scientific method is going to go on a religious crusade on salt, just like the USDA did with dietary fat in the 1970s/80s (look how well that turned out).

 

[teh_pwn]

Also, this guy talks about research on how fructose causes hypertension. Something about uric acid as a byproduct of metabolizing fructose in the liver if I recall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Salt isn't the problem in an general population sense. However, it's safe to say that too much sugar probably isn't helping anyone, and for most people it really hurts them.

But the FDA is going after salt.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Also, this guy talks about research on how fructose causes hypertension. Something about uric acid as a byproduct of metabolizing fructose in the liver if I recall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Salt isn't the problem in an general population sense. However, it's safe to say that too much sugar probably isn't helping anyone, and for most people it really hurts them.

But the FDA is going after salt.

What the hell are you talking about? It's not just lysine. It's citric. It's gluconate. There was a guy who left the company because he wouldn't do it. He was forced out. The gluconate guy, he's out of a job.

 

[SouthernDragon]

No, actually I cannot. The government is saying that certain junk foods are forbidden because they are too unhealthy. If Chips Ahoy no longer tastes like Chips Ahoy, which is quite plausible given changes to the Chips Ahoy recipe, for all intents and purposes I am no longer allowed to eat Chips Ahoy.

I am not sure if you are being serious.

At any rate, you can still indulge in extra salt, you just have to purchase it yourself, and cook food with added salt.

This conversation, to be honest, feels a little ridiculous.

It's as if the government were to demand that every car has airbags, and some people are arguing that this removes their freedom to enjoy an element of danger when they drive.

I understand the principle here, but you fellows are a little paranoid. I'd be much more concerned about continued use of the Patriot Act and wireless tapping, as those constitute much more direct and stronger assaults on our freedoms.

 

[Ulairi]

I am not sure if you are being serious.

At any rate, you can still indulge in extra salt, you just have to purchase it yourself, and cook food with added salt.

This conversation, to be honest, feels a little ridiculous.

It's as if the government were to demand that every car has airbags, and some people are arguing that this removes their freedom to enjoy an element of danger when they drive.

I understand the principle here, but you fellows are a little paranoid. I'd be much more concerned about continued use of the Patriot Act and wireless tapping, as those constitute much more direct and stronger assaults on our freedoms.

Stripping freedom is stripping freedom. I'm surprised how easily the youth here are willing to let big brother control what they eat. How many of you are for drug legalization?

 

[grumble]

Stripping freedom is stripping freedom. I'm surprised how easily the youth here are willing to let big brother control what they eat. How many of you are for drug legalization?

I don't know where you are living, but there is no country on Earth (with a functioning government) that is 'do whatever you want' land. There are always some form of 'greater good' restrictions on activities.

This isn't a stripping of freedom though, really; it's an alteration of the products that will be sold under FDA regulations. You can still get these things, it's just harder. Kind of like hand grenades.

I want the freedom to buy hand grenades!

Unlimited freedom ends up being anarchy. There is a 'sweet spot', and it varies from person to person. That sweet spot however needs to be decided on collectively and enforced. The word 'freedom' has been used so often to justify destructive behaviour that it's turning into a dirty word (which it isn't).