-
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
CharlieDigital
Banned
dojokun said:
The fucking invisible hand of the government is going to smack your hand down when you reach for that salt shaker and you know it. They're going to force salt producers to reduce the sodium content in salt...how does that make any fucking sense? You can't even put ingest more sodium if you want to!
Yes, but you're simply reacting to one sentence that does not even lean either for or against regulation of pickles, a question posed by a reporter with no link to a policymaker's statement, and reacting as if they've already created the exemption and are extremely hypocritical for doing so and are catering to some political constituency.Gaborn said:
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
GAF: Knowing What's Best for Poor People.FlightOfHeaven said:
Amory
Member
CharlieDigital said:
Sure you can. That's not really what I'm saying though. Too much sodium in your diet is bad and can lead to adverse health conditions. Fine, that's true, even though I personally don't keep much of a tab on my salt intake. I'd much prefer to see individuals monitoring their own daily levels of sodium, the same as they should with carbs, calories, fats, etc., rather than expanding government and trying to do it for them. Nutrition facts are available.
Then again, the whole "personal responsibility" argument, at least when it comes to eating, went to shit as Americans have continued to get fatter and fatter.
I'm not about to get all up in arms about this, because honestly no one will even notice the change except the manufacturers of the products themselves. It's more the principle of the thing.
ColtraineGF
Member
From reading the article, it seems that the whole 'pickle' issue is something raised by the author.
I think that the author was searching for an example of a naturally occurring food that contains salt, and decided on pickle, thinking of it in the same way as a cucumber, without realizing that a pickle can be defined as a processed food because it is created.
The whole "Policymakers have to decide" was the author's quote, not that of someone working with the bill.
Of course, it may be my own comprehension, so feel free to correct me on this.
I think that the author was searching for an example of a naturally occurring food that contains salt, and decided on pickle, thinking of it in the same way as a cucumber, without realizing that a pickle can be defined as a processed food because it is created.
The whole "Policymakers have to decide" was the author's quote, not that of someone working with the bill.
Of course, it may be my own comprehension, so feel free to correct me on this.
CharlieDigital
Banned
dojokun said:
And you're more American for it.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
mAcOdIn said:
Taxing salt would force the food industry to either put less salt into their products, sell their products at a higher price without changing the salt content, or find some cheaper alternatives.
This gives corporations much more flexibility than just putting a strict limit on how much salt can go into each of their products.
It also allows consumers who really, really like eating salty shit to eat it at a higher cost. Thus, consumers aren't robbed of their freedom to eat unhealthy crap.
In the meantime, it also provides the government with revenue and incentivizes lower salt intake.
You get it now?
CharlieDigital
Banned
Taxing salt would likely end up going through different governmental channels (Congress) since it would involve the creation of a new tax. It may not be a realistic option.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
I think I'm pretty much with Goya on this one, but whether that's possible or not I do not know (thinking of Charlies post above).
Also, have you guys ever looked at the Nutrition Facts on Cup O'Noodles or that other popular Korean brand? (The Korean one comes in a bowl).
Well a Cup O'Noodles is like 54% of your daily recommended salt intake. INSANE! And the Korean one, I forget the actual percentage, but it's a high percentage. But the tricky part is, if you pay attention to the serving size for the Korean one, it says a serving size is HALF A PACK. WHO EATS HALF A PACK!?!?! So multiply the sodium by two and that's what you'll get if you eat it.
Well a Cup O'Noodles is like 54% of your daily recommended salt intake. INSANE! And the Korean one, I forget the actual percentage, but it's a high percentage. But the tricky part is, if you pay attention to the serving size for the Korean one, it says a serving size is HALF A PACK. WHO EATS HALF A PACK!?!?! So multiply the sodium by two and that's what you'll get if you eat it.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Gaborn said:
I'm reacting to how you continually said that they had already exempted salty foods.
Gaborn said:
Are you saying that they shouldn't weigh costs and benefits and figure out which is the best way to cut health risks while not damaging businesses? If they manage to cut a significant amount of harmful salt from diets while exempting certain foods, then what is the problem? They've achieved their goal. You oddly seem to believe that it's a war against the concept of salt, instead of an act to mitigate its health effects.
CharlieDigital
Banned
dojokun said:
Maybe those wimpy Asians and Koreans. We're fucking Americans; all-in or get off the boat.
CharlieDigital
Banned
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
CharlieDigital said:
This is slightly related I suppose. I guess ten years or so back they banned oil based paints. My father works as a painter and says it really hurt the quality of paints pretty badly, and you can't get the same look or durability you can with oil based paints. He went so far as to stock up on it for personal use. Oil based paint is pretty terrible for the environment, so it's for the greater good, but it was frustrating for a lot of people. This is a similar situation.
While I tend to be against any controlling regulation, I realize that the reality of the situation is that stuff like this is going to get through. This particular law mostly benefits me because I don't like high sodium levels, but it does bother me greatly on a more philosophical level.
EmCeeGramr said:
As I mentioned above I'm reacting to the suggestion. My first post on the subject in this thread was to ask supporters of the proposed legislation if they favored or opposed the idea suggested by the article to exempt a "naturally salty" food like a pickle.
I have several problems with this.
1. of course, in the interest of full disclosure I'm generally against regulation of food.
2. In this specific case if they were to exempt some salty foods and "target" other foods some people could be inclined to eat higher quantities of the exempt foods in the BELIEF that they're either covered under the law or NOT an issue.
3. I think that it's clear this IS a war on the "concept of salt" from the perspective that salt is perceived as unhealthy, the problem being that some foods we DON'T think of as salty are saltier than we think, and some foods we DO think of as salty AREN'T as salty as we might assume. This is all ultimately about what people perceive as risky and not risky because THAT more than anything will be what drives consumer choice.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Eh. If this was something about an initiative to reduce sugar and HFCS in foods, I would support it wholeheartedly, but of course, THAT will never happen.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/04/20/the-war-on-salt-goes-national/
(link lifted from another forum)
An alternative to salt? I laugh at thee! So how's that tax on cigarettes working towards stopping smoking? Where's the healthy cigarette alternative? So far, all it's done is raise the prices of cigarettes.Goya said:
You know, regulation is a funny thing, they could perhaps have "fines" for excessive salt that'd be essentially the same as a "tax," they could even still allow high salt foods where no alternative exists, because if that food is as healthy as can be, what can you do right?
It's just real funny you know, it always comes down to freedom and the consumer really isn't free either fucking way. Like, if I want a non HFCS coke I have to import it from Mexico, yay freedom, but then if that Mexican wants a HFCS Coke they have to import it from the States, the irony! So really, the consumers freedom has always been limited to a corporation's whim, you're as free as a company decides you are. I'll make no bones about it, if you taxed salt, or regulate it you're tipping the scale of "freedom" towards people who want less sodium, but don't pretend that people who want less sodium now are as free as people who want more sodium are now, one of those groups has a hell of a lot more "choice" than the other.
If you asked me which should be more prevalent I'd say the one that's overall healthier, if someone's choices are going to be limited it should side on the side of health. Essentially all anyone knows is that the FDA is going to do something to regulate Sodium. That's essentially all we know, and yet people are already assuming it'll be done in the most Draconian way possible.
Still don't get the difference between regulation and a tax. I mean it's all unfair to someone, the only thing a tax means is that if you have enough money you're still a-ok, but I guess that's the nature of America.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Think of this as a first step; low hanging fruit.
I think government can set an example by starting with the food served in public schools, since public schools are the government's domain. Burgers/Fries/Hot dogs should be taken out of the menu and replaced with salads and other healthy alternatives. Instead of going straight to the private sector, government should worry about setting an example within their own domain first.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
Just wanted to drop in and say that I love posting on a forum where the regulation and legislation around salt content in food is worth more discussion than the latest Iron Man 2 trailer.
What an awesome place.
Totally serious. :lol
What an awesome place.
Totally serious. :lol
gutter_trash
Banned
Salt, Fructose, Ass-pertame, HFCS and Serbitol should all be heavily regulated and limited
the fattening of the West has exploded since Nixon with the replacedmedn of Sugar for subtitues like Fructose, HFCS
European contries now getting more of this junk in recenlty are also facing a fattening of the youth... places that did not used to have chain Fast Food franchise everyhwere and now have em everywhere are seeing ass-plosion of obesity on the rice
the Industrial-Food-Complexe a criminal mafia cartel is trying to globalise and profit of off everyone the most they can.. a powerful entitiy, a powerful lobby
and yeah, these evils should be heavily regulated. without regulation, you will get more fat, more cancer, more heart disease, more ass problems and all sort of shit and the literal sense
the fattening of the West has exploded since Nixon with the replacedmedn of Sugar for subtitues like Fructose, HFCS
European contries now getting more of this junk in recenlty are also facing a fattening of the youth... places that did not used to have chain Fast Food franchise everyhwere and now have em everywhere are seeing ass-plosion of obesity on the rice
the Industrial-Food-Complexe a criminal mafia cartel is trying to globalise and profit of off everyone the most they can.. a powerful entitiy, a powerful lobby
and yeah, these evils should be heavily regulated. without regulation, you will get more fat, more cancer, more heart disease, more ass problems and all sort of shit and the literal sense
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
Gaborn said:
Doah >.< I didn't catch that. I was just looking at the pickles inside the picture. Ok, you have a point. Damn I hate how the idea that a serving size is something a toddler would eat
nyong said:
Sodium is vital for the survival of the human body, so there's a definite middle-ground that should be targeted.
Also, doesn't drinking craploads of water lower blood sodium? Shouldn't that factor in to how much sodium you should limit yourself per day?
And for the side debate, regulating HFCS is not even remotely necessary. Just remove the damn corn subsidies so it is no longer the cheapest source of calories out there, and companies will cut it out on their own.
CharlieDigital
Banned
ToxicAdam said:
<img src="internet-fistbump.jpg" />
The amazing thing is how much our diets have changed in the last say 80 years as processed and frozen foods started taking off in the early 20th century. We've only observed the effects of this dietary shift for what? Two or three generations now? And by all accounts, it hasn't been good.
Jamesfrom818
Banned
RubxQub said:
GAF will argue about anything.
Yaweee said:
The article says that the effects of a "reduced sodium" diet are unknown, and that government action cannot be justified on a scientific basis. For instance, not everyone with high blood-pressure is affected by sodium intake, and the mechanisms for why this is are unknown. So it's silly to prescribe this as a universal solution, especially given the counter-studies which show that a reduction in sodium is HARMFUL to other people.
I agree with removing corn subsidies, but not on the grounds that HFC is "poison" or anything such thing.
KiNeSiS said:
Salt is not a heavy metal.
Salt does not bioaccumulate.
Salt does not leech into the environment over the years.
There is no research that shows a causal relationship between salt intake and heart disease (or any other widespread health problem).
Even if it was proven that X amount of salt does Y, it is not the government's place to regulate how much salt can go into food product Z.
The government can (and already does) force producers to indicate how much salt is in their product.
Here are some fucking facts about salt:
You can control your salt intake by choosing to eat or not eat salty things.
Salt is required if you want to live.
Salt makes your food delicious.
All you "health" nuts who eat no/little meat? You fuckers need more added salt than the rest of us.
This fucker knows what's up.
"Salt lick" on Google images turns up some NSFW results
If you regulate salt consumption down significantly, you'll just get a bunch of depressed fatties with iodine deficiency. (They'll be depressed because their food is shittier now.)
You need 862.5 mg of iodized salt to get the RDA of 150 micrograms of iodine.
The vast majority of all dietary sources of iodine comes from the added salt in processing and preparation.
While the RDA of 3000 mg of salt seems to have the iodine covered, remember that most of the salt content in food is not iodized.
This guy? Size of a basketball.
+
=
Fuck yeah.
I always get looks or "omg so much salt!" when people see me add salt to things. It's salted to deliciousness. Taste it. Am I wrong? (No.) People using a pinch of salt or just a couple of shakes and then being disappointed by the taste are doing it wrong. Salt in cooking is a direct addition to the food but salt added after cooking? It's like Plinko. Most of the salt just falls down to the plate.
Only a small fraction of those two salt packets above actually stays on my fries.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
mAcOdIn said:
Raising the price of salty food is the goal. It incentivizes lower salt intake.
Also, firms work miracles in the long-run when one of their inputs of production has suffered a permanent price increase. Just because we haven't seen a suitable cigarette alternative does not mean we would not eventually see a suitable salt "alternative" -- even if that just means making food products tasty in other ways besides salting them up.
mAcOdIn said:
Look, let's not distort the truth here.
Alternative 1: No regulation, no tax.
--Level of freedom: people can eat whatever the fuck they want
Alternative 2: Regulation
--Level of freedom: people cannot eat food products with salt level above X
Alternative 3: Tax
--Level of freedom: people can eat food products with salt level above X if they pay $y more dollars
So when we talk about which policy affords more freedom, it is clearly 1 > 3 > 2
Since 3 and 2 basically have the same outcomes (lowering country's total salt intake), but 3 affords more freedom than 2, and we generally agree more freedom is a good thing, then 3 is clearly the better choice.
Also, 3 also gives the government more revenue. It can channel that revenue to launch a propaganda campaign against the dangers of salt if it so desires. You sort of forgot about that part.
SouthernDragon
Member
nyong said:
While this is true, salt won't be entirely missing from these foods; there will just be less. Is that so bad?
nyong said:
There seems to be a middle ground for salt intake that varies from person to person. This regulation eliminates the upper extremes of consumption.
Nothing against you, these posts just caught my eye.
- Status