Support NeoGAF

[EmCeeGramr]

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?

Big Brother didn't care what the Proles did.

People always forget that about 1984. The Party gave 85% of the population (the Proles) cheap food and beer, televisions, an unregulated free market, lotto tickets, and porn. Very little monitoring, minimal regulations by the Ministries (far less than the actual Party members), and no requirement to mindlessly follow Ingsoc. They gave them cheap luxuries and no regulations, and watched as they cared about nothing else except their own private business. That was the secret of why nobody overthrew the Party and Big Brother: the Proles cared only about their own property and lives and had no reason to revolt as long as the government didn't touch their leisures.

 

[grumble]

Big Brother didn't care what the Proles did.

People always forget that about 1984. The Party gave 85% of the population (the Proles) cheap food and beer, televisions, an unregulated free market, lotto tickets, and porn. Very little monitoring, minimal regulations by the Ministries (far less than the actual Party members), and no requirement to mindlessly follow Ingsoc. They gave them cheap food and no regulations, and watched as they cared about nothing else except their own private business. That was the secret of why nobody overthrew the Party and Big Brother: the Proles cared only about their own property and lives and had no reason to revolt as long as the government didn't touch their leisures.

That sounds scarily like the US Government. I've got to go read that book again.

 

[teh_pwn]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM#t=57m10s

Within a few minutes, he explains how fructose consumption (from dietary sugar) increases uric acid accumulation. Increased uric acid causes hypertension.

Salt isn't the issue here, and often it is only an issue when pre-existing conditions are already in place. So it really doesn't make sense for the government to subsidize corn to put something in our food that isn't essential and causes hypertension and other problems, while at the same time without scientific evidence blame salt, an essential nutrient, for hypertension.

 

[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?

 

[Stahsky]

Keep salt, destroy corn syrup!

LETS PROTEST

 

[hockeypuck]

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.

Your last paragraph makes it pretty certain that no amount of science is going to change your bias, so me bringing up studies is pointless. Furthermore, you claim to be a scientist; of which type I'm not sure. But you are definitely not an epidemiologist or someone who has any meaningful background in clinical research as you deride the concept of metanalyses altogether, much less one specific metanalysis looking at salt consumption. Your criticisms on metanalyses are typical from those who are not trained in this specific type of science.

Without going into details it's generally accepted that well-put metanalyses are the gold standard in clinical research and are the reasons why things get placed into public health policy. The fact that large, expensive randomized controlled trials make up the bulk of these metanalyses already places your argument on shaky ground.

No one is going to "scientifically prove" that salt causes hypertension. To do so may be unethical and would definitely be difficult to pass through an institutional review board. Since you're an iron-clad scientist, the lack of any trial "scientifically proving" that tobacco causes lung disease should also raise your hackles of any claim linking the two, right? Are you just taking it as fact just because it's what you were taught, or are you taking for granted the decades of research that went into that, much like what is going on now with dietary nutrients and obesity/diabetes/heart disease?

Anyone who claims that salt has no harmful role in heart disease doesn't know the first thing in heart failure.

If I'm not siding with the science then the American Heart Association must not be either.
The National Institutes of Health and the NAS' Institute of Medicine must not as well.
The American College of Cardiology must be a bunch of inept fogies.

Since you apparently know more than these professionals, please enlighten us.

Edit: fixed IOM's affiliation.

 

[K.Jack]

There's way too much money involved in corn syrup. That's off limits for a long time, unless Obama says fuck it, I'm going deep.

 

[Terrell]

People are still debating this?

Let the government try to help people be healthier. For the stubborn shits who are acting like this action will bring the apocalypse:

PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I've skimmed through the thread - which is delightful. My take is that this seems to fall under what I'd call basic governance and what the FDA is supposed to be doing in the first place (i.e., regulate the food that's produced so that it reasonably mitigates harm to public health). They're being methodical and gradual about it.

Just like all smart socialists are.

 

[ATF487]

People are still debating this?

Let the government try to help people be healthier. For the stubborn shits who are acting like this action will bring the apocalypse:

(salt shaker)

PROBLEM SOLVED.

BUT THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO OBESITY

 

[Holepunch]

I know a lot of people in here are making fun of the slippery slope argument, about how insignificant this measure is. But wasn't this what the slippery slope argument lead to? When they start messing with what you can and cannot eat? It's not if the slippery slope is real, this is the slippery slope in mid-effect.

 

[Zophar]

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?

You're right, let's just disband the FDA and be done with it. I can't wait to have our libertarian wet dream paradise.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I know a lot of people in here are making fun of the slippery slope argument, about how insignificant this measure is. But wasn't this what the slippery slope argument lead to? When they start messing with what you can and cannot eat? It's not if the slippery slope is real, this is the slippery slope in mid-effect.

The FDA has been regulating foods and drugs for over a century.

 

[fse]

I don't agree with the govt. telling us how much salt we can eat. Pepsi Co is developing a artificial salt alternative... seems they might push that like they did HFCS instead of sugar.

 

[grumble]

I know a lot of people in here are making fun of the slippery slope argument, about how insignificant this measure is. But wasn't this what the slippery slope argument lead to? When they start messing with what you can and cannot eat? It's not if the slippery slope is real, this is the slippery slope in mid-effect.

there's a reason the slippery slope fallacy is called the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Quagm1r3]

Happy to hear this. The commons meals at my university have no less than 1500mg of salt in every meal; that shit is ridiculous.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

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



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).

Umm, I'm not conflicted because the issue is about salt. I'm conflicted because the gov't is legislating something that while is good, I don't think they should take on that role.

 

[harriet the spy]

People are still debating this?

Let the government try to help people be healthier. For the stubborn shits who are acting like this action will bring the apocalypse:

PROBLEM SOLVED.

:lol

 

[swoon]

it's pretty amazing that the salt institute guy's name is Morton.

 

[Sol..]

I know a lot of people in here are making fun of the slippery slope argument, about how insignificant this measure is. But wasn't this what the slippery slope argument lead to? When they start messing with what you can and cannot eat? It's not if the slippery slope is real, this is the slippery slope in mid-effect.

laws come and go so i don't think the slope analogy applies. Besides they act as though big government is the one taking away liberties. It's more like they are taking away the things big business exploits most that do the most damage.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

it's pretty amazing that the salt institute guy's name is Morton.

:lol , glorious.

and +1 to the salt shaker.

people have lost their minds complaining about this.

 

[Quagm1r3]

Read through the thread a bit and am shocked by the replies. Of course the representative of the salt company said that the studies on salt are inconclusive; representatives of smoking companies still argue about the illegitimacy of studies that correlate cigarettes with lung cancer.

You guys are blowing this out of proportion. It's not like the food products you once loved are going to disappear. They'll just reduce the sodium they add to them. And the reason the FDA tells us what we can and cannot eat is because they don't want us to die; excess salt does lead to hypertension and heart related conditions.

However, I fear that this measure will just make companies add more fructose to their products to make up for the lack of flavor.

 

[Cooter]

This should scare the shit out of every American.

 

[KibblesBits]

So is the Big Gov taking away my liberties by reducing the amount of salt in luxury prepared meals of all types that I could just add later at my own discretion legally and of my own free will?

Bastards.

 

[ATF487]

So is the Big Gov taking away my liberties by reducing the amount of salt in luxury prepared meals of all types that I could just add later at my own discretion legally and of my own free will?

YEA MAN

FUCKING COMMUNIST OBAMA

 

[Cooter]

So is the Big Gov taking away my liberties by reducing the amount of salt in luxury prepared meals of all types that I could just add later at my own discretion legally and of my own free will?

Bastards.

Hey, videogames cause kids to get less exercise. Let's limit the number of games each kid can buy in a year. Come to think of it, alcohol causes thousands of deaths, let's just get rid of that. Watch out sugar, you're next....

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Read through the thread a bit and am shocked by the replies. Of course the representative of the salt company said that the studies on salt are inconclusive; representatives of smoking companies still argue about the illegitimacy of studies that correlate cigarettes with lung cancer.

You guys are blowing this out of proportion. It's not like the food products you once loved are going to disappear. They'll just reduce the sodium they add to them. And the reason the FDA tells us what we can and cannot eat is because they don't want us to die; excess salt does lead to hypertension and heart related conditions.

However, I fear that this measure will just make companies add more fructose to their products to make up for the lack of flavor.

agreed on all counts.

I hope they have a plan to counter the fructose. otherwise, the plan is half-baked.

 

[teh_pwn]

I know a lot of people in here are making fun of the slippery slope argument, about how insignificant this measure is. But wasn't this what the slippery slope argument lead to? When they start messing with what you can and cannot eat? It's not if the slippery slope is real, this is the slippery slope in mid-effect.

I'm not sure I'm concerned about the government controlling what people eat.

I'm more concerned with the following scenario regarding the impact on public health and scientific progress:

1. Government gives dietary recommendations based on partial science. It sees some evidence that a certain dietary substance increases the risk of mortality (salt, dietary fat), and rationalizes that it must do something in terms of policy to save lives now.


2. After the government gives the recommendation, scientific research funding is focused on the assumption that the dietary substance regulated is bad. A lot of the funding comes from the government. Without first ensuring that the original assumption made in #1 is in fact true, the progress of science is crippled.

It would be like if CERN in Europe didn't exist, and we developed a field of physics based on the wrong assumption as to whether or not the Higgs Boson particle exists.


3. Over time, say some funding does accumulate data for an alternative hypothesis that explains both the negatives of salt intake under certain circumstances, but shows a deeper root cause and that salt deficiencies cause other health problems. The government cannot suddenly say that their dietary advice is wrong, repeal the regulations, and convince the public that is sold on salt being the problem otherwise. Instead they must ease into it, while hundreds of thousands of people are either killed or have a significantly reduced quality of life.

This happened with the lipid hypothesis in 1977 with the food pyramid. First all fats were bad. Then mono-unsaturated were good. Then poly-unsaturated, but not omega 6. Then trans-fats were confirmed to increase the odds of heart disease. Soon saturated fats will be recognized as neutral to HDL:LDL as data is redeeming it.

But those lost decades to dietary science could have been saved if we simply followed the scientific method, adjusted/rejected the lipid hypothesis based on empirical controlled data. Instead this premature public policy has probably contributed to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and we're just now starting to get the data to show it.

 

[ianp622]

Yeah, while we're at it, where does the government get off putting flouride in our tap water? I didn't ask for it. I don't even drink tap water, and my teeth are fine!

 

[KibblesBits]

Hey, videogames cause kids to get less exercise. Let's limit the number of games each kid can buy in a year. Come to think of it, alcohol causes thousands of deaths, let's just get rid of that. Watch out sugar, you're next....

You see how these are two different things right?
Right?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

This should scare the shit out of every American.

I know, man. First the FDA will do the same thing it's done for decades, resulting in my hamburger being slightly less salty.

Next thing you know, death camps.

 

[Shanadeus]

agreed on all counts.

I hope they have a plan to counter the fructose. otherwise, the plan is half-baked.

One step at a time, I'm sure that's the next step after ten years of sodium decrease.
You really only need to reduce fructose/glucose to moderate levels and restrict extreme values.

 

[Cooter]

You see how these are two different things right?
Right?

You see how the feds can make any decision they want and justify it with the "it's an attempt to keep America healthy" defense? Right

 

[Cooter]

I know, man. First the FDA will do the same thing it's done for decades, resulting in my hamburger being slightly less salty.

Next thing you know, death camps.

:lol Keep trying to marginalize the issue and go to the extreme. It just makes you look desperate. There has to be some facet of your life you don't want the government dictating. Pick that issue and then imagine if the government decided they knew what was best for you and forced you. Sounds like a great country.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

You see how the feds can make any decision they want and justify it with the "it's an attempt to keep America healthy" defense? Right

Wrong. The FDA regulates food products and drugs. They're not going to ban your toys, and after the 1920s nobody is going to touch your addictive brain-damaging liquid drug that is so ingrained in our society.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

One step at a time, I'm sure that's the next step after ten years of sodium decrease.
You really only need to reduce fructose/glucose to moderate levels and restrict extreme values.

yea, I figured. as long as it's on the roadmap.

 

[Cooter]

Wrong. The FDA regulates food products and drugs. They're not going to ban your toys, and after the 1920s nobody is going to touch your addictive brain-damaging liquid drug that is so ingrained in our society.

Are you that clueless? The FDA does what the people in power tell it to do. This isn't about the FDA, it's about control.

 

[Chojin]

Obligatory:

 

[EmCeeGramr]

:lol Keep trying to marginalize the issue and go to the extreme. It just makes you look desperate. There has to be some facet of your life you don't want the government dictating. Pick that issue and then imagine if the government decided they knew what was best for you and forced you. Sounds like a great country.

So I shouldn't go to the extreme with a comparison... but at the same time I should freak out and be scared by imagining that this is something totally different?

 

[Cooter]

So I shouldn't go to the extreme with a comparison... but at the same time I should freak out and be scared by imagining that this is something totally different?

You should look at the act. There is nothing to imagine because it's happening.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Are you that clueless? The FDA does what the people in power tell it to do. This isn't about the FDA, it's about control.

fight teh powar dood

so how do they control us once their dastardly plot to make our food slightly less salty (and there's probably going to be tons of loopholes and many foods uneffected because they were already under the limit) comes into fruition

 

[teh_pwn]

One step at a time, I'm sure that's the next step after ten years of sodium decrease.
You really only need to reduce fructose/glucose to moderate levels and restrict extreme values.

Even though I'm a strong supporter of the insulin hypothesis, we need to carefully gather data on fructose/glucose being bad for health.

The big problem with public dietary guidelines and the scientific method is that they are inherently opposed.

On one hand public dietary guidelines is all about saving lives as fast as possible. Establishing the guidelines as the truth with authority figures and absolute belief/certainty.

The scientific method on the other hand rests on the foundation of skepticism. Without skepticism and adjusting a hypothesis based on incoming data, the scientific method collapses. The scientific method does not have authority figures or belief. Just observation, speculation based on results, and adjustments/rejection of a hypothesis.

But at the same time the government is great for funding science outside of public guidelines. So there has to be some sort of middle ground where we give funding for a multitude of scientific studies, and then based on scientific consensus and NOT congress (or the FDA for that matter), funding should be allocated to where data looks interesting.

 

[KibblesBits]

You see how the feds can make any decision they want and justify it with the "it's an attempt to keep America healthy" defense? Right

No. I'm not going to be here with you all night over this.
Guess we'll have to disagree.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

I'd have half a mind to get up in arms about this if there were actually decent options to avoiding mass quantities of sodium other than preparing EVERYTHING myself.

I have a job, and sometimes it keeps me busy to the point that I have to run out and grab something quickly that i can take back and eat at my desk. When I have to do this, if I want any meat products at all, i have absolutely NO choice but to get something extremely sodium rich. None. I'd eat dry overcoocked chicken on plain wheat bread with nothing else if i had to...but even that I can't do.

So the only way I can have a decent chicken breast is to spend the night prior making it myself.

So I don't see this as much of a limitation of freedom, but rather as a changing of what our choices are.

Besides. Like others are saying. You can always add the salt on top of the food.

 

[Cooter]

fight teh powar dood

so how do they control us once their dastardly plot to make our food slightly less salty (and there's probably going to be tons of loopholes and many foods might not be effected because they were already under the limit) comes into fruition

Wait, so distrust and fear of power is a bad thing now? This country was founded on these basic principals. The ease at which many here just believe everything from the feds is terrifying. It's like the recorded history of controlling dictators and governments taking peoples freedoms away never happened. Let's hope this outlook on life is the minority.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

fight teh powar dood

so how do they control us once their dastardly plot to make our food slightly less salty (and there's probably going to be tons of loopholes and many foods uneffected because they were already under the limit) comes into fruition

Dude, open your eyes man!!!!

DEATH FUCKING CAMPS!!!!!

Let's be honest, they'll have a salt substitute waiting right as this bill is signed into office. And on top of that they'll increase salt just for good measure. And :lol at people using salt lobbyists as a source.. I saw a commercial the other day for HFCS saying, it's actually pretty healthy for you. The 2 actors in the commercial looked like they didn't even believe that shit.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

You know this whole thread is filled with people warning about terrifying THINGS and FUTURES and HAPPENINGS and CONTROL, but whenever you take that language to its logical conclusion (some kind of dictatorship or oppressive regime), they always back off and say "Woah, don't try to exaggerate it to the extreme."

So, uh, what exactly are these terrible things and scary slippery slopes leading to? The only examples so far are people acting like the FDA is going to ban their video games for some reason.



Also, I really distrust government a lot. Usually when it's the military or intelligence-gathering or yet another pro-corporations conservative slightly-closer-to-the-center-but-still-100%-conservative Democrat making political promises. When it actually does a good job and says "Hey maybe we should keep our citizens from getting sick and fat and dying and raising their children to do the same thing" then I don't have a problem.

 

[ianp622]

Cooter, how is fluoridation of tap water not government control in the same way reduction of salt is? If it isn't different, are you saying fluoridation of tap water is a bad thing?

 

[way more]

You know this whole thread is filled with people warning about terrifying THINGS and FUTURES and HAPPENINGS and CONTROL, but whenever you take that language to its logical conclusion (some kind of dictatorship or oppressive regime), they always back off and say "Woah, don't try to exaggerate it to the extreme."

:lol

Ah, Cooter is livening this thread up. Maybe we can get some 9/11 guys in here later.

 

[Cooter]

Cooter, how is fluoridation of tap water not government control in the same way reduction of salt is? If it isn't different, are you saying fluoridation of tap water is a bad thing?

I don't think they should be adding fluoride to water either. It is a different situation however. One is a law telling companies what to put in their food or face breaking the law when the ingredient in question is not lethal or unhealthy. The other is adding something mostly done through local governments. What ever happened to having choices and living with those choices? Do we really need the government deciding what we eat?

EDIT: I'm just sick and tired of a bunch of elected and appointed retards telling me what's best for me. Wear your seat belt or you have to pay us. Get off your cell phone while you drive. Buy health insurance or we will fine you. This salt situation is just another thing they want to impose on me. I don't need the government for anything but protection and basic necessities.