Support NeoGAF

[CharlieDigital]

None of those things is even remotely like salt. Not even close. :lol

You would have had the same complaints.

Industry would have to reformulate paints and fuel.

Industry would have threatened that reformulated paints and fuel wouldn't be as good as the existing product with lead.

Lead was not thought to be a health hazard at the time. We used leaded paints and fuels for decades without considering the health effects. Pipes were made of lead for centuries.

Industry would have to reformulate amalgam.

Industry would have threatened that reformulated amalgam wouldn't be as good as the existing product with higher levels of mercury.

Mercury was not thought to be a health hazard at the time.

Now the same complaints with sodium. Industry complains that they'll have to reformulate foods and consumers will have to adjust.

 

[mAcOdIn]

If they tell BK that they can no longer use mayonnaise or lettuce, is it still a Whopper? A Whopper is a range of different ingredients combined in certain amounts to give it a distinct taste. The Whopper sans salt is no longer a Whopper, because it will no longer taste like a Whopper.

Lol. The whopper's gone through many an iteration, while the recipe's the same, the exact mayo, beef and the like is always different. No one's going to ban fucking mayonnaise.

Fucking seriously, the government can not even ban cigarettes or alcohol, they sure as fuck are not going to ban salt, mayonnaise, Whoppers or anything like that. You guys are jumping to the extreme conclusion here. What they're most likely going after is slightly reducing the sodium in everything so that as a whole the nations sodium intake goes down, not something crazy like you guys are anticipating.

 

[Gaborn]

You would have had the same complaints.

Industry would have to reformulate paints and fuel.

Industry would have threatened that reformulated paints and fuel wouldn't be as good as the existing product with lead.

Lead was not thought to be a health hazard at the time. We used leaded paints and fuels for decades without considering the health effects.

Industry would have to reformulate amalgam.

Industry would have threatened that reformulated amalgam wouldn't be as good as the existing product with higher levels of mercury.

Mercury was not thought to be a health hazard at the time.

Now the same complaints with sodium. Industry complains that they'll have to reformulate foods and consumers will have to adjust.

Where's the pickle exception in all this?

 

[CharlieDigital]

Where's the pickle exception in all this?

Mercury is still allowed in amalgam.

 

[Zophar]

Again, no ONE meal is going to be unhealthy. Or TWO meals. OR a week of eating high sodium meals. Its a lifestyle of excessive salt consumption that could be unhealthy. The corporation should have to change its products because some individuals make the conscious decision to not eat in moderation or moderate the amount of sodium they consume every day?

I dare you to go into a supermarket and find a packaged product that doesn't have a ridiculously high sodium content. The problem with your logic is that it's in everything and unless you only eat fresh vegetables you are consuming absurd levels of sodium no matter what you do. You can't really change your lifestyle if the lifestyle is being foisted upon us by the market.

 

[Srsly]

This is a good thing. Companies would shit in their own products if it saved them a buck and they could get away with it. Nearly everything that isn't raw has excessive amounts of sodium, for various reasons (one being to make you hungrier). It is a poison, a chronic poison, that adds up over time.

 

[daw840]

So, are you trying to say that someday we will find out that sodium is as bad as those things?

 

[KiNeSiS]

Yes because Salt = Asbestos, Mercury, and other items that can kill in minute amounts. Brilliant.

No, The problem is accumulated damage done to the body on a daily basis consuming massive amounts of sodium that penetrate ingestible food/drink products....

 

[EmCeeGramr]

gaborn keeps going on about his pickle derail :lol

 

[Gaborn]

gaborn keeps going on about his pickle derail :lol

It's not a derail. It's in the OP. Just because I'm focused on one aspect of the issue that supporters seem to want to ignore does not mean I'm derailing.

 

[dinazimmerman]

Why don't we just tax the shit out of salt instead of putting some stupid-ass quota on the amount of salt that a food product can have? That way we can promote healthy eating habits and bypass the annoying "liberty" debate (in which no side is wholly convincing, sorry libertarians and elitist paternalists) while we're at it.

Also, I still think more research should be done to determine whether or not banned levels of salt are actually bad for everyone, and not just people with other health conditions. Remember people, regulators can make just as bad decisions as regular old consumers, and they often do.

EDIT: Addendum to my post:

There are two types of people I hate:

1) Those that believe they're so smart they are entitled to make decisions for other people.

2) Those that insist so strongly on preserving freedom of choice that they miss the big picture and block any measure that attempts to enhance the common good.

 

[CharlieDigital]

No, The problem is accumulated damage done to the body on a daily bases consuming massive amounts of sodium that penetrate ingestible food/drink products....

More importantly, for centuries, no one thought of the dangers of lead. It was a common building material and used for pipes and water supplies. Even up until the last century, lead was used in paints and fuel because it wasn't known definitively to be harmful.

The same for mercury as well.

The health effects of asbestos, mercury, and lead were once thought to be negligible or non-existent. That is how their widespread use came to be in the first place (and in the case of lead, it was used heavily for centuries without consideration for health effects).

So, are you trying to say that someday we will find out that sodium is as bad as those things?

In excess, it's pretty much a given that sodium is bad for you and, over a lifetime, can lead to heart disease. If you go to any doctor with hypertension, he'll prescribe at least two items: exercise and less sodium intake (possibly also prescribing reducing fats and cholesterol as well).

 

[Angry Grimace]

We should make the only legal food a type of nutrient paste at scheduled times in the day.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Haha geez man. We'll just be agreeing to disagree because we obviously wont see eye to eye on fundamental points. Who the fuck is saying salt alone is an adverse ingredient or risk. Just saying that shows me you arent interested in having any debate and are just being a dick.

If we think that way, then are you saying that there should be no regulations on anything...afterall, any adverse ingredients or risks can just be stuck on the back of the package.

You're the one conflating salt with adverse ingredients. And I am interested in discussing it, but so far nobody has even provide a compelling case on why this is critical enough of an issue that it needs FDA regulation, especially considering the research is lacking.

Obviously high sodium intake is the risk, and that is exactly what will potentially be regulated. Of course you arent gonna die after eating one high sodium meal. The point is that NO ONE eats one meal a day. That high sodium meal is putting you on the path of killing yourself in the long run. And unfortunately, people dont get that.

To pull from wikipedia: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments, responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products...

. This is what they are supposed to do.

And I'm questioning that same protecting of public health as no strong link has been thoroughly proven. And further, why should then alcohol be allowed? Or cigarettes? They don't even meet any bodily need except in those addicted.

If this were HFCS or an actual poison, or some other really harmful substance, I'd be behind it. In HFCS, not only is there an alternative (sugar), but HFCS has been strongly researched to cause obesity. Sodium is nowhere near needing this level of scrutiny.

Why don't we just tax the shit out of salt instead of putting some stupid-ass quota on the amount of salt that a food product can have? That way we can promote healthy eating habits and bypass the annoying "liberty" debate (in which no side is wholly convincing, sorry libertarians and elitist paternalists) while we're at it.

Cool with that. Good alternative.

 

[BronzeWolf]

Another stupid regulation by the FDA that fails to address the whole issue

STOP THE CORN SUBSIDIES

 

[EmCeeGramr]

It's not a derail. It's in the OP. Just because I'm focused on one aspect of the issue that supporters seem to want to ignore does not mean I'm derailing.

Nobody is ignoring it, and yes you are.

The article says that they haven't decided to exempt naturally or inherently salty foods yet, and even if they did, the initiative would still be removing large amounts of excessive salt from processed foods.

You keep trying to insinuate that because the FDA isn't essentially banning certain foods outright, that the initiative is somehow dishonest and hypocritical.

 

[RiccochetJ]

It's not a derail. It's in the OP. Just because I'm focused on one aspect of the issue that supporters seem to want to ignore does not mean I'm derailing.

The whole pickle thing is deceptive due to serving information. A typical serving of a pickle is... well a pickle. Unless you mean to tell me you only make a 1/4 of a can of soup for yourself. If you don't, the amount of sodium you are having with a can of soup is much higher.

 

[MaxSteel]

Yeah, God forbid government regulates cigarettes and booze. :lol

oh you're one of those people who doesn't want me to be able to smoke a cigarette, huh?

 

[mAcOdIn]

And I'm questioning that same protecting of public health as no strong link has been thoroughly proven. And further, why should then alcohol be allowed? Or cigarettes? They don't even meet any bodily need except in those addicted.

Well, come back and ask why cigarettes are not banned when they ban salt, because you and I both know that sodium is not going anywhere and all you're doing is exaggerating to try and make some sad plea. This is more similar to them saying how much nicotine, or how much some other chemical can be in a cigarette, not banning cigarettes, because they're not banning salt and they're not banning cigarettes.

If this were HFCS or an actual poison, or some other really harmful substance, I'd be behind it. In HFCS, not only is there an alternative (sugar), but HFCS has been strongly researched to cause obesity. Sodium is nowhere near needing this level of scrutiny.

Nobody disagrees with you on HFCS, I'd wager the reason they're going after sodium first is because it's in everything, HFCS is in a relatively, in comparison to Sodium, far less amount of food and drinks where as sodium is in almost everything. It's much easier for a person to avoid HFCS than Sodium, although why someone would want to avoid Sodium is beyond me.

 

[Angry Grimace]

"Smoking is not good for you. Anything not good for you is bad. Hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat... bad language, chocolate, uneducational toys and spicy food. Abortion is illegal, but so is pregnancy if you don't have a license."

All we need is to find our Dr. Cocteau.

 

[Gaborn]

Nobody is ignoring it, and yes you are.

The article says that they haven't decided to exempt naturally or inherently salty foods yet, and even if they did, the initiative would still be removing large amounts of excessive salt from processed foods.

By definition a pickle IS a processed food. An unprocessed pickle is a cucumber.

You keep trying to insinuate that because the FDA isn't essentially banning certain foods outright, that the initiative is somehow dishonest and hypocritical.

If the concern is excessive salt, and if the contention is that that salt is a bad thing, then yes, exempting an extremely salty food like a pickle would be hypocritical.

The whole pickle thing is deceptive due to serving information. A typical serving of a pickle is... well a pickle. Unless you mean to tell me you only make a 1/4 of a can of soup for yourself. If you don't, the amount of sodium you are having with a can of soup is much higher.

Actually, according to Vlasic at least 1 serving is 1/4 a pickle.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Nobody disagrees with you on HFCS, I'd wager the reason they're going after sodium first is because it's in everything, HFCS is in a relatively, in comparison to Sodium, amount of food and drinks where as sodium is in almost everything. It's much easier for a person to avoid HFCS than Sodium, although why someone would want to avoid Sodium is beyond me.

Yeah, but the health impact of sodium has hardly been proven like HFCS. Plus, is there an alternative to sodium that can be used. I'm all for the government promoting healthier food and giving incentives to companies (positively or negatively [as Goya suggested]) in providing lower sodium food or to approach a baseline, but outright regulation is going way too overboard.

 

[Like the hat?]

Let's send those clowns a message by dressing up like clowns and eating a box of salt.

 

[RiccochetJ]

"Smoking is not good for you. Anything not good for you is bad. Hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat... bad language, chocolate, uneducational toys and spicy food. Abortion is illegal, but so is pregnancy if you don't have a license."

All we need is to find our Dr. Cocteau.

If they ban salt outright I would be extremely upset. However, I'm ok with forcing a base starting level. I can add, but I can't remove.

 

[Amory]

Out of all of the bad things in food, they choose to regulate...salt?

Salt is the one thing in my diet that I tend not to worry about at all. Calories, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, various preservatives, sure. But salt?

Plus I just don't like this in general. Personal responsibility ftw.

 

[ShadyMilkman]

Problem: for a large amount of Americans, that food is what's most readily available, cheapest, and easiest for them.

Most people don't have the time and money to just go grocery shopping for organic foods every week and then cook them every night, especially for a family.

Produce and whatnot at any grocery store is a hell of a lot cheaper than this processed food, so I don't understand the plight of the poor when it comes to making healthier and more economically sound decisions regarding food.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Personal responsibility ftw.

You can still add more salt...

 

[CrayzeeCarl]

Produce and whatnot at any grocery store is a hell of a lot cheaper than this processed food, so I don't understand the plight of the poor when it comes to making healthier and more economically sound decisions regarding food.

no, it's not even close :lol

 

[Zophar]

Produce and whatnot at any grocery store is a hell of a lot cheaper than this processed food, so I don't understand the plight of the poor when it comes to making healthier and more economically sound decisions regarding food.

What universe do you live in?

 

[mAcOdIn]

Yeah, but the health impact of sodium has hardly been proven like HFCS. Plus, is there an alternative to sodium that can be used. I'm all for the government promoting healthier food and giving incentives to companies (positively or negatively [as Goya suggested]) in providing lower sodium food or to approach a baseline, but outright regulation is going way too overboard.

What the hell is the difference between a tax and regulation anyways? I don't understand why one aspect is popular and the other is not when they both do the same thing. Theoretically a conservative should be against taxing something that's legal and accepted as a roundabout means to government regulation yet it's the go to method for them. Both involve government intervention, both involve hurting the corporation who provides it in the pocket book, what the fuck is the difference? I've never understood this. Like anyone would really buy a 15 dollar whopper value meal.

Anyways, they're not taking sodium out of anything, they're going to regulate the amount of sodium in things, no need for an alternative to sodium, there was a time when our processed food did not have as much sodium and everything was just fine.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Actually, according to Vlasic at least 1 serving is 1/4 a pickle.

Or according to Gedney, it can be 1
http://www.gedneypickle.com/index.cfm/go/products.detail/itemID/17300GED

Still less than the deceptive serving size for a can of soup in many cases.

Edit: Bad quote

 

[BrassMonkey1010]

Out of all of the bad things in food, they choose to regulate...salt?

Salt is the one thing in my diet that I tend not to worry about at all. Calories, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, various preservatives, sure. But salt?

Plus I just don't like this in general. Personal responsibility ftw.

Salt is just as important to watch. It is the key reason for getting high blood pressure.

 

[Future]

You're the one conflating salt with adverse ingredients. And I am interested in discussing it, but so far nobody has even provide a compelling case on why this is critical enough of an issue that it needs FDA regulation, especially considering the research is lacking.

I'll pretend you are meaning the obvious: That high salt intake IS dangerous. Salt itself is fine. Salt will still be in food. Large amounts of salt will be regulated. Large amounts of salt in one meal doesnt kill you immediately, but that is not the point.

But it looks like we can get beyond the obvious fact that the FDA is designed to make regulations like this, and get to the what seems like a better point: Is high sodium proven to be harmful? After all, even though the FDA is supposed to make these type of regulations...that wouldnt apply here if high sodium wasnt deemed a risk.

Not gonna lie, not gonna scourge the net looking for links trying to prove how high sodium is harmful. I'm not a doctor, and not about to write an essay. I could throw out some links, but you could probably also throw out links to the contrary.

I thought it was just as obvious as other shit, like HFCS. After all, there is conflicting research where that is concerned as well. I'll let the FDA do that leg work. But as someone that has had a family prone to high blood pressure, and doin my own little research on the subject, I'm gonna assume that there would be enough research to allow for such a regulation. And I am all for it.

As much as everyone seems to hate HFCS, you could easily replace salt with HFCS and have the exact same thread. Just the idea of government of regulating things like this grinds some gears, and it just cracks me up. These regulations do not prevent people from eating shit...you can cook whatever you want. What it does is protect people from suffering the effects of Food producers that dont give a shit about anything but their bottom line.

 

[daw840]

You can still add more salt...

Why do you keep posting this? It's been said over and over, there is a difference between cooking the food with salt and adding salt to the already cooked food.

 

[Future]

Why do you keep posting this? It's been said over and over, there is a difference between cooking the food with salt and adding salt to the already cooked food.

You can add more salt while cooking the food...

 

[CharlieDigital]

Why do you keep posting this? It's been said over and over, there is a difference between cooking the food with salt and adding salt to the already cooked food.

You can still cook your own food...

For foods like french fries, chips, popcorn, or say pretzels, it's perfectly valid.

 

[Gaborn]

Or according to Gedney, it can be 1
http://www.gedneypickle.com/index.cfm/go/products.detail/itemID/17300GED

Still less than the deceptive serving size for a can of soup in many cases.

Edit: Bad quote

MINI muncher? at LEAST use their "regular" dill pickle, which according to them = 1/2 per serving.

 

[ShadyMilkman]

What universe do you live in?

When I go grocery shopping, a huge bag of carrots is 3.50, 4 heads of brocolli is another 2, a bag of potatoes, not much either - grab some rice, some eggs, and you're set for a pretty good while.

What universe do you live in? Why do you make produce sound like some extravagant luxury when its really not?

 

[SouthernDragon]

They aren't banning salt, guys.

You'll still have salt in your foods. Just not as much salt. What's the problem?

I'm really not getting it.

When I go grocery shopping, a huge bag of carrots is 3.50, 4 heads of brocolli is another 2, a bag of potatoes, not much either - grab some rice, some eggs, and you're set for a pretty good while.

What universe do you live in? Why do you make produce sound like some extravagant luxury when its really not?

Because it's expensive in comparison to unhealthy foods because unhealthy foods receive all manner of indirect and direct subsidies. When your wages are low, you tend to go for the cheapest good which will get the job done.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

If the concern is excessive salt, and if the contention is that that salt is a bad thing, then yes, exempting an extremely salty food like a pickle would be hypocritical.

First, have they exempted it?
Second, if their goal is to reduce excess salt in the diet, and they still achieve that while not essentially closing down companies based on inherently salty foods, then how is it hypocritical?

 

[CrayzeeCarl]

When I go grocery shopping, a huge bag of carrots is 3.50, 4 heads of brocolli is another 2, a bag of potatoes, not much either - grab some rice, some eggs, and you're set for a pretty good while.

What universe do you live in? Why do you make produce sound like some extravagant luxury when its really not?

And a 10-pack of hot dogs is $0.79. Macaroni is $0.40 a box.

 

[dojokun]

I was born and raised in America, and I think that American restaurants put too much salt in their foods strictly from a taste-perspective. I wouldn't mind less salt. I can add the salt with a salt shaker if I want more salt.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I was born and raised in America, and I think that American restaurants put too much salt in their foods strictly from a taste-perspective. I wouldn't mind less salt. I can add the salt with a salt shaker if I want more salt.

FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME: NO YOU CAN'T IT'S NOT THE SAME!!!1

It's un-fucking-American and damn near UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[Zophar]

When I go grocery shopping, a huge bag of carrots is 3.50, 4 heads of brocolli is another 2, a bag of potatoes, not much either - grab some rice, some eggs, and you're set for a pretty good while.

What universe do you live in? Why do you make produce sound like some extravagant luxury when its really not?

If we estimate your shopping list to be about 20 dollars, I submit that for that price I can get 20 cans of Spagetti-Os. Or 40 boxes of macaroni and cheese. Or three months worth of ramen. 20 frozen pizzas. 6 frozen chicken breasts. 20 TV Dinners. If it is necessary to stretch your food budget as far as possible you're not buying a whole lot of produce. Your assertion that fresh produce is "a whole lot cheaper" than processed food is brazenly false.

 

[numble]

If the concern is excessive salt, and if the contention is that that salt is a bad thing, then yes, exempting an extremely salty food like a pickle would be hypocritical.

Where does it even say they have decided to exempt it?

 

[bathala]

save the Double Downs

 

[itsinmyveins]

First, have they exempted it?
Second, if their goal is to reduce excess salt in the diet, and they still achieve that while not essentially closing down companies based on inherently salty foods, then how is it hypocritical?

When you say something like that you are suggesting that it's not either all or nothing and that there are some types of "shades" or various conditions. Clearly that's not the case. For example, water -- either it boils or it doesn't. You can't argue with logic, man.

 

[Gaborn]

First, have they exempted it?

Have they officially started the program yet? Until they do from what you're implying here ANY discussion of their plans would be irrelevant. I'm reacting to the proposal discussed in the article, what are YOU reacting to?

Second, if their goal is to reduce excess salt in the diet, and they still achieve that while not essentially closing down companies based on inherently salty foods, then how is it hypocritical?

Because many many many businesses are BASED on salty foods. That's the "problem" they're supposedly planning on addressing. Reduction of salty foods that doesn't include regulation on an extremely salty food seems like cherry picking to me.

 

[nyong]

FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME: NO YOU CAN'T IT'S NOT THE SAME!!!1

You got this part right, but the rest is stupid.

Salt is added at different stages of the cooking process. Bringing a salt shaker might work for fries - because salt is typically added after they're cooked - but it won't for a bazillion other foods.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I'll pretend you are meaning the obvious: That high salt intake IS dangerous. Salt itself is fine. Salt will still be in food. Large amounts of salt will be regulated. Large amounts of salt in one meal doesnt kill you immediately, but that is not the point.

But it looks like we can get beyond the obvious fact that the FDA is designed to make regulations like this, and get to the what seems like a better point: Is high sodium proven to be harmful? After all, even though the FDA is supposed to make these type of regulations...that wouldnt apply here if high sodium wasnt deemed a risk.

Not gonna lie, not gonna scourge the net looking for links trying to prove how high sodium is harmful. I'm not a doctor, and not about to write an essay. I could throw out some links, but you could probably also throw out links to the contrary.

I thought it was just as obvious as other shit, like HFCS. After all, there is conflicting research where that is concerned as well. I'll let the FDA do that leg work. But as someone that has had a family prone to high blood pressure, and doin my own little research on the subject, I'm gonna assume that there would be enough research to allow for such a regulation. And I am all for it.

As much as everyone seems to hate HFCS, you could easily replace salt with HFCS and have the exact same thread. Just the idea of government of regulating things like this grinds some gears, and it just cracks me up. These regulations do not prevent people from eating shit...you can cook whatever you want. What it does is protect people from suffering the effects of Food producers that dont give a shit about anything but their bottom line.

Look, I'm not the salt lobby. I know the FDA can do this, I just don't want them to without good reason, which has been my stated reason from the start. As to playing study link throwdown, I ask, because, well frankly, I was rather surprised NOT to find a heavy health link. I expected to, and much of what I found is written to sound like it, but there always seemed to be a caveat (pre-existing conditions, sodium sensitive indiviuals). But again, maybe my Googlefu is lacking today.

But I just don't think you see the same thread for HFCS, because it was meant to replace something already in food. A ban or regulation of HFCS would more than likely just cause companies to start going back to sugar again.

I just hold personal freedoms and responsibilities way higher that the Governments desire to do good, where this is clearly a loaded decision to be sure. FDA regulation, fine, but it should make sense and meet some modicum of necessity. This might make sense, but I question the necessity. With HFCS it makes a helluva lot of sense and there is a necessity given the atrocious lack of non-HFCS products.

...though Mountain Dew with HFCS tastes better than with sugar (Pepsi though is the other way around)...