-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
FDA To Legally Restrict Salt In Food
- Thread starter daw840
- Start date
- Status
Gaborn said:
Cold cuts, some types of bread, spaghetti sauce, and pretty much every type of frozen food. In all of these, you don't really taste it, and that's the problem.
I don't see why you think anything less than a pickle is automatically low-salt. There are different ranges, and the thing about a pickle is that it's easy to remove it from your diet if you know about the salt in it.
CharlieDigital
Banned
JoeBoy101 said:
Diet and Hypertension: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09318.html
Sodium: Are you getting too much?: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sodium/NU00284
Sodium Intake and Hypertension: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17046432
Sodium is bad for your health by way of hypertension, which leads to a variety of diseases.
afternoon delight
Member
Works for me, I go low-sodium whenever I can. It'll cost cheaper now.
The Librarian
Banned
Eating less every day, as in having only two meals a day instead of three, is not a healthy option.daw840 said:
Agent Ghost
aka MAJIKdR46oN
This isn't a black and white issue. Some countries need this some do not. I can tell you as a Canadian knowing that my country has some of the highest if not the highest salt content in food. We do need this. Health care is a shared cost, if dollar signs and freedom are your only values then I can say I trust the government more to make these types of decisions before I would trust the consumer. If you want a free market, tough because there's nothing free about the food industry. I doubt it will change for a long time.
Nature wired our brains to be addicted to certain chemicals in food. It's not because these substances are great for our health in large quantity, its because of the scarcity of these foods in the past. Because of modern innovation things like fatty foods, salt, sugar are no longer in short supply. Problem is that we're still prone to be addicted. These substances dramatically increase risk of heart disease, diabetes and a number of other health problems at the rate we consume them.
Food companies spend billions on lobbyists and advertising to make sure these foods are first in line for our stomachs. People already mentioned that we subsidize junk food.
A move that puts limits on the poison content of food is not tyranny. It's responsibility. I don't see how improving individual health and the pocket books of tax payers will be met by any rational opposition outside the food industry.
Nature wired our brains to be addicted to certain chemicals in food. It's not because these substances are great for our health in large quantity, its because of the scarcity of these foods in the past. Because of modern innovation things like fatty foods, salt, sugar are no longer in short supply. Problem is that we're still prone to be addicted. These substances dramatically increase risk of heart disease, diabetes and a number of other health problems at the rate we consume them.
Food companies spend billions on lobbyists and advertising to make sure these foods are first in line for our stomachs. People already mentioned that we subsidize junk food.
A move that puts limits on the poison content of food is not tyranny. It's responsibility. I don't see how improving individual health and the pocket books of tax payers will be met by any rational opposition outside the food industry.
CrayzeeCarl
Member
They're still not "low" sodium, they're just slightly lower than the regular versions, usually. I don't think you realize how much salt is in most foods.daw840 said:
Dax01 said:
Where in that post did I say eat less? Just choose the low-sodium foods over the high-sodium foods. Voila! Now you have made a decision for yourself! How does it feel? I know it's a little weird at first, but you'll get used to it. Maybe you will like it better than letting the government do it for you!
ianp622 said:
I'm not making that contention. Instead I'm contending that ignoring pickles because the salt is "natural" is contrary to their claim of reducing sodium content for public health. By NOT including pickles (or at least not forcing pickle manufacturers to have some sort of strong label, say, similar to what they compel tobacco manufacturers to have) the lay person is going to be more likely to assume pickles are "ok" from a salt content point of view, when they're significantly worse than a number of common foods that we perceive as salty. Are they the WORST salty food? No of course not. But there are going to be a number of significantly less salty foods that are affected if pickles are exempted.
CharlieDigital said:
Welp, first link says same thing as WikiAnswers. You have to be sodium sensitive and it even says in the summary points:
From your second link:
Again, sodium-sensitive.
And the last link is similar to the study I posted. An observational study, but not a clinical one. They just are taking two trends and comparing them. Was more looking for a definitive physical link that can occur in an individual in normal health.
The reason I'm looking for this is to justify the FDA's action. Do I think people would be better off with less sodium in their diets, absolutely. Is it enough of a health issue that the FDA needs to regulate it? Not only have I not seen an argument for that, I've seen a better argument that HFCS should come first.
cubicle47b
Member
I'm fine with reducing the amount of sodium in food using regulation. They should have gone after HFCS first, though.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I don't really understand the issue here.
As many others have already mentioned, an end consumer can easily add more salt to most foods but the consumer cannot easily remove salt from foods. It now gives the consumer more choice and more control over what he or she eats, not less.
Welp, you go ahead and eat your high sodium diet and enjoy your hypertension and heart disease. It's pretty much a given that if you go into a doctor's office and you have high blood pressure, he's going to give you two pieces of advice: 1) less salt, 2) more exercise.
As many others have already mentioned, an end consumer can easily add more salt to most foods but the consumer cannot easily remove salt from foods. It now gives the consumer more choice and more control over what he or she eats, not less.
JoeBoy101 said:
Welp, you go ahead and eat your high sodium diet and enjoy your hypertension and heart disease. It's pretty much a given that if you go into a doctor's office and you have high blood pressure, he's going to give you two pieces of advice: 1) less salt, 2) more exercise.
CharlieDigital said:
Oh, getting pissy because you have no proof? Hey, I think we need to have the FDA regulate the amount of coloring in food too, because it has to make people healthier. I'm sure that's right.
Oh, and I'm not sodium sensitive, am the very oppositie of hypertension, and do not have heart disease. So, thanks, I will.
pedrothelion
Member
Actually adding salt to fries after they have just left the fryer is exactly what makes them so good. From what I understand the heat from the frys and the salt cause a sort of caramelization which makes them crispy. Anyways this is what Tyler Florence said on Food Network. It' worked so far for me in practice as well.Sir Fragula said:
I heard them discussing this on NPR yesterday. In general, I'm not sure it's a terrible thing; the rationale seems to be that, despite companies knowing that sodium content is too high, they're apprehensive to lower salt levels due to a potential competitive disadvantage (taste).
There's been an escalation in the amount of salt in foods over the past 50 years or so, and it's petered out as companies have found the "peak" of taste - or, so the argument goes. This is supposed to reign things back in.
There's been an escalation in the amount of salt in foods over the past 50 years or so, and it's petered out as companies have found the "peak" of taste - or, so the argument goes. This is supposed to reign things back in.
kame-sennin
Member
daw840 said:
It's a silly argument when there are plenty of other hazardous items that are not allowed into our food source. The FDA's job is to remove or put a limit on hazardous items. The only question is whether or not salt poses a significant health risk. Would you be weeping and gnashing your teeth over a chlorine restriction in fast food?
CharlieDigital
Banned
kame-sennin said:
You have folks like JoeBoy who want to believe that salt, even an overabundance, isn't bad for them and doesn't affect their health or lead to hypertension.
...
Go to a doctor's office with hypertension and the two things a doctor is going to say are to cut salt and exercise more (among other prescriptions).
adamsappel
Member
I just looked through the pantry, and (with the exception of canned soup), most everything intended for my wife and I are pretty reasonable with sodium content. Even the sauerkraut isn't very salty! But, everything that is for my daughter to eat is incredibly high in sodium.
Well then, if we can't ask the FDA to limit things in food, how about this compromise, we mandate work days, lunch times and wages so everyone has the money AND the time to cook at home thus choosing to avoid unhealthy packaged food and fast foods becomes a reality for a lot more people. How's that? Sound good free market people?
Plus, how exactly would a person know they're sodium sensitive? It's not exactly the thing someone would know unless they have a heart attack or some shit, not something obvious like being allergic to peanuts.
Plus, how exactly would a person know they're sodium sensitive? It's not exactly the thing someone would know unless they have a heart attack or some shit, not something obvious like being allergic to peanuts.
kame-sennin
Member
Agent Ghost said:
Oh my god, thank you.
And here we go with the "I swear I'm trying but it's haaaaard" posters.
- Cold cuts, frozen foods, pre-marinaded meats, all that crap. Just stop. Instead, buy some nice plain chicken breasts, pork chops, or steaks, throw a couple of spices on them (NOT spice blends, they're just a bunch of salt anyway) and grill them. If you don't know what spices go with what, the spice bottles generally have that info right on them. Or ask someone.
- Stop buying sauces. Tomato sauces for pasta were a big part of my sodium intake. Instead, just go and get some sodium-free tomato sauce/puree, and make your own. Throw in some basil, oregano, onions, garlic, fresh jalapenos if you want.
- Soups could also be an issue if you eat a lot of the canned stuff. Even the Campbell's Healthy brand is a joke; pretty much the only one that's reasonable for lunch is the regular-sized vegetable one. All the others are horrendous.
And it's hilarious that some people are actually swallowing the Salt Institute's bit about excessive salt not being bad for you. Christ, go to a doctor.
- Cold cuts, frozen foods, pre-marinaded meats, all that crap. Just stop. Instead, buy some nice plain chicken breasts, pork chops, or steaks, throw a couple of spices on them (NOT spice blends, they're just a bunch of salt anyway) and grill them. If you don't know what spices go with what, the spice bottles generally have that info right on them. Or ask someone.
- Stop buying sauces. Tomato sauces for pasta were a big part of my sodium intake. Instead, just go and get some sodium-free tomato sauce/puree, and make your own. Throw in some basil, oregano, onions, garlic, fresh jalapenos if you want.
- Soups could also be an issue if you eat a lot of the canned stuff. Even the Campbell's Healthy brand is a joke; pretty much the only one that's reasonable for lunch is the regular-sized vegetable one. All the others are horrendous.
And it's hilarious that some people are actually swallowing the Salt Institute's bit about excessive salt not being bad for you. Christ, go to a doctor.
ShadyMilkman
Banned
If people can't muster the will to figure out what is a healthier option for them, then damnit, let the government do it for them!
PjotrStroganov
Member
Yaweee said:
In food, not on food?
mAcOdIn said:
Brownbagging is just that difficult? 10 mins. in the morning before going to work. Less time and money spent than going out and buying fast food. And not all packaged food, frozen meals, etc are loaded with sodium.
Again, where is the compelling case that this requires FDA regulation? At least with HFCS, you can link it pretty distinctly with obesity. And are we also to start regulating food for what someone MIGHT have a condition for? Really?
BertramCooper
Banned
Help make people make better decisions.
But don't make the decisions for them.
But don't make the decisions for them.
CharlieDigital
Banned
BertramCooper said:
This doesn't make decisions for them. In fact, it's the exact opposite since it lets them make a broader range of decisions by starting from less salt. You can always add more salt.
"God's Beard!"
Member
Fast food industry is about to get real Morton's up in here.
Futureman said:
no, this does work. in manhattan, it's required by law in chain restaurants. and everyone i know finds it helpful when ordering, especially people on a diet.
that, i don't mind.
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
Gaborn,
The reason pickles are exempted (I'm guessing) is that the FDA wants this regulation to have a low perceived impact. The whole idea behind their ten-year phase-out is to slowly wean the American people off salt and get used to more reasonable amounts of it.
Banning pickles entirely wouldn't accomplish this. It would be obvious and wildly unpopular. They're trying to sneak healthier food into our lifestyles without us realizing it.
The reason pickles are exempted (I'm guessing) is that the FDA wants this regulation to have a low perceived impact. The whole idea behind their ten-year phase-out is to slowly wean the American people off salt and get used to more reasonable amounts of it.
Banning pickles entirely wouldn't accomplish this. It would be obvious and wildly unpopular. They're trying to sneak healthier food into our lifestyles without us realizing it.
CharlieDigital
Banned
daw840 said:
That's fine, so now you can ask for the high sodium version or specify to the waiter "Oh and ask the chef to add extra salt". Better to start from a default of a healthy version than to start from a default of an unhealthy version.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Gaborn said:
Yeah, because the anti-salt lobby and anti-salt interest groups are just so influential and powerful?
Wat?
That's only one meal.JoeBoy101 said:
I think reality for a lot of people is different for a lot of other people. Like, I'm single, work an incredible physically tough job that's usually 12 hours a shift and will also be starting school again next semester. There will be very little time for actual cooking under those constraints, nor is it very easy to buy perishables that won't just perish before I can eat them. Now if I were married I could split up cooking duty, even if we both worked one might be able to cook when the other couldn't or some shit like that. But anyways, that's not really my main point.
I just think things should be made as healthy as possible from the start and not with what's the cheapest, gives it the longest shelf life or even what "tastes" best. As many foods as possible should be as healthy as possible allowing the most choice for people who want to eat as healthy as possible within the limits of eating prepared foods.
Now do I think we need to regulate all foods based on what people might have a condition for? Not really if we use some common sense. A lot of people are allergic to peanuts but a ban on peanuts doesn't really make any sense, but you know, if something does contain peanuts well then people should know and if it's made in the same place as something with peanuts I see no problem with divulging that info. But again, a peanut allergy is usually found out pretty damn early in life, like milk. Something that can only be expected to be made with salt, or peanuts, or whatever should remain that way, if however it can be limited in a product I see no reason why it shouldn't.
Of course, I agree that HFCS is a bigger offender than sodium.
Anyways, I don't think the point or aim of anything should be to make foods "healthy," soda is never healthy, I don't want to ban soda, but if there's a healthier ingredient they can use, why the fuck not? Same with salt, some things have to have high salt content, ok, fine, but most things don't have to.
speculawyer
Member
So . . . what is with all you people completely whining about this . . . do you not know how to use a salt shaker?
CharlieDigital said:
If you start with the assumption that liberals tend to be more in favor of salt regulation (probably a decent bet), and if you agree that the current administration is on balance fairly liberal it doesn't necessarily take a huge anti-salt lobby to do this. This seems to be about appealing to the base of the Democratic party which tends to be more liberal, more pro-regulation and perceives on average that the way to achieve better public health is to provide more regulation of the foods consumers eat.
Framing this then, in terms of a limited low impact proposal will both appeal to that liberal base and not turn off moderates who probably aren't as regulation friendly but are of course pro-good health (who ISN'T?).
I can't think of another good non-political reason to exempt dill pickles particularly from this, I can't imagine the pickle lobby is that large.
mAcOdIn said:
But why should it be up to the government to restrict that? Like Bertram said, educated and inform, but don't make the decision for them. I mean, almost all fast food joints provide healthy (low sodium, low fat or both) options on their menu. Sometimes in the form of salads, sometimes in different versions of the same food. There are people here retorting, just grab a salt shaker. Why can't they just find a low-sodium alternative? Are you saying there are no other options at lunch? That the government has regulate it and expand its reach further?
And your right, its not just lunch. But if someone chooses to ignore the nutritional label, that's they're decision. If a consumer does not like products that have high sodium content, what's stopping them from getting lower sodium content items?
speculawyer said:
It's the principle of the thing more than that actual thing itself. One of those things that is scary about public subsidized healthcare as well. They will start regulating what we eat, or denying coverage because we ate something unhealthy or took a risk that was ill-advised.
speculawyer said:
you're completely missing the point. the problem is government regulation of day-to-day things, like transfat, salt intake, etc. it's such a slippery slope.
what makes it different from cigarettes, booze, red meat?
edit: and i'm someone who completely supports government healthcare. this is a side effect, unfortunately, but it started long before the healthcare bill was signed.
- Status