Support NeoGAF

[RiccochetJ]

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.​

Wohoo! When profits are in danger, science comes to the rescue!

 

[Mr. B Natural]

They are going to put less sodium in Spam, Big Macs, and Twinkies. This isn't a issue of personal liberty. Nobody is going to say you can't use salt when you cook at your house. Christ, is finding fault with government really that hard that people are trying to say this is an assault on liberty?

Won't anyone think of the corporations!? They have no means of defending themselves!

 

[nyong]

It's basically proven for some people with high blood pressure that if they reduce their sodium their BP will drop. For others there is no change to BP. Apart from this, I agree with the lack of evidence.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I love that thing where people try strawman EVERYTHING into some kind of presposterous, untenable slippery-slope argument

I agree, that's hilarious.

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

"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.

 

[way more]

Please, please, please God, let the tea partiers protest this. Imagine the crazy misspelled signs, the costumes, the allusions to nazis they will make. I'm literally looking forward to how Fox News covers this the way I anticipate a new comedy album being released. It's gonna be fun day for soft-news.

 

[numble]

I agree, that's hilarious.

He also previously posted this quote to back up his argument, before he edited it out:

I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

 

[Angry Grimace]

They are going to put less sodium in Spam, Big Macs, and Twinkies. This isn't a issue of personal liberty. Nobody is going to say you can't use salt when you cook at your house. Christ, is finding fault with government really that hard that people are trying to say this is an assault on liberty?

Because of course everyone's too stupid to not eat the entire fucking can of Spam at once, right? Can you REALLY not see the unfortunate implications of this? Really?

He also previously posted this quote to back up his argument, before he edited it out:

No, Internet Detective, I didn't put that it in to back it up, I put it in because it's kind of funny if you've seent hat movie. But I also edited it out because I correctly figured it wouldn't be long before humorless mouth-breather types got ahold of it and took it far way too far.

 

[Zophar]

I agree, that's hilarious.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[numble]

No, Internet Detective, I didn't put that it in to back it up, I put it in because it's kind of funny if you've seent hat movie. But I also edited it out because I correctly figured it wouldn't be long before humorless mouth-breather types got ahold of it and took it far way too far.

And you took offense at EmCeeGramr's post, which was clearly posted for humorous effect. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[bigmit3737]

Yes it should, but they need to be given the information to make an informed choice. I would kill for legislation that forces restaurants to have nutritional info right on the menus, and I think that is a much more elegant and smart solution than this. TBH, I have zero remorse for those who buy processed shit loaded with bad fats and salt and die at 35. The only thing that pisses me off about that is when they waste my money (I live in Canada) taking up hospital beds because they didn't give a shit.

One of the main reasons why I don't eat out.

 

[captmcblack]

Look, if you want to discuss the "randomness" or lack of correlation with use/overuse of stuff, we can make it perfectly black and white - simply existing each day is linked with death. With regards to what we eat, you can do pretty much everything and not really ruin your shit completely if you do it in moderation.

However, corporations, processed food, subsidies and profit from foodstuffs has made it virtually impossible to consume certain aspects of food in moderation at all - either what you eat is jammed with tons of things that you cannot control the amounts of since they were prepared that way already (see: sodium, fats, sugars/HFCS, preservatives, chemicals, et al), the regular things you can buy and prepare yourself have those things in large amounts in them already, or the "organic/healthy" things you can buy instead are extremely expensive relative to the regular/cheaper stuff, and people cannot afford to purchase them and control the amounts of those things.

The deck is stacked against the vast majority of non-corporate entities out there in the effort to be moderate in the consumption of those components of foods; the government is helping to make the deck less stacked without changing anything about what you can do to your body or your food.

So if you want to be the guy in the greasy spoon pondering the choice between epic ribs or a big-ass steak with your gravy fries, you still can. The only difference that would occur here is that you wouldn't have to incur 5x the daily salt intake to do it. As a guy who absolutely relishes the occasional status as "the guy in the greasy spoon with the ribs and gravy fries", I am happy I'll do less damage to myself while eating that rack of ribs.

 

[Angry Grimace]

And you took offense at EmCeeGramr's post, which was clearly posted for humorous effect. Pot, meet kettle.

No, it was because he brought up the dreaded "socialist" word which would be like comparing people who oppose the idea to like tea-party types that ineffectually whine about Government action as automatically being socialism (when that isn't the case at all).

I'm simply saying I don't think that's a valid comparison; because there are a lot of holes in the argument that, "we should just reduce the amount of sodium in everything because we think it's not good." There's a vast difference between expanding health care for Americans and mandating the contents of food.

I simply think this misses the point entirely; people eating far, far too much; but it's people's right to so do if they want. There's no concrete link between overall health and sodium.

 

[Cyan]

Damn it, this thread made me eat a bag of Fritos.

Now I feel like crap.

 

[SapientWolf]

Look, if you want to discuss the "randomness" or lack of correlation with use/overuse of stuff, we can make it perfectly black and white - simply existing each day is linked with death. With regards to what we eat, you can do pretty much everything and not really ruin your shit completely if you do it in moderation.

However, corporations, processed food, subsidies and profit from foodstuffs has made it virtually impossible to consume certain aspects of food in moderation at all - either what you eat is jammed with tons of things that you cannot control the amounts of since they were prepared that way already (see: sodium, fats, sugars/HFCS, preservatives, chemicals, et al), the regular things you can buy and prepare yourself have those things in large amounts in them already, or the "organic/healthy" things you can buy instead are extremely expensive relative to the regular/cheaper stuff, and people cannot afford to purchase them and control the amounts of those things.

The deck is stacked against the vast majority of non-corporate entities out there in the effort to be moderate in the consumption of those components of foods; the government is helping to make the deck less stacked without changing anything about what you can do to your body or your food.

That argument doesn't hold up. Natural food is cheap, plentiful and healthy. You can get 10 pounds of potatoes for the same price as a large order of fries at a fast food restaurant. It just doesn't taste as good as the processed stuff unless you take the time to prepare it properly.

 

[Angry Grimace]

That argument doesn't hold up. Natural food is cheap, plentiful and healthy. You can get 10 pounds of potatoes for the same price as a large order of fries at a fast food restaurant. It just doesn't taste as good as the processed stuff unless you take the time to prepare it properly.

Fun Fact; potatoes naturally contain a type of poison which causes weakness and confusion.

If you've ever grown your own, this is why you have to "hill" the tubers (mound dirt); because sunlight causes the tubers to produce more of the substance and make them inedible.

 

[daw840]

That argument doesn't hold up. Natural food is cheap, plentiful and healthy. You can get 10 pounds of potatoes for the same price as a large order of fries at a fast food restaurant. It just doesn't taste as good as the processed stuff unless you take the time to prepare it properly.

And whats even more humorous, is that preparing it properly so it tastes delicious involves lots of butter, sour cream, bacon, and *gasp* SALT!

 

[Angry Grimace]

And whats even more humorous, is that preparing it properly so it tastes delicious involves lots of butter, sour cream, bacon, and *gasp* SALT!

Well, I guess you could make an argument that if all food tasted bad, people wouldn't eat so much of it.

 

[captmcblack]

That argument doesn't hold up. Natural food is cheap, plentiful and healthy. You can get 10 pounds of potatoes for the same price as a large order of fries at a fast food restaurant. It just doesn't taste as good as the processed stuff unless you take the time to prepare it properly.

Yes, you can buy a bag of potatoes much cheaper than McDonald's fries. And those potatoes (despite whatever fertilizers/pesticides/et al are used to cultivate them) are healthier. But the organic potatoes that do

But what about meats? Dairy? Grains/breads? These aren't things that are easy to cultivate yourself, and they aren't cheaper than their processed counterparts, either from McDonalds or Ore-Ida/Tyson/Perdue.

 

[Mudkips]

However, corporations, processed food, subsidies and profit from foodstuffs has made it virtually impossible to consume certain aspects of food in moderation at all - either what you eat is jammed with tons of things that you cannot control the amounts of since they were prepared that way already (see: sodium, fats, sugars/HFCS, preservatives, chemicals, et al), the regular things you can buy and prepare yourself have those things in large amounts in them already, or the "organic/healthy" things you can buy instead are extremely expensive relative to the regular/cheaper stuff, and people cannot afford to purchase them and control the amounts of those things.

The deck is stacked against the vast majority of non-corporate entities out there in the effort to be moderate in the consumption of those components of foods; the government is helping to make the deck less stacked without changing anything about what you can do to your body or your food.

I can go to my local Albertsons supermarket and buy virtually any ingredient I need to make any meal I want. I have various options. All the ingredients are listed. I often have "natural", "organic", "local", "hormone-free", "free-range", "unbromated, unbleached" and whatever other fucking options you could want. The prices are comparable to the "chemically-processed" versions. Anyone can do the same. People CHOOSE what to eat, and they have chosen convenient, delicious chemicals. And they have chosen them in bulk.

All food you eat is processed unless you pick it up off the ground and eat it. Washing your fresh fruit and vegetables is PROCESSING YOUR FOOD. The term "processed food" is being turned into yet another fucking bogeyman. Your pasteurized milk is processed. It has kept you from getting endless bacterial infections from dairy products. Your culture-of-choice has processed its meats with spices to hide the rancid taste of rot due to not having refrigerators. Food processing is done to ensure the safety and quality of food.

The FDA already actively regulates what chemicals and processing techniques can and can't be used, or must be labeled, based on science showing those chemicals to have negative health effects.

 

[Ecrofirt]

I honestly can't believe that so many of you people are OK with this.

When does it stop? When you allow your government to do shit like this, it only sets precedent for them to continue taking away more and more things.

 

[Shanadeus]

It's basically proven for some people with high blood pressure that if they reduce their sodium their BP will drop. For others there is no change to BP. Apart from this, I agree with the lack of evidence.

And I doubt that the reduction of sodium on certain food items with extremely high sodium contents will reduce the amount of sodium these people with high blood pressure to below the minimum limit.

Most adults already consume more than twice the daily recommended limit, would it really be that bad or even dangerous if this number could decrease to maybe just 1.5 times more than the recommended amount?

"We're working on it voluntarily already," said Melissa Musiker, senior manager of science policy, nutrition and health at the Grocery Manufacturers Association. In recent months, Conagra, Pepsico, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Sara Lee and others have announced that they would reduce sodium in many of their products. Pepsico has developed a new shape for sodium chloride crystals that the company hopes will allow it to reduce salt by 25 percent in its Lay's Classic potato chips.

I think that the total decrease during this 10-year period will end up at 25% as well, which I'm pretty sure won't endanger people with high blood pressure - and I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that more people would benefit from this move than get hurt.

And if this move prove to be effective at reducing the amount of sodium the average consumer eat to more safe limits, then they should definitely expand this to sugar, fat and preservatives/colour agents.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I can go to my local Albertsons supermarket and buy virtually any ingredient I need to make any meal I want. I have various options. All the ingredients are listed. I often have "natural", "organic", "local", "hormone-free", "free-range", "unbromated, unbleached" and whatever other fucking options you could want. The prices are comparable to the "chemically-processed" versions. Anyone can do the same. People CHOOSE what to eat, and they have chosen convenient, delicious chemicals. And they have chosen them in bulk.

All food you eat is processed unless you pick it up off the ground and eat it. Washing your fresh fruit and vegetables is PROCESSING YOUR FOOD. The term "processed food" is being turned into yet another fucking bogeyman. Your pasteurized milk is processed. It has kept you from getting endless bacterial infections from dairy products. Your culture-of-choice has processed its meats with spices to hide the rancid taste of rot due to not having refrigerators. Food processing is done to ensure the safety and quality of food.

The FDA already actively regulates what chemicals and processing techniques can and can't be used, or must be labeled, based on science showing those chemicals to have negative health effects.

Well said.

It just sounds to me like all the arguments FOR this make it sound like there's no choice involved in what you eat, as though it's a Hobson's choice between McDonalds or starving to death. If I'm going to go eat a shitty meal, I budget that into what I eat for a day. That's called taking responsibility for myself.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

David Kessler: Fat, Salt and Sugar Alter Brain Chemistry, Make Us Eat Junk Food

He went in the middle of the night, long after the last employee had locked up the Chili's Grill and Bar. He'd steer his car around the back, check to make sure no one was around and then quietly approach the dumpster.

If anyone noticed the man foraging through the trash, they would have assumed he was a vagrant. Except he was wearing black dress slacks and padded gardening gloves. "I'm surprised he didn't wear a tie," his wife said dryly.

The high-octane career path of David A. Kessler, the Harvard-trained doctor, lawyer, medical school dean and former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration had come to this: nocturnal dumpster diving. Sometimes, he would just reach in. Other times, he would climb in.

It took many of these forays until Kessler emerged with his prize: ingredient labels affixed to empty cardboard boxes that spelled out the fats, salt and sugar used to make the Southwestern Eggrolls, Boneless Shanghai Wings and other dishes served by the nation's second-largest restaurant chain.

Kessler was on a mission to understand a problem that has vexed him since childhood: why he can't resist certain foods.

His resulting theory, described in his new book, "The End of Overeating," is startling. Foods high in fat, salt and sugar alter the brain's chemistry in ways that compel people to overeat. "Much of the scientific research around overeating has been physiology -- what's going on in our body," he said. "The real question is what's going on in our brain."

The ingredient labels gave Kessler information the restaurant chain declined to provide when he asked for it. At the FDA, Kessler pushed through nutritional labels on foods sold through retail outlets but stopped short of requiring the same for restaurants. Yet if suppliers ship across state lines, as suppliers for Chili's do, the ingredients must be printed on the box. That is what led Kessler, one of the nation's leading public health figures, to hang around dumpsters across California.

The labels showed the foods were bathed in salt, fat and sugars, beyond what a diner might expect by reading the menu, Kessler said. The ingredient list for Southwestern Eggrolls mentioned salt eight different times; sugars showed up five times. The "egg rolls," which are deep-fried in fat, contain chicken that has been chopped up like meatloaf to give it a "melt in the mouth" quality that also makes it faster to eat. By the time a diner has finished this appetizer, she has consumed 910 calories, 57 grams of fat and 1,960 milligrams of sodium.

Instead of satisfying hunger, the salt-fat-sugar combination will stimulate that diner's brain to crave more, Kessler said. For many, the come-on offered by Lay's Potato Chips -- "Betcha can't eat just one" -- is scientifically accurate. And the food industry manipulates this neurological response, designing foods to induce people to eat more than they should or even want, Kessler found.

His theory, born out in a growing body of scientific research, has implications not just for the increasing number of Americans struggling with obesity but for health providers and policymakers.

"The challenge is how do we explain to America what's going on -- how do we break through and help people understand how their brains have been captured?" he said.

Kessler is best remembered for his investigation of the tobacco industry and attempts to place it under federal regulation while he was FDA commissioner from 1990 to 1997. Although he was appointed by George H.W. Bush, Kessler became popular among Democrats for his tough regulatory stance. He got the nickname "Eliot Knessler" after he authorized the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota to seize a large quantity of Citrus Hill Fresh Choice orange juice in 1991 because it was labeled "fresh" when it was, in fact, partially processed. After he was elected in 1992, President Bill Clinton asked Kessler to continue to run the FDA.

Kessler's aggressive approach toward the tobacco industry led to billion-dollar settlements between Big Tobacco and 46 states and laid the groundwork for legislation now pending in Congress that would place tobacco under FDA regulation.

Kessler, 57, sees parallels between the tobacco and food industries. Both are manipulating consumer behavior to sell products that can harm health, he said.

Rest of the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602711.html

while I am generally leery of gubbament intervention, the reality is that as our societies grow faster in pace, fast foods and processed foods have taken a leading role in our lives and diets, where we are eating out somewhere between 20-30 times per month on average. these businesses have known for decades that the more salt, fat and sugar they put in their foods, the more they can sell. Irrespective of the long term effects. It's all about short-term profit and keeping an edge on the competition, and salty and sugary stuff maximizes those efforts. ultimately, this measure doesn't take anything away from us and, in my opinion, gives us a choice in the matter, where large corps had almost all the say before.

I'd rather see these industries regulate themselves, but I think we saw how well that works on Wall Street (and its collapse). Competing for the dollar will eventually, gradually forsake the consumers. better to have a reasonable, safe amount and add more than have too much to begin with and have to find a way to scrape it off. and as we all know, salt in processed food can't be removed at all. we've no choice.

This approach is also better than a tax, because taxes simply get passed on to the consumers who will still buy because they're addicted to it.

Considering how the last several months (arguably years) have highlighted the ever increasing American waistline, poor diets, and poor weight....including

a few

major threads

here over

recent

times, I don't see the reason why we'd generally object.

Good discipline and good regulation are essential tools. But as everyone who has smoked know...things with addictive properties sometimes require an extra nudge.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

according to my anectdotal data, my supermarket has food that's like labeled "organic" (i think) and it's sorta the same price as the cheap stuff if i remember correctly, therefore all low income people and families in America can buy and cook three square organic meals every day

 

[Cubsfan23]

now for the salt content in soft drinks

why the fuck do sweet softdrinks contain so much fucken salt??

I will tell you why... to make you even more thirsty and drink more!!!!

regulate that shit please

uh softdrinks have low sodium

 

[Angry Grimace]

David Kessler: Fat, Salt and Sugar Alter Brain Chemistry, Make Us Eat Junk Food

Rest of the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602711.html

while I am generally leery of gubbament intervention, the reality is that as our societies grow faster in pace, fast foods and processed foods have taken a leading role in our lives and diets, where we are eating out somewhere between 20-30 times per month on average. these businesses have known for decades that the more salt, fat and sugar they put in their foods, the more they can sell. Irrespective of the long term effects. It's all about short-term profit and keeping an edge on the competition, and salty and sugary stuff maximizes those efforts. ultimately, this measure doesn't take anything away from us and, in my opinion, gives us a choice in the matter, where large corps had almost all the say before.

I'd rather see these industries regulate themselves, but I think we saw how well that works on Wall Street (and its collapse). Competing for the dollar will eventually, gradually forsake the consumers. better to have a reasonable, safe amount and add more than have too much to begin with and have to find a way to scrape it off. and as we all know, salt in processed food can't be removed at all. we've no choice.

This approach is also better than a tax, because taxes simply get passed on to the consumers who will still buy because they're addicted to it.

Considering how the last several months (arguably years) have highlighted the ever increasing American waistline, poor diets, and poor weight....including

a few

major threads

here over

recent

times, I don't see the reason why we'd generally object.

Good discipline and good regulation are essential tools. But as everyone who has smoked know...things with addictive properties sometimes require an extra nudge.

Food and tobacco aren't necessarily comparable, and especially not in the context in which that guy suggests; that it's some kind of secret conspiracy to hide the "addictive" nature of unhealthy foods.

 

[Angry Grimace]

according to my anectdotal data, my supermarket has food that's like labeled "organic" (i think) and it's sorta the same price as the cheap stuff if i remember correctly, therefore all low income people and families in America can buy and cook three square organic meals every day

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=20313657

There's really no substantial merit to the argument that low income familes are required to eat bad food. If you've got some evidence of that, I'll listen to it.

 

[numble]

according to my anectdotal data, my supermarket has food that's like labeled "organic" (i think) and it's sorta the same price as the cheap stuff if i remember correctly, therefore all low income people and families in America can buy and cook three square organic meals every day

Seriously. This (the opening of a supermarket) was a big story in downtown Los Angeles several years ago, and it only occurred because the area was gentrifying:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/342809/ralphs_opens_a_market_in_downtown_los.html?cat=46

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-19-2007/0004628883&EDATE=

 

[Cubsfan23]

:lol :lol @ the people saying government should butt out when at least half of the fucking country is overweight or obese. You can't say they are meddling when shit is becoming an epidemic, literally.

 

[jamesinclair]

I almost bought canned corn last week.

IT WAS LIKE A CAN FULL OF SALT! IT WAS MADNESS! How do people consume that????

The frozen corn was 2x more expensive, but 100% natural.


I dont know how I feel about this. What the FDA should do first is make massive changes to the recommendations and labels.

When one cereal lists a serving size of 1 cup, and another lists a serving size of 3/4 of a cup, shit is fucked up.

The percentages are also fucked up.

And finally, "less than 1g" should not be a fucking classification. You know what is less than 1g? A SHITLAOD OF mgs!!!!

 

[Cubsfan23]

I honestly can't believe that so many of you people are OK with this.

When does it stop? When you allow your government to do shit like this, it only sets precedent for them to continue taking away more and more things.

salt is disappearing from grocery stores?

 

[Ryu]

/salute

I will miss you 2000mg+ sodium enriched chicken burrito!

 

[CrayzeeCarl]

I almost bought canned corn last week.

IT WAS LIKE A CAN FULL OF SALT! IT WAS MADNESS! How do people consume that????

The frozen corn was 2x more expensive, but 100% natural.


I dont know how I feel about this. What the FDA should do first is make massive changes to the recommendations and labels.

When one cereal lists a serving size of 1 cup, and another lists a serving size of 3/4 of a cup, shit is fucked up.

The percentages are also fucked up.

And finally, "less than 1g" should not be a fucking classification. You know what is less than 1g? A SHITLAOD OF mgs!!!!

Agreed on all points. Serving sizes are usually WAY too small, in general.

 

[captmcblack]

I can go to my local Albertsons supermarket and buy virtually any ingredient I need to make any meal I want because I can afford it. I have various options because I can afford it. All the ingredients are listed, even though most average people won't be able to discern the countless different ways these corporations name certain undesireable ingredients. I often have "natural", "organic", "local", "hormone-free", "free-range", "unbromated, unbleached" and whatever other fucking options you could want. The prices are higher than the "chemically-processed" versions, but I'm willing to pay more because I can afford to do so. Anyone can do the same, provided they can afford to do so. People who can afford it CHOOSE what to eat, and they have chosen the infinitely more widely available convenient, delicious chemicals - especially the poor/working poor, who cannot afford to buy/prepare/eat the more expensive choices. And they have chosen them in bulk because they are cheaper, more convenient and more delicious by chemical design.

All food you eat is processed unless you pick it up off the ground and eat it. Washing your fresh fruit and vegetables is PROCESSING YOUR FOOD. The term "processed food" is being turned into yet another fucking bogeyman. Your pasteurized milk is processed. It has kept you from getting endless bacterial infections from dairy products. Your culture-of-choice has processed its meats with spices to hide the rancid taste of rot due to not having refrigerators. Food processing is done to ensure the safety and quality of food.

The FDA already actively regulates what chemicals and processing techniques can and can't be used, or must be labeled, based on science showing those chemicals to have negative health effects.

I fixed this posting.
The whole "processed food" thing is more about things like McNuggets made out of a highly emulsified chicken paste, or Kraft Macaroni and Cheese dinners and Chef Boyardee Raviolis and tv dinners made with high fat and salt and shit like that than it is your milk from the grocery store. Anyway, again - choice is not, and will never be the issue here. There is always choice, and the government isn't taking it away either.

Like I said, you can eat:
1. affordable stuff that is crammed full of shit (fast food, packaged snacks, sugary beverages, et al)
2. more expensive stuff that has less shit than McDonalds, but still has too much shit in it (Stouffer's, Wonder Bread, Oscar Meyer hot dogs, Ore-Ida potatoes, Tyson chicken, et al)
3. much more expensive stuff that has much less shit but is of course more expensive than the average person in this country can afford.

The gov't is leveling the playing field; if the companies won't make option 3 cheaper for people to get, they are going to make laws that improve the content of options 1 and 2, especially since options 1 and 2 are the things that are most widely available, most heavily advertised and most often the most affordable.

Also, anyone in this thread that argues that people are being forced/required/made to do anything or is losing the "choice" to do anything is a toolbag, lol

 

[Divvy]

They really should be regulating sugar and corn syrup instead.

Though I appreciate the effort.

 

[water_wendi]

Salt is a good start. Next should be sugar, tobacco and alcohol. Internet and videogames if the government is serious about health.

 

[hockeypuck]

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

(link lifted from another forum)

The quote by Dr. Alderman is from 2000. Many reviews have been published since then. The Cochrane Database published at least three meta-analyses since then. Their latest I can find supports the idea of reduced salt intake having a modest population effect in reducing heart disease, stroke, etc. The measured effects are actually quite minimal, but taken over the longer term the authors state this actually reduced adverse events. I initially was skeptical since results from past individual studies have been so different, but overall I think this will actually produce noticeable improvements in Americans' health.

There is no research that shows a causal relationship between salt intake and heart disease (or any other widespread health problem).

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.

At your age the kidneys will filter out all the excess sodium. No biggie. As you age the blood pressure will trend upwards if you are not careful. What are the two biggest reasons for renal failure? Diabetes and hypertension. What's first-line medical therapy for hypertension? Hydrochlorothiazide. How does that work? Blocks the sodium chloride symporter on the distal convoluted tubule. You have to be a fool to think that sodium is completely blameless in the disease realm of hypertension.

I wouldn't be surprised if a third of our generation, by the way it eats, eventually ends up on dialysis machines by age 60. Fuck that shit. I'll be glad to operate on fistulas and transplant kidneys, but it'll be one depressing day if I myself have to connect to a machine three times a week.

 

[CharlieDigital]

They really should be regulating sugar and corn syrup instead.

Though I appreciate the effort.

Low hanging fruit first. Sugar and HFCS is a long, protracted battle.

 

[Cubsfan23]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=20313657

There's really no substantial merit to the argument that low income familes are required to eat bad food. If you've got some evidence of that, I'll listen to it.

poor families do have worse diets, don't know how you can argue against that.....just check out the nutrition facts on taco bell's value menu.......

 

[Diablos]

Impressive.

As others have said, this should be done with sugars as well -- specifically HFCS. But that'll be a blood bath; the corn syrup lobby will no doubt make it a bitter fight 'till the end.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Americans are less willing to pay more for healthy dishes, less knowledgeable about healthy menu items, and more likely to consider healthy items bland-tasting than they were three years ago, finds a Temple University analysis. "

Interesting how that general opinion is proportional to the reality we have today. healthy items appear more bland tasting than they were 3 years ago because the industry is making today's food so much more salty than they did 3 years ago.

If we rewound back to the 60's, would we find what they considered pretty well-seasoned food bland? I wonder just how off-balance our taste buds have become, secondary to the rapid increase of salt in our general diets.

"Seven out of 10 U.S. adults get 2.3 times the healthy amount of salt. It's putting us in a world of hurt, says Darwin Labarthe, MD, PhD, director of the CDC's division for heart disease and stroke prevention.

"This is a very important message," Labarthe tells WebMD. "There is no room for debate any longer that a high level of salt causes stroke and heart disease, and that lowering salt intake will diminish these very serious health consequences."

When you eat salt, your blood pressure goes up. And high blood pressure dramatically increases your risk of heart disease and stroke. Recent studies definitively show that people who eat too much salt significantly increase their risk of stroke and heart disease.

This isn't exactly news. Ancient Chinese manuscripts describe a link between salt intake and high blood pressure. Yet over the last two decades, Americans' salt intake has gone up and up.

Where's all that salt coming from? No, it's neither the salt shaker on the table nor the box of salt next to the stove.

"Most of the salt in our diet comes from processed and manufactured foods," Labarthe says. "Only a small fraction comes from salt added to food at the table or to home cooking."

The American Heart Association says up to 75% of our sodium intake comes from processed foods such as tomato sauce, soup, condiments, canned foods, and prepared mixes."

http://www.webmd.com/heart/news/20090326/too-much-salt-hurting-two-thirds-of-americans

Then again, maybe Americans just don't care and would rather just die.

Regardless, GAF, make sure at least YOU are educated on the facts. And remember when looking at the labels that you have to multiply the Sodium content by 2.5 to get the actual amount, as Sodium is just a part of salt.

Damn it...I wish industry would just agree to reduce salt to reasonable levels across the board. But since it sells, they'll keep doing it.

Moreover:

It's no accident that salt and sugar permeate the nation's food supply. Both are inexpensive palate-pleasers, and food manufacturers use them liberally to satisfy our penchant for things salty and sweet. Today the average American consumes nearly twice the recommended maximum of sodium and nearly 460 nutritionally empty calories of added sugar every day.

Overindulging those particular taste buds can have serious health consequences. A high-sodium diet not only increases the risk of high blood pressure--and subsequent heart attack, kidney disease, and stroke--but possibly also osteoporosis and kidney stones (by increasing the excretion of calcium into the urine), stomach cancer (by damaging the protective mucus membrane), and asthma (by making lungs more susceptible to irritants). And all those sugar calories probably contribute to our expanding waistlines.

Unfortunately, consuming less salt and sugar isn't easy. Three-quarters of the sodium in our diet comes from processed, packaged, and prepared foods; even products that don't taste salty, such as breads and other baked goods, often contain large amounts. And many apparently nutritious foods pack far more of the sweet stuff than you'd expect.

http://www.consumerreports.org/heal...your-diet-1-08/overview/salt-and-sugar-ov.htm

Now go look at your average bottle of Seasoned Salt. I'm looking at Lawry's Seasoned Salt right now.

Sodium (per serving) 380mg. 380mg x 2.5 = 950mg of salt.

How much is a serving, according to Lawry's? 1/4 of a teaspoon! You're getting almost half of your daily recommended amount with 1/4 of a teaspoon of Seasoned Salt. That's before factoring in the amount of salt in the rest of your meal. processed food? canned veggies? bread? butter? cereal? random snack? we're probably hitting our recommended max before noon every day. and many of those things listed we don't have much of any control over.

so again, I see and appreciate this FDA effort, as it will arrest our general health and ability to add more salt away from these corporations who have a vested interest in our coming back...and put it back in our hands to choose.

hopefully, corn syrup is next.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=20313657

There's really no substantial merit to the argument that low income familes are required to eat bad food. If you've got some evidence of that, I'll listen to it.

*sees it's ripclawe's 50000th "poor people are scum" thread*

yeah okay


millions of americans have to choose each month between eating and paying the bills: http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-2010/hunger-report-2010.aspx

These people usually work all day just to keep afloat and otherwise have no time to cook or go shopping. The food that these organizations are provided with comes from donations from major food corporations and retailers, and that food has to comply with FDA regulations. It's also, notably, tons of non-perishables, meaning this stuff isn't fresh organic produce. These people aren't going to just turn it down.

37 million Americans go to food banks to get food. Are you telling me that these people aren't more likely to jump on the cheapest dollar meal at a fast food place more often to feed their families? That they're not buying bulk amounts of food that's easy to eat but unhealthy in the long run?

 

[daw840]

poor families do have worse diets, don't know how you can argue against that.....just check out the nutrition facts on taco bell's value menu.......

LOL, then why go to taco bell? You can do more with a sack of potatoes, for less money, than you could at Taco Bell. Cooking meals at home is far cheaper.

 

[Nert]

I vastly prefer taxes as a mechanism for this kind of stuff than regulatory bans. You determine the net societal "cost" to society from salt, or carbon emissions, or cigarettes, or whatever, that isn't already captured in the marketplace, and you levy a tax to make the marketplace price reflect the societal price. This alters behavior much more naturally while still preserving personal freedoms, and it eliminates room for politically based exceptions (in this case, the pickle example has been brought up a lot). Instead of corporations focusing on how to find loopholes or whatever to just barely comply with the regulation, it becomes more cost effective to shift production towards something else.

 

[Futureman]

One thing I'll say is that people who mainly buy processed foods are the ones who don't know/care how healthy their food is. So to go on and on about how "healthy food is available, and it's actually cheap!"... it doesn't really matter. They aren't going to search it out and take the time to prepare it if they don't care. Whatever is fast is what they will gravitate towards (processed foods/take out).

What the Institute of Medicine is recommending here is slowly lowering the sodium content in processed and restaurant foods. It would be done over a period of years so most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.

What's the big deal there? If you are going to scream "THEY TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE"... Well no. You can still go to the grocery store and make whatever you wish. Why not shift the convenience in our society to something that is actually good for us? Why not turn the tables and make healthy food easier to obtain?

Right now it's cheap and fast to eat bad food. Why not make it cheap and fast to eat good (or at least better) food?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Food and tobacco aren't necessarily comparable, and especially not in the context in which that guy suggests; that it's some kind of secret conspiracy to hide the "addictive" nature of unhealthy foods.

the point, my friend, is that salt and sugar are addictive, for reasons already presented. the brain is hard-wired to seek them out and have always been because it's a necessity for our survival...but it's been exploited to our detriment.

I see this regulation as helping put the ball back in our court. when 70% of Americans are stuck eating more salt than the recommend amounts and we have record levels of health problems among our citizenry, defending the industry is....I find it an untenable position.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

One thing I'll say is that people who mainly buy processed foods are the ones who don't know/care how healthy their food is. So to go on and on about how "healthy food is available, and it's actually cheap!"... it doesn't really matter. They aren't going to search it out and take the time to prepare it if they don't care. Whatever is fast is what they will gravitate towards (processed foods/take out).

What the Institute of Medicine is recommending here is slowly lowering the sodium content in processed and restaurant foods. It would be done over a period of years so most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.

What's the big deal there? If you are going to scream "THEY TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE"... Well no. You can still go to the grocery store and make whatever you wish. Why not shift the convenience in our society to something that is actually good for us? Why not turn the tables and make healthy food easier to obtain?

Right now it's cheap and fast to eat bad food. Why not make it cheap and fast to eat good (or at least better) food?

there is no big deal. just people looking for a reason to fight something making a mountain out of a mole hill. this will help people, help our general health and well being, reduce our healthcare burden and costs across the board, while not doing anything to hurt our actual enjoyment of food because of its slow implementation.

 

[FleckSplat]

unsaltedpopcorn.gif

 

[daw840]

unsaltedpopcorn.gif

:lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Angry Grimace]

poor families do have worse diets, don't know how you can argue against that.....just check out the nutrition facts on taco bell's value menu.......

Except that wasn't the point at all; the point is that poor people don't HAVE to go to Taco Bell, that's an incorrect assumption on your part.

I don't think it's the Government's job to legislate whether poor people eat shit food or not; that's up to the people themselves. There are alternatives available and saying otherwise is being willfully ignorant.