FDA to limit amout of salt..

[SteamWake]

In processed foods.

On one hand its probably not a bad idea to reduce the amount of sodium found in alot of processed foods. Many soups and other things I just wont eat because there too damn salty.. See there I made a decision on my own to not eat them ;)

On the other hand would the Federal Goverment please stop telling me what is 'good' for me !

Just another layer of control.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041905049_pf.html

[August]

Personally I wish they'd ban salt in processed food altogether. I can always add salt if I wish but I can't take it out if it comes like that.

[XabbaRus]

Well sometimes people need to be saved from themselves.

I try to heat healthuly, ie balanced diet. I have a weakness for chocolate but I try to limit it.

The thing is I see these fat huge people, who just stuff themselves and eat **** food and then complain they are fat.

So for the sake of society if people can't look after themselves then the government has to intervene. Not ideal, but like I said, some people need to be saved from themselves.

[Wolfehunter]

So for the sake of society if people can't look after themselves then the government has to intervene. Not ideal, but like I said, some people need to be saved from themselves.I disagree

I say if someone wants to jump off a cliff then let them go...

[tater]

I tend to be in the camp of not regulating stuff like that. If people want to be stupid, let them.

OTOH, I am pretty convinced the primary reason for the explosion of obesity is diet. We have friends who are both slim. Heck, athletic, actually. They are very well off, so it is not one of those arguments you hear that poor people cannot afford good food. here's the thing, the wife doesn't cook. She has a huge (600 square foot?) gourmet kitchen, and her ginormus SubZero fridge (36" fridge next to a 36" freezer) is filled with open and reheat crap from costco.

I do much of our grown up cooking, because I like to. Yeah, we feed the kids fish sticks, or boxed mac and cheese sometimes, but for the most part everything starts out as raw food. Veggies, meat, and sometimes a starch. I use stuff that's "bad for you," too. Like I use plenty of salt, and plenty of butter at times (far more olive oil than butter, but when I use butter, I use butter). Rarely I make sauces with cream, too. Thing is I make decent portions, and the kids usually eat what we eat (I save the fish sticks, pizza, etc for when I might make something "challenging" for a 3 and 6 year old—but we still make them try it first.

Course now that we have more people on the healthcare dole, I might change my mind. People who are wards of the State don't deserve freedom to eat what they want. If I pay for their healthcare, then I should have a say in what they eat, right? Why should I pay for diabetes care for morbidly obese kids, for example? Maybe all fatty pre-made food should be forced to have a very high price point point. Even restaurants.

;) <——

[Camaero]

I disagree

I say if someone wants to jump off a cliff then let them go...

I would agree... but with Medicare and Obamacare heh... now everyone will have to pay for the poor diets of others. :yeah:

[Platapus]

Well this FDA program won't infringe on anyone's right to put as much salt on their food as they like. So keep that salt shaker loaded up and have at it!

Last time I looked every restaurant and fast food joint had salt there for the customer.

Personally, I like the option of choosing how much salt my food has. Since We can't count on the industry to give us this choice, we are, once again, forced to turn to the government.

If only the industry would self-regulate, we would not have to have such programs. Corporations don't give a crap about the health of the consumer. :nope:

By reducing the amount of sodium in processed foods, it gives greater freedom to the consumer to determine how much sodium (in the form of salt) their food has. What could be wrong with giving the customer a choice?

[Dowly]

Personally I wish they'd ban salt in processed food altogether. I can always add salt if I wish but I can't take it out if it comes like that.

This.

[Zachstar]

If you dont like just add your own salt. Sea Salt is much better anyway.

And yes its another layer of control but I 100 percent agree because people rely on that crap far too much and its going to really tax the healthcare system in the future.

I LOVE salt. I have to have a high fluid intake to compensate for the amount of salt I use on rice or beef or other items. It sits right there on the table. Its a buck for a plastic shaker at the dollar store or any grocery. Common folks!

[Flopper]

This.

I've notice that every time i eat in a restaurant that doesn't serve sashimi, later on that night I'm parched. I've put together that restaurant's use a lot of... SALT. I won't be ordering the clam chowder at one of my local fave's because... way too salty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge salt fan. I like to wash it down with tequila almost every night.

So two things. I really don't like the gov't telling anyone how much salt to use (I'll decide whether or not to get the clam chowder, if you don't mind). And I wish they wouldn't use so much salt.

[SteamWake]

Not so simple..

Make me a loaf of bread without salt ;)

[CaptainHaplo]

The FDA can regulate all kinds of things because they are "unhealthy". However - here is my take on this.

They are regulating publicly sold products - not telling individual people that they cannot use salt all they want. However - while I can see legal authority to do it - I also see it as a slippery slope, since once they regulate how things can be processed - they then can regulate what is sold.

Is it a big deal? Not to me. Yet I can understand the concern. Ultimately one has to ask the following question on anything like this: Is this part of the Government's defined role?

The answer to that is no..... thus its a bad idea.

*If anyone can show me where in the constitution it says its the job of the government to protect people from themselves, do so.

[tater]

I've notice that every time i eat in a restaurant that doesn't serve sashimi, later on that night I'm parched. I've put together that restaurant's use a lot of... SALT. I won't be ordering the clam chowder at one of my local fave's because... way too salty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge salt fan. I like to wash it down with tequila almost every night.

So two things. I really don't like the gov't telling anyone how much salt to use (I'll decide whether or not to get the clam chowder, if you don't mind). And I wish they wouldn't use so much salt.

There is a reason why professionally prepared food tastes good—I'm talking real, serious restaurants here. Proper use of salt is WAY up there. Read Keller's recipes (French Laundry). Loads of salt. It was my understanding that the relationship between salt and hypertension is less than straightforward, too. BTW, they've done studies, and when people salt their own food, they use far MORE salt than when it is prepared properly for them. Not a little more, a LOT more. So again, ban salting prepared food, and it will be salted by the customer, and likely salted MORE. WTG government!?!

[SteamWake]

The spice must flow... :|\\

[Platapus]

Not so simple..

Make me a loaf of bread without salt ;)


http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,164,155165-243202,00.html

http://www.razzledazzlerecipes.com/bread-machine-recipes/crusty-salt-free-bread.htm

http://www.bigoven.com/48632-Salt-Free-White-Bread-recipe.html

It has been done. :)

[August]

(I'll decide whether or not to get the clam chowder, if you don't mind)

Just curious, How do you propose to make that decision before you get the chowder? Menus aren't exactly known for listing sodium levels.

[August]

I don't give a crap about any slippery slope arguments, I just want my fast food to be a lot less salty. Instead of an outright ban i'd settle for the ability to order salt free versions.

[krashkart]

Solution: grow our own food.

Will that ever happen? :har:

[Platapus]

Solution: grow our own food.

Will that ever happen? :har:

I don't know about growing my own food, but we have a pretty good system of Farmer's Markets in my area that we use. I had actually forgotten what real food tasted like. :yep:

This year we will be buying a meat grinder and making the food for our dogs, instead of buying "raw" food products.

[SteamWake]

Oh crap I just realized... no more ramen noodles.. :yawn:

[August]

I don't know about growing my own food, but we have a pretty good system of Farmer's Markets in my area that we use. I had actually forgotten what real food tasted like. :yep:

Farmers markets FTW.:up:

Just last Thursday Fine Farms plowed their first field. So that means on my way to work for the next few months I get to drive to drive by the corn that I'll be eventually be eating with my dinner.

I likes my corn on the cob I do. :yep:

[Zachstar]

Thinking about getting back into gardening myself. I read that you can use 3 percent Hydrogen peroxide (Ones without stabilizers) to deal with root rot because it degrades into water and oxygen and the free oxygen dissolves dead roots while giving oxygen to weak ones. Cool stuff!

[breadcatcher101]

Well I don't like the idea of the goverment controlling what we can and can't eat.

I agree with August that some fast foods, especially fries, are a lot of times too salty. I had rather salt my own to my taste.

Mostly I cook my own food these days. I fry using coconut oil. When I prepare hash brown potatoes I find I don't even need butter using coconut oil, and very little salt.

[August]

Oh crap I just realized... no more ramen noodles.. :yawn:

That crap will kill you Steam.

[tater]

I don't give a crap about any slippery slope arguments, I just want my fast food to be a lot less salty. Instead of an outright ban i'd settle for the ability to order salt free versions.

It should not be legislated. If there is a market for low-sodium versions, then let the market decide.

My solution is to avoid fast food. Actually, I get different food that is also fast, just not industrial.

The chorizo burritos at this little stand near the airport... he makes it right there (short order) in a few seconds, and it is so much better than any chain fast food... damn, might go there for lunch.

[frau kaleun]

*If anyone can show me where in the constitution it says its the job of the government to protect people from themselves, do so.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Emphasis mine. I guess it all comes down to how you define "promote the general Welfare."

BTW I assume it would not be raised as an issue amongst intelligent, thoughtful people such as frequent these forums - however, just in case, "general Welfare" in this context refers to the well-being of the citizenry and not some government entitlement program about which one may have strong opinions one way or the other. :O:

[August]

...then let the market decide.

Bad idea, because the market goes out of it's way to hide such things. They'll put two pop tarts in a package then base the nutrition info on one pop tart for example or they'll call something low fat but all of it is saturated.

If it's unhealthy then I don't want it added in the first place or I want clear and stringent label warnings like those on cigarettes.

[tater]

Bad idea, because the market goes out of it's way to hide such things. They'll put two pop tarts in a package then base the nutrition info on one pop tart for example or they'll call something low fat but all of it is saturated.

If it's unhealthy then I don't want it added in the first place or I want clear and stringent label warnings like those on cigarettes.

No one is forcing you to eat that crap.

You just said it tells you it's one pop tart, even though a package is too. If you can't multiply by 2, the pop tart is the least of your* problem (*not YOU, but some person at large :) )

The nutrition info is already there. The fast food joints have the same information on the wall as a poster, too. That's more than enough.

Really, this is not for people who care about their health, this is presumably an idea to protect the idiots who don't care, can't read, etc, right? ANyone that cares avoids this sort of food, anyway.

So you'll get less salt, but just as much fat, etc? Or an salt, and they'll add more sugar, or whatever to make it sell. It's insane. Caveat f-ing emptor.

[VipertheSniper]

You know I often eat out with friends and it wasn't only once that when I said: "there's way too much salt in that", they replied "I don't know what you're talking about, it's just fine". I know it's only anecdotal evidence, but I think some people have problems tasting salt, to an extent where they don't notice it eventhough I can taste nothing but salt anymore. And I'm challenged too in that regard because I'm a smoker, but I can still taste if there's too much salt in a dish.

Maybe it's not bad that they're regulating the amount of sodium in processed foods. I mean when all you eat uses too much salt, I guess everything that's salted a normal amount will taste bland, so you salt until it's at the level you're accustomed to.

[August]

You just said it tells you it's one pop tart, even though a package is too. If you can't multiply by 2, the pop tart is the least of your* problem (*not YOU, but some person at large :) )

My point was they're sneaky about it. Most people are going to figure it's a single portion.

Caveat f-ing emptor.

So you see nothing wrong with restaurants adding say ground glass to their food then? I hear it's a real taste enhancer. That should be popular with the idiots...

[August]

I mean when all you eat uses too much salt, I guess everything that's salted a normal amount will taste bland, so you salt until it's at the level you're accustomed to.

Exactly...

[tater]

Here's an example. MSG.

All kinds of asian restaurants advertise that they no longer use MSG. Should it be banned, instead? As it turns out, the claims of headaches, etc, have been debunked in studies.

WRT salt, the hypertension-salt link is not robust as I recall. Studies go back and forth. Thousands of them, and have yet to be really conclusive. They don't even have a certain mechanism for the claims.

There are some people who hate cilantro, for example. Turns out they have some physical taste issue that makes them hate it (they say it tastes soapy—I'm in the "loves cilantro" camp, myself). Salt may be similar (why not?). Some people—unrelated to the habit of eating salty food—might have to use more to get a response, others might be hypersensitive.

Why should a food producer have to target—by law—on set vs another?

[krashkart]

If the government wants to tell the industries how to help us survive a few years more, by all means let them do so. The industries won't do it on their own initiative, and sure as hell they won't listen to us. Some of those food processors used to grind rats, rat droppings and whatever else into their products. Is there any reason for us to trust them at all without some measure of government oversight?

I don't see this move as another way for the government to control us as a people; it is a move to regulate how much salt goes into processed foods.

[tater]

krashkart, where is the definitive proof of a link between salt and hypertension?

Not saying there isn't, but in many thousands of studies, it's still not the least certain.

[August]

krashkart, where is the definitive proof of a link between salt and hypertension?

Not saying there isn't, but in many thousands of studies, it's still not the least certain.

That's not the only health risk with an increased salt intake. From Wiki:


Evidence supports the link between excess salt consumption and a number of conditions including:

Heartburn.

Osteoporosis: One report shows that a high salt diet does reduce bone density in women. Yet "While high salt intakes have been associated with detrimental effects on bone health, there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions."

Gastric cancer (stomach cancer) is associated with high levels of sodium, "but the evidence does not generally relate to foods typically consumed in the UK." However, in Japan, salt consumption is higher.

Hypertension (high blood pressure): "Since 1994, the evidence of an association between dietary salt intakes and blood pressure has increased. The data have been consistent in various study populations and across the age range in adults."A large scale study from 2007 has shown that people with high-normal blood pressure who significantly reduced the amount of salt in their diet decreased their chances of developing cardiovascular disease by 25% over the following 10 to 15 years. Their risk of dying from cardiovascular disease decreased by 20%.

Left ventricular hypertrophy (cardiac enlargement): "Evidence suggests that high salt intake causes left ventricular hypertrophy, a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease, independently of blood pressure effects." "…there is accumulating evidence that high salt intake predicts left ventricular hypertrophy. " Excessive salt (sodium) intake, combined with an inadequate intake of water, can cause hypernatremia. It can exacerbate renal disease.

Edema (BE: oedema): A decrease in salt intake has been suggested to treat edema (fluid retention).

Duodenal ulcers and gastric ulcers

Death: Ingestion of large amounts of salt in a short time (about 1 g per kg of body weight) can be fatal. Salt solutions have been used in ancient China as a method of suicide (especially by the nobility, since salt was quite valuable). Deaths have also resulted from attempted use of salt solutions as emetics, forced salt intake, and accidental confusion of salt with sugar in child food.

[krashkart]

krashkart, where is the definitive proof of a link between salt and hypertension?

Not saying there isn't, but in many thousands of studies, it's still not the least certain.

I never mentioned anything about hypertension. However, it has been well established in my mind over the years that too much salt is bad for us. :)

[Platapus]

It should not be legislated. If there is a market for low-sodium versions, then let the market decide.


That won't work as the food manufacturers can make more profit by filling the foods with all sorts of chemicals. In theory, everyone could forgo going to burger joints but in reality, that is not gonna happen.

Besides I feel a lost less safe entrusting my health to corporations than to governments. If I have to choose between two evils, I will lean toward government. I don't trust corporations further than I can throw em. :nope:

Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle if you want to see how much corporations care about the customer

[CaptainHaplo]

promote the general Welfare

Pro-mote

–verb (used with object),-mot·ed, -mot·ing. 1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc.
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.
Pro-tect

–verb (used with object) 1. to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.
2. Economics. to guard (the industry or an industry of a nation) from foreign competition by imposing import duties.
3. to provide funds for the payment of (a draft, note, etc.).

(Source - Dictionary.com)

Provide means to encourage a specific behavior - which is "behavioral taxes" on things like cigarettes meant to encourage - by price - people to refrain from a certain behavior - or so it is claimed. *Its really to get more money from those who they can find an excuse to tax - but thats not the point*

Protect means to defend from harm. Nowhere in the constitution does is state that government is there to PROTECT us from ourselves - it is there to ENCOURAGE us to act in certain ways it deems correct. Big difference. This action - regulation - isn't encouraging the citizenry to do anything - it is REQUIRING them - by controlling the production process - to do what government wants.

Thus its wrong.

Personally I have no issue with it - other than it violates the purpose of government.

[UnderseaLcpl]

*warning, this link has some pop-up ads, but they're not too bad*

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2005/08/31/half-baked_science?page=1


That said, everyone who wants to regulate salt can go to hell:03: Your health is your own business, not mine, and when you bring the state in you make it my business. Someone on the last page (forgot who, probably tater or Haplo) said caveat ****ing emptor. I completely agree.

Nobody has the right to dictate to me what I may and may not eat, no matter what their intentions are. My body, my choice, period. I'm a grown person with enough mental faculty to decide what is best for myself.

I use chewing tobacco. Is it harmful? Yes. Do I care? No. That's a moral choice, because it is victimless. In fact, it's even more of a moral choice because it helps support millions of workers in the tobacco industry who have families to provide for. If it weren't for government healthcare (which I don't have and will never use) it would be a perfectly moral choice for everyone. It's okay to try to convince people to stop behaviour that is harmful to themselves, but when you use state-sanctioned force, it becomes immoral by virtue of contradiction. You would use violence to prevent a person from harming himself? I laugh at the thought.

The argument of a slippery-slope has been presented and refuted, but I'll bring it up again. Regulating salt (which has already been done) is a another slip down the slope. No matter what terms the argument is presented in, you're surrendering freedom for safety. Moreover, you're surrendering the freedom of others for your own safety. At what point does this logic become ethical outside the scope of Locklean rights? Answer: It never does. In giving power to any entity for your own purposes, you're effectively giving people with agendas, just like yourself, the power to dictate your rights, and your safety. It's utter madness, and yet few see it. Today it is your job or health that is protected, and tommorrow it is whatever the people you empowered decide. It is a slippery slope.

For those of you who still consider the regulation of anything within a society to be ethical, I offer myself as a candidate for Supreme-Dictator- for-Life. My platform is that you should never have children and never marry. Such actions are proven to be detrimental to your own well-being, and as such, you should not be permitted to engage in such actions. It's for your own good, after all. I'll save you the trouble of marital difficulties and divorce and child-rearing. You'll be free of all the difficulties that come with being a sexual species. I ask only that you give me the power to enforce such a thing. Any takers? Not even the atheists who say there is no afterlife? I thought not.

There is no such thing as a risk-free lifestyle, and this is doubly true when you let other people what is and what is not in your own best interests. Take responsibility for yourself, and stop trying to pawn that responsibility off on others; they will do the same to you. If it is safety you are concerned with, you need look no further than the free market. It will address your concerns because it needs to turn a profit. Major food producers already offer a tremendous variety of low-salt low-sodium, low-whatever foods for you to choose from. They do that because people bitch about this or that ingredient or diet or whatever. Read the *******ing labels and make your own damn choices. Stop trying to make others pay for still others to choose for you.

[August]

Nobody has the right to dictate to me what I may and may not eat, no matter what their intentions are. My body, my choice, period. I'm a grown person with enough mental faculty to decide what is best for myself.

I use chewing tobacco. Is it harmful? Yes. Do I care? No. That's a moral choice, because it is victimless. In fact, it's even more of a moral choice because it helps support millions of workers in the tobacco industry who have families to provide for. If it weren't for government healthcare (which I don't have and will never use) it would be a perfectly moral choice for everyone. It's okay to try to convince people to stop behaviour that is harmful to themselves, but when you use state-sanctioned force, it becomes immoral by virtue of contradiction. You would use violence to prevent a person from harming himself? I laugh at the thought.

Nobody is stopping you from eating salt Hap. To use your tobacco analogy, we're arguing to have nicotine taken out of fast food because, not only are they putting it in everything they sell, they are putting in unsafe amounts of it. If we don't have the right to demand that then we don't have the right to demand they not put ground glass or anthrax in their products either.

[tater]

I don't eat hardly any fast, or preprocessed food. It's NOT in everything I eat, as I said I don't buy that crap.

Claiming the amount of salt is "unsafe" is untrue.

Eating one fast food meal every X days will not harm you. Too much WATER is unsafe to consume as well, should they ban water? To make the claim the food is unsafe, you need to prove harm from consuming ONE helping of the food, IMO.

If they want to put a warning on it like ciggs, that's fine. It's not ONE smoke that hurts you, but a habit of smoking MANY.

This is the nanny state concept personified, and I can't stand it. If people are too stupid to control what they CHOSE to put in their own body we're better off if they croak.

Again, you don't have to eat ANY pre-prepared food.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Nobody is stopping you from eating salt Hap. To use your tobacco analogy, we're arguing to have nicotine taken out of fast food because, not only are they putting it in everything they sell, they are putting in unsafe amounts of it. If we don't have the right to demand that then we don't have the right to demand they not put ground glass or anthrax in their products either.

I respect the hell out of you, August, but I'm not buying that line of reasoning.

The right to demand that ground glass or anthrax be banned from products is a poor comparison. Some people actually want ground glass in their products. Looking at chewing tobacco again, the stuff has ground fiberglass in it. If it didn't it, wouldn't work. Some people also want salt in their products. It isn't yours to question why, only to choose for yourself and those you are responsible for. I won't even bother mentioning the anthrax because no company would ever put that in a product. You're venturing outside the bounds of logic, there.

The market has already guaranteed that there are plenty of products for the health-conscious consumer. Choose those products if you're so concerned. Food producers aren't putting nicotine in their products, they're putting salt in them, and there are a lot of good reasons for that. People like salt. It's also an essential dietary mineral.

If people somehow decide that they no longer want salt in their food, the market will take care of it, just as it has been doing. Don't make me choose the products you favor for the sake of your convenience.

[tater]

Look at Whole Foods. The food there is significantly more expensive than other grocery stores. The place is packed, all the time. The nearby grocers have all added organic stuff, sometimes decent chunks of their stores to compete.

If people want it, it will be made available.

[Platapus]

Was the decision to put large amounts of salt in to processed foods the decision of the consumer or the decision of the producer?

I think it was the decision of the producers.

Producers load up their foods with salt, not because that is what the customer wants, but because it preserves the food and increases the profit to the producer.

Personally, I think the best solution is to

1. Label the food so that the consumer knows what he or she is buying
2. Educate the consumer to they know the risks of high levels of salt
3. Give the consumer the choice of ordering the food with different levels of salt.

[August]

Well Lcpl and Tater I've read and respect your opinions but they haven't changed mine so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still want my government to regulate how much salt can be added to fast food because the fast food industry has refused to regulate it themselves. To me this is not about taste or convenience but a health and safety issue, not to mention a medical issue given my heart condition.

Most prepared foods sold in the market ought to be healthy and nutritious. I don't mind certain items not being either of them as long as they are properly identified (like a tobacco warning) but there needs to be a much better balance between good food and the crap that an overwhelming majority of the fast food chains serve.

[tater]

I completely agree with #1 and #2.

#3 is up tot he producer, IMO. If the product doesn't meet consumer standards, they can simply choose to not eat it. Forcing the producers to change is like creating a "right" for cars to be made in my daughter's favorite color (pink), even if it negatively impacts cost or sales.

I'm at a loss as to how anyone could be in favor of forcing a business to make some specific product that they have a CHOICE to buy or not. Boggles the mind. Just don't eat the crap—I don't, and I manage to survive.

:)

[CaptainHaplo]

I still want my government to regulate how much salt can be added to fast food because the fast food industry has refused to regulate it themselves.

What regulates a product in a free market economy? Is it the industry itself? No - it is the consumer. The fact is August - every time you swing by Mickey D's and get whatever combo - your telling them with your dollars that your ok with the product they provide. So because you CHOOSE to tell them your ok with it - they are going to continue to do it. Instead of swinging by Burger King, hit Subway. Give your business to those that provide the product the way you want it - otherwise your settling for a product that you want government to change - when the majority of consumers are saying they are ok with it. Maybe alot of them are like you - doing it more for ease and convienence vs the flavor. But if that is the case - who is responsible for it? The salt is there because the consumer accepts it. This is exactly the same reasoning that Ubi doesn't have my money - and I don't have SH5.

What your saying is you want a controlled free market - one that is controlled where you want it to be - and free everywhere else. It doesn't work that way my friend.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well Lcpl and Tater I've read and respect your opinions but they haven't changed mine so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still want my government to regulate how much salt can be added to fast food because the fast food industry has refused to regulate it themselves. To me this is not about taste or convenience but a health and safety issue, not to mention a medical issue given my heart condition.

Most prepared foods sold in the market ought to be healthy and nutritious. I don't mind certain items not being either of them as long as they are properly identified (like a tobacco warning) but there needs to be a much better balance between good food and the crap that an overwhelming majority of the fast food chains serve.

But we aren't really agreeing to disagree...are we? You still want to force me to agree with your opinion by co-opting the state. You agree with my right to voice a stance, but not to express it. You want to take salt out of foods I choose to purchase, and you would favor the use of state force to make sure I can't do anything about it. That is what you're saying.

It sure would be nice if everyone had access to only clean and healthy foods in the market, wouldn't it? People who buy organic food seem to think so, but they are also idiots. They don't even know what the hell they are buying. Most of the time, they're buying either (a) chemically-grown and/or genetically-modified food with an organic label or (b) buying truly organic food that grew up in animal feces amidst parasites and viruses.

If somebody really wanted healthy and wholesome food, they'd buy genetically-modified, chemically-treated crops and meats that had been bombarded with cobalt irradiation, but that sounds a lot less healthy than "organic", doesn't it? A whole industry has grown up around that idea, and you've bought it, my friend.

Your heart condition has not escaped my notice, either. If you read the link I posted earlier, you would see that some studies indicate that too little salt can also lead to heart attacks. The truth is that nobody knows what causes most heart failures. All most medical professionals know is that increased strain on the heart increases the likelyhood of failure. Your fear of salty foods stems from a study conducted by Dr. Jeffrey Cutler, who now heads the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with a budget of nearly $3 billion. However, two seperate studies by the American Medical Association found that reducing salt in your diet has little effect on blood pressure. Nine out of ten researchers surveyed at Johns Hopkins and Stanford said that reducing salt in an average diet is meaningless. Everything you're afraid of comes from one study that congress bought that says 2,400 milligrams of salt is the proper amount for everyone, every day, despite the fact that it has since been debunked.

You're basing your decisons upon government-accepted data, and as if that weren't enough, you're trying to base my decisions upon it. Step back and look at the system you are entrusting these decisions to. How did you arrive at the conclusion that this system would decide what is best for your health? Are they so intelligent and magnanimous?

I will no more readily allow you to ban salt from my foods than I would allow you to ban apples or bacon or candy-corn. It is not your choice, and it never should be, nor should I choose for you. If it were up to me, I'd ban you from eating anything even remotely interesting or spiced. I would do that because I see the production of non-staple foods as being an inefficient and a waste of arable land. We'd all be eating the most boring food on the planet because it is efficient and I don't give a s*** about food other than the fact that it is fuel. Ever encountered that attitude before? Perhaps when you dined on an MRE?

Fortunately, I have no right to demand that of people, and neither do you, nor does anyone else. If you give that right to to the state, you'll be dining on whatever a-holes like me and anyone else with a vested interest in the production of a particular food good in very short order. In fact, you're already doing that. Anybody ever eat something with saccharine in it? You have because the price of sugar is kept artificially high by sugar-lobbyists and you don't care as long as the food tastes good. Then you pay for the sugar you don't use in the form of a subsidy because someone with enough money to lobby made the case to Washington. You pay for sugar you don't even use.

If we're going to agree to disagree, then let the free market be our agent. You can buy salt-free junk if you think that's going to help you. I'll buy whatever the hell I want for whatever reasons I deem worthy. It isn't as if we have to choose between one standard or the other. Buy your organic or salt-free food. Enforce the market for it by your purchases and opinions. Make your own decisions, and let me make mine. If I'm the idiot that that the anti-salt lobby makes me out to be, I'll die prematurely and save insurers a bundle in healthcare costs which can be better used to pay for treatable diseases.

You have been duped, my friend, by agencies that seek to take advantage of your condition. What they really want is your money, and your vote, no matter how compelling their arguments may be. They do not give a s*** about your health, and their conduct makes that apparent. If they really cared about you, they'd be falling head over heels to offer you and everyone else with medical problems with immediate aid from their own pockets, but they never do that. What they care about are votes and power and you're giving them both with your misinformed opinion.

The story of humanity is one of incentive. Even you, as an educator, must realize that. How often have you argued for the preservation of the status quo, despite the fact that US schools are falling behind? The teachers' unions argue for more funding, but will that really help? It certainly hasn't so far, depsite the fact that the US spends more per pupil than any other nation.

Neither you, nor I, are immune to the seductive pull of establishment. We want our liveleyhoods to be secure. We want security, and we look to the state to provide it; but that is not right. We're sacrificing the opportunities of others to provide for our own interests. What we should be doing is bettering ourselves by improving the lives of others through mutually beneficial transactions. That's the only system that ever work, and the only system that will ever work so long as we live in a world with finite resources.

Get back to me when you have a convincing argument for why your interests are superior to those of others. Better yet, give me a state system that's fair. I'll hold my breath.

[August]

I will no more readily allow you to ban salt from my foods than I would allow you to ban apples or bacon or candy-corn. It is not your choice, and it never should be, nor should I choose for you.

Really? you're not going to allow me? Well what are you going to do to stop me?

Get back to me when you have a convincing argument for why your interests are superior to those of others. Better yet, give me a state system that's fair. I'll hold my breath.

Don't work like that. I don't have to convince you of crap, nor you me.

[CaptainHaplo]

Really? you're not going to allow me? Well what are you going to do to stop me?

And he is saying the same thing - who are you to not allow him - or anyone else to have salt in their processed food. You get upset and challenging when someone dares to act like they limit you - yet you are ok with government limiting everyone - simply because you like this particular idea....

On a second note: both of ya play nice - this isn't a personal arguement. No reason it should escalate into one.

Also - no response to my post regarding your own complicity in the market thinking the additive of salt was ok?

[August]

And he is saying the same thing - who are you to not allow him - or anyone else to have salt in their processed food. You get upset and challenging when someone dares to act like they limit you - yet you are ok with government limiting everyone - simply because you like this particular idea....

On a second note: both of ya play nice - this isn't a personal arguement. No reason it should escalate into one.

Also - no response to my post regarding your own complicity in the market thinking the additive of salt was ok?

Hap you are completely misreading me and I believe Lcpl as well. I'm not being challenging, nor was I at all upset, and yeah I am quite ok with the government limiting the amount of salt that can be added to processed food as I am ok with you guys opposition to it.

As for my "complicity" ok sure, I was complicit as anyone else in a service industry who has 30 minutes to wolf down some fast food on the way to the next job. So what? Does it somehow mean i'm not entitled to have a pro-regulation opinion?

The bottom line here is I see health and safety regulations on fast food industry as a good thing in general and I support the governments effort to reduce their products sodium content. Period.

That of course should not indicate either my support or opposition to anything else that the government does, should do or should stop doing.

[CaptainHaplo]

Its all good August - we all I think respect each other still.

Ultimately though - Salt is one of those things that there are lots of doubts about health wise. So far - the reason you have given for supporting it is simply you think fast food is too salty. Thus - your saying you support government regulating a major segment of the service industry and food industry based purely on your taste buds - which you have to admit is highly subjective to every individual. That just seems so counter to your normal views, that its honestly confusing. Its so not consistent with most of your views that I , and I suspect Lcpl - is struggling to figure out your reasoning.

If its IS based purely on your taste buds, well - surely you can agree that your taste buds shouldn't be the basis of such a multi-billion dollar decision for every person in the country. :hmmm: :)

Maybe there are other reasons - if so then perhaps you would share them so that we could evaluate them honestly.

[UnderseaLcpl]

On a second note: both of ya play nice - this isn't a personal arguement. No reason it should escalate into one.


Oh, I don't think there's much danger of August or I going out of bounds on this one, but thanks for the reminder. I'm not really upset with August, although it can be difficult to tell from my rhetoric at times. When I get going.... I just keep going.

August may be a dirty yank:O:, but he's also a fellow American I have a great deal of respect for.


Really? you're not going to allow me? Well what are you going to do to stop me?

Besides bitch and moan on subsim? I'll probably write to my representatives (though that never seems to do much good) and make my argument to others in the hopes that they will write to their representatives (they rarely do). Other than that, there isn't a whole lot I can do until I get my law degree, and even then the odds of me changing anything significant are very low.

But I can stand up to you here. People read our discussions and contribute to them and occassionally form their own opinions and share them. Even if that's all I ever do, at least it's something.:DL


Don't work like that. I don't have to convince you of crap, nor you me.
Then stop supporting the idea of legislating my food content. I'll make my choices and you make yours. That seems like a fine system to me.

Does it somehow mean i'm not entitled to have a pro-regulation opinion?
Of course not! Regulate your own actions and decisions as much as you want. Argue for better labeling practices or express your desire for salt-free foods to the companies that make your dinner. There is a whole industry built around selling people junk they think is good for them. Just don't make me have a pro-regulation opinion by going to my government and thereby forcing me to agree with you.

[August]

Just don't make me have a pro-regulation opinion by going to my government and thereby forcing me to agree with you.

So we're back to agree to disagree. :salute:

Not to worry though, our self serving politicians will probably sniff the political winds to get an opinion of the general public mood on the issue, calculate which course of action would best serve the country, then in the end do whatever the fast food industry lobbyists want them to do.

[UnderseaLcpl]

So we're back to agree to disagree. :salute: As long as we can disagree seperately, yes.

Not to worry though, our self serving politicians will probably sniff the political winds to get an opinion of the general public mood on the issue, calculate which course of action would best serve the country, then in the end do whatever the fast food industry lobbyists want them to do.

If they do anything, it wil be a mix of all those interests and it will cost us money and/or dictate our conduct. That much is certain.

I was going to launch into a rant about socialism, but I figure we've all heard enough from me on that topic for the time being. I've also got other things to worry about. Come help us fix the Cavalla. Dive Klaxon!:woot:

[SteamWake]

You do realize this means no more Ramen Noodles :hmmm:

[tater]

Should the government ban kids football? Kids are injured badly every year. Some even die. Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis to see if playing football as a kid increases total life-span enough to offset permanent injury or death in other players?

Where does it end?

[Noren]

Well as a swedish medicine student I might come to you americans as just another socialist:

Humans are born to love sugar, fat and salt. Its very nutritious and was key to survival for mankind early on. But to much of ut leads to a number of health concerns and diseases. Remember that obesity and diabetes type 2 is a welfare-problem...we are eating ourselves to death. The extreme analogy would be that incest is forbidden, its not allowed to do that to another human - to hurt others. Likewise, there should be regulations so that families are less prone to hurting each other, from a nutritious standpoint (if you ask me, lowering taxes on healty food is the way forward).

If the people are ignorant and eat whats tasty and dont care about the rest, then I belive there should be directions from non-biased goverment institutions. I compare it to directions to a child, a child will eat and do whatever feels right for the moment, every parent recognizes this and enforces limitations. And yes, Im not removing the freedom of eating until you puke etc...merely wanting someone with authority to state the obvious.

Yes, salt is linked to hypertension. The patogenesis is that NaCl, which is normal salt, manly goes into the extracellular volume (among other things;blood) and therefore increases bloodpressure. One might argu that the kindeys then merely showel out more salt from the body but the system could be stressed and overburdened. Like lungs finally giving in to a chain smoker or the liver finally succumbing to alcoholism.

Goverment should contribute what we cant do for ourselves. When something is too good for you in the long run, which potently will make us very sick, there should be limitations.

Hmm, I wonder how I could express my conserns more without the americans claiming that Im a communist :timeout:

[August]

Where does it end?

A fair question tater, but you proponents of the slippery slope argument never ever talk about the opposite "slope".

I mean if you're completely against the regulation of additives then I guess you're also opposed to preventing a manufacturer from adding an addicting substance to hook consumers onto their product right? How about something that tastes great but has been shown to cause cancer?

If you're not completely against additive regulation then please explain how it's ok to ban one thing but not another?

[tater]

This is a response to both noren and august, with no particular organization (only having my 1st espresso right now, not thinking straight :) ).

I'm not against any regulation of food, but in the case of prepared food, I think once it is properly labeled, the government has done enough. It is then up to the consumer to avoid things they decide are dangerous to them in the quantities they chose to eat.

Soy sauce, for example, is clearly loaded with sodium. Should they be forced to only sell inauthentic, low sodium soy? If a given dish is traditionally VERY high in sodium, should it be banned or altered even though "normal" people only eat it very rarely?

Take the "fast food" talked about in this thread. I myself, almost never eat this. It can be 5X as salty as what I normally eat, but eating one Burger King meal every 6 months is not going to hurt me, regardless of the sodium level assuming that a single meal doesn't contain amounts that are dangerous alone.

How do you limit sodium then in prepared foods? Do the limits only apply to companies that serve more than X thousand meals per year, or are proper restaurants also forced to abide by these draconian restrictions? Why single out sodium and not also fat? I had a $50 steak last night, there was butter on top of it, and a demi glace, too. Guess what, if I ate that 3 meals a day I'd likely need a stent placed by my next birthday, lol. But I DON'T eat that 3 meals a day, or even 3 meals a MONTH.

So much is a function of what those that love government interference in personal liberty really hate—personal responsibility (and the consequences that come with that).

Bottom line is that if the amounts are posted on the box, why can't we assume people can make educated choices? It's not like any of this food is worth eating on a regular basis in the first place.

[CaptainHaplo]

Noren - nothing you have stated indicates your a communist. However, you do seem to put forth the proposition that government be our parent - and that does rub many "individual freedom" folks wrong. The reason here is because where does that "parenting" stop?

You specifically put it out there - " I compare it to directions to a child" but the key here is we are not talking about children - we are talking about adults. If you start saying "ok the government can regulate A, B and C" - sooner or later the government is going to be regulating (aka CONTROLLING) X, Y, Z and everything in between. Its the nature of the beast.

Now - you tried to compare incest to this regulation - and I gotta admit - this one boggles the mind. Incest is not only a physical violation of the victim, it endangers any offspring created (due to genetice) and causes severe mental harm on the victim as well. Eating salt - harms no one but the person who chooses to do it. Big difference - one is a crime against another person - the second is a personal choice with personal repercussions. How you can compare the two as anywhere near equal..... I just don't get it.

Why not focus on things like smoking - which has been proven to be a detriment to those who do not partake in the activity themselves due to second-hand smoke? Ban it - because its harmful to more than the user. Oh wait - government makes money off tobacoo - thats why.... Alcohol use is the same type of thing - sure you can drink yourself silly and not harm anyone - but if you become a chronic alcoholic you cause harm to family and friends - and god forbid you get drunk and drive - oh but government makes money off alcohol sales too, so we can't mess with it too much. Salt on the other hand - harms no one but those who choose to ingest it in copious amounts - but since government doesn't tax salt - they need to "control" how much the populace gets, regardless.

This isn't about what is good for people - its about governmental control. Consider it from that perspective - and then look at the double standards government continually applies to those things that it controls and makes money from - vs those it regulates and has no revenue stream from.

August - the same applies for your question. Tobacco companies did exactly what you describe - they created an addictive and harmful product and got millions hooked. Should that be regulated - sure. It is - since government makes more on a pack of smokes than the producer because of taxes. The difference is manyfold though. Salt is not addictive - so you can't use that as a reason to regulate it. Its harmful? Sure - in excess it is - but so is any amount of food. So to use that argument - instead of regulating salt - they should be regulating all the food and its portions. Sorry - your not allowed to buy more than 1 sandwich - the goverment said so since it determined thats all you should be allowed to buy or else you might get fatm which is unhealthy - Thank you, drive thru. Not to mention, the bad side of salt is actually in much more debate than what most people realize. That doesn't mean you - as an individual - should not be responsible in how much you choose to eat of it. But it falls to you the person in that case. Thus we end up back on the flavor issue - and thats one you can have an impact on - by not choosing to use those outlets that oversalt according to your own tastebuds. Its not like fast food is all we are talking here either. Produced foods mean all the stuff you buy at the grocer - your canned vegetables like peas, corn, green beans, etc. Yet once again - in most stores - low or no sodium/salt varients exist.

What a person does - as long as it harms no one else - should not (under most circumstances) be controlled by the government. The question for you August - is if you have a choice - why do you think its ok for the government to take away the choice you don't care for - from everyone else?

[Aramike]

Here's my take, and I believe there is one thing that everyone here is overlooking.

That thing is that the FDA is NOT AN ELECTED BODY OF REPRESENTATIVES! They are planning on imposing regulations without any accountability (someone earlier mentioned legislation, and this is not that).

My next issue is that I believe completely in disclosure, but not at all in complete regulation of a product which can be completely healthy (unlike the aforementioned example of ground glass and arsenic).

Furthermore, even if there's too much sodium in your fast food combo, that single meal will not be dangerously detrimental to one's health. It is the repeated and consistant intake of high sodium products that leads to problems. So no, sodium does not need to be regulated like, say, arsenic.

The fact is that anyone who eats fast food on a consistant enough basis that their health would benefit from such a regulation has more problems than just sodium intake. If people can't regulate themselves, that's THEIR problem - there is no good reason to impose such regulations on everyone.

[Platapus]

That thing is that the FDA is NOT AN ELECTED BODY OF REPRESENTATIVES! They are planning on imposing regulations without any accountability (someone earlier mentioned legislation, and this is not that).




I am afraid, you do not understand how the Executive Branch works nor do you understand Administrative Law.

May I, respectfully, suggest reading some of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or the Federal Register (FR)?

[nikimcbee]

So when are they going to wipe my nose for me? I think they need gubmint inspectors to check to make sure that my nose has been properly wiped and the snot recycled in a sustainable, green, eco-friendly way, blah,blah,blah

[Aramike]

I am afraid, you do not understand how the Executive Branch works nor do you understand Administrative Law.

May I, respectfully, suggest reading some of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or the Federal Register (FR)?How do I not understand it?

I understand the process completely. I disagree with it.

[Platapus]

Your comments were more in line with someone who did not understand Administrative Law, than one who disagreed with it.

If you do disagree with it, that's great. You are entitled to your opinion.

But don't expect any changes in Administrative Law. :nope:

[CaptainHaplo]

I think the point was that the FDA is not directly accountable to the people, but rather is a governmental department that has layers of accountability, ending with elected officials that do answer to us. Thus, regulation means that the people regulating it - do not answer to the people and thus there is a concern over them telling people what they can and cannot do without direct oversight.

[Aramike]

I think the point was that the FDA is not directly accountable to the people, but rather is a governmental department that has layers of accountability, ending with elected officials that do answer to us. Thus, regulation means that the people regulating it - do not answer to the people and thus there is a concern over them telling people what they can and cannot do without direct oversight.Precisely. :salute:

[tater]

When the fast food is deemed by the masses to be less tasty, and they are forced to close shops, all those people without jobs will LOVE YOU, too.

WTF, who cares, they were forcing people to eat salty food. Bastards!

[Aramike]

When the fast food is deemed by the masses to be less tasty, and they are forced to close shops, all those people without jobs will LOVE YOU, too.

WTF, who cares, they were forcing people to eat salty food. Bastards!I hate to take the other side on this, and your point is well-recieved, but I highly doubt that fast food would take enough of a hit on this to shut down shops.

However, we are in agreement on principle.

Let's take a couple scenarios, shall we?

First is that fast food joints are required to limit sodium on a per-item basis. All of a sudden, say Hardees can no longer create the triple-decker 8 slices of bacon burger. Now, does ANYONE in their right mind think that such a product would be healthy?

Of course not.

But people like, say, me, who watches their blood pressure and cholesterol closely and spends an hour in the gym 4 days a week, will not be able to indulge upon something that, quite frankly, sounds amazing to me.

I mean really - should we also regulate sundaes and banana splits?

Realistically, if salt is deemed unhealthy and therefore regulated, why stop there? People like myself, who live relatively healthy lifestyles, will no longer be able to indulge themselves anywhere, should such a regulation become chic.

Now let's look at another scenario, with a quote straight from the article linked in this thread's initial post:Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification. Umm, REALLY? Social engineering, anyone?

Look, I agree with quite a few of you that it would be nice for sodium levels to be lowered, except that I figured out years ago that I need only avoid regularly purchasing items of high sodium to keep my personal consumption down. I can only suggest that everyone who is worried about the effects of high sodium take stock and avoid concentrating their diet on items that are apt to contain such levels ... rather than attempting to limit the sodium content of items that some of us (who watch their diets) can intake on any one serving.

I'm sorry, but regulations designed to accomodate those who are undisciplined enough to recognize that fast food in regular, consistant doses are unnecessary.

[August]

People like myself, who live relatively healthy lifestyles, will no longer be able to indulge themselves anywhere, should such a regulation become chic.

A couple of points here Mike.

First you're arguing against details of law that hasn't even been written yet. You really can't really say what would be allowed, banned, or just restricted.

Second even under the most draconian of bans, which would be unlikely to ever pass against the lobbying of the fast food industry, nobody would stop you from making such an artery clogger at home.

[tater]

Again, I see this as a needless interference in business.

Want to encourage something? Don't ban the opposite, encourage what you want. Offer a corporate tax break to companies for offering low-sodium alternatives to some % of their menu or product line.

If a company choses not to, so be it.

[CaptainHaplo]

I will ask it again...

The question for you August - is if you have a choice - why do you think its ok for the government to take away the choice you don't care for - from everyone else?

[August]

I will ask it again...

The question for you August - is if you have a choice - why do you think its ok for the government to take away the choice you don't care for - from everyone else?

Well I thought I had answered that before (in post 51) but I don't see regulating sodium content in fast foods as taking away anyones choice. You can always add more salt yourself. On the other hand your position totally eliminates my choice because I cannot take the sodium out once it has been added.

If my impression of your position is incorrect then please explain how you would ever be forced to eat low sodium food.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Again, I see this as a needless interference in business.

Want to encourage something? Don't ban the opposite, encourage what you want. Offer a corporate tax break to companies for offering low-sodium alternatives to some % of their menu or product line.

If a company choses not to, so be it.


That's also a needless interference in business. How about not taxing or subsidizing corporations at all and letting the market work? If you give a tax-break to one industry, it's not only morally wrong (favoritism) but it also messes with the mechanisms of supply and demand, making the economy less efficient.

Prices and consumption are as-close-to-perfect-as-you're-ever-gonna-get mechanisms for transmitting information. They automatically identify what a good is worth and reconcile it with what people are willing to pay because multitudes of individuals are capable of making effective cost-benefit analysis decisions, even if they don't know what that means.

Corn-ethanol is one of my favorite examples of government interference completely ruining part of the economy, with widespread ramifications. Corn-ethanol is an expensive and land-intensive fuel to produce. The industry exists solely because legislation encouraged it. Now we all have to pay more for gas than we would otherwise have to to support a garbage industry that has been shown to do more harm than good. We also have to pay the taxes (or borrow the money) to subsidize it so it can keep not working. The auto industry has had to completely revamp its entire business strategy to produce flex-fuel vehicles, and we also pay more for those. There is no other choice, you have to pay more.

So what are we left with? A massive fleet of vehicles that squander the agricultural wealth of the US for something utterly worthless. That's actually not so bad, considering that countries with starving people are suffering severe food shortages since they can no longer afford the artificially-inflated price of US agricultural products, and charities cannot afford to give them away.

It's good for the corn lobby, though. Eco-tards, lobbyists, and politicians can rest assured that their actions have secured their own welfare for the time being. I'm sure they're also lining up to provide aid to those they have disadvantaged.

In all fairness, I should probably use one of my least-favorite examples of legislation damaging the economy. There are several, but I think I'll use the textile industry example. There was a time when the US textile industry was vibrant and powerful. It provided many jobs, but most of them were crappy by today's standards. Capitalism worked its magic, and the industry became far more efficient as workers were replaced by machines, and workers who built those machines, and engineers who designed those machines, and so on and so forth. This whole process caused a lot of people to lose their jobs, so they banded together to protest "unfair" trade practices. I don't see anything unfair about providing a job to some impoverished girl in China working in a textile mill with hopes of attaining a better life through her efforts, but the US textile industry does. They try to control every freaking aspect of garment production you can possibly imagine through legislation by usage of import limits and regulation. The rules for importing a simple T-shirt into the US are simply mind-boggling. You'd have to be a very expensive attorney to even understand them.

It isn't a matter of encouraging an industry, it's a matter of giving an easy-out to those who can't compete, and who should not compete. The US has long since surpassed the need for a textile industry, just as it has the need for a steel industry, or an automotive industry, and soon, an electronics industry. There's no problem with having a cost-efficient industry, but there is a huge problem with trying to maintain an industry that doesn't pull its weight.

A healthy economy needs to be able to shed dead-weight and grow into new sectors. It needs entrepeneurship and innovative creativity to fuel that growth. Is there not already ample evidence of the free-market creating more jobs than it destroys? Does it not better the standards of living for every nation that embraces it?

[tater]

Well I thought I had answered that before (in post 51) but I don't see regulating sodium content in fast foods as taking away anyones choice. You can always add more salt yourself. On the other hand your position totally eliminates my choice because I cannot take the sodium out once it has been added.

If my impression of your position is incorrect then please explain how you would ever be forced to eat low sodium food.

You can't take the fat out, either. Fat free ice cream for everyone! You can always dump cream on top!

Sorry, but this is not the place for government. If an individual serving is immediately damaging to health, you have an argument for regulation. Eat one dose of spoiled food and you get acutely sick. Regulate that. Eat some poison in food, and you are poisoned. It's not like that burger contains an LD50 of salt, lol.

Real controls I'd like to see on healthy foods? People getting government assistance should not be allowed to use foodstamps, etc, to buy unhealthy food. No preprocessed food purchases at all with EBT cards. Buy beans, rice, fruits, veggies, meat. Those people by definition are also going to have gov healthcare. Anyone who is a subject of the State in that way doesn't have the right to do with their own body as they please. They get fat, and WE have to pay for their care. Take medicaid/medicare, and you SHOULD lose control over what you do or eat.

;)

[August]

YEat one dose of spoiled food and you get acutely sick. Regulate that. Eat some poison in food, and you are poisoned. It's not like that burger contains an LD50 of salt, lol.

Real controls I'd like to see on healthy foods? People getting government assistance should not be allowed to use foodstamps, etc, to buy unhealthy food. No preprocessed food purchases at all with EBT cards. Buy beans, rice, fruits, veggies, meat. Those people by definition are also going to have gov healthcare. Anyone who is a subject of the State in that way doesn't have the right to do with their own body as they please. They get fat, and WE have to pay for their care. Take medicaid/medicare, and you SHOULD lose control over what you do or eat.

;)

So actually you're not opposed to government regulation, you just favor a lesser degree of it.

Or in the words of Captain Jack Sparrow: "Ah-ha! So, we've established my proposal as sound in principle. Now, we're just haggling over price."

[tater]

So actually you're not opposed to government regulation, you just favor a lesser degree of it.

Yes. I'm fine with it being illegal to put, say poison in food. Zero tolerance for rat poison in french fries. Salt? Unless the single item in question contains an unhealthy dose—meaning ONE dose causes sickness—then it's not a problem that needs regulation.

The LD50 for salt in a rat is 3000mg/kg. So for an adult male human, that's 210 grams of salt in a single serving. LOL

I'm fine with not allowing half a pound of salt in my quarter pounder.

That said, since lethal doses will not happen, let the market decide for anything that is healthy/required to eat in some quantity. Rat poison is NEVER valuable to humans. Salt IS.

[August]

That said, since lethal doses will not happen, let the market decide for anything that is healthy/required to eat in some quantity. Rat poison is NEVER valuable to humans. Salt IS.

There are doses of rat poison that won't cause immediate sickness as well.

As for rat poison never being valuable to humans check out Warfarin. It's a rat poison AND a treatment for thrombosis and embolism.

[tater]

There are doses of rat poison that won't cause immediate sickness as well.

As for rat poison never being valuable to humans check out Warfarin. It's a rat poison AND a treatment for thrombosis and embolism.

I meant nutritional. As a drug, it falls under FDA control anyway.

Water is fatal if you drink too much. That woman died drinking 6 liters in 3 hours to win a Wii as you might recall. 1 liter bottles are sold all the time. ONE will not harm or kill you. 6 might well kill you.

ONE burger will certainly not kill you, or even harm you. 100 might. You are asking for the ONE to have the amount of salt reduced so that what, 110 have the effect of 100? That's like forcing 1 liter water bottles to hold 800 ml, instead.

It's nonsense.

[clive bradbury]

Without getting into the 'free choice' arguments, which have some good points on both sides, I can't really agree with the logic of 'adding as much salt as I want afterwards'. There is a big difference in flavour adding salt or other spices and condiments during the cooking stage as opposed to sprinkling it on afterwards (ask any chef).

It would be akin to sprinking ground coriander on a curry to 'add' flavour to it - this simply does not work. Thus to have a required flavour, I'm afraid the salt has to be added during the preparation of the dish. Denying salt at that stage is denying consumers the full flavour of the meal.

[Aramike]

A couple of points here Mike.

First you're arguing against details of law that hasn't even been written yet. You really can't really say what would be allowed, banned, or just restricted.For sure, although I did say that the specifics haven't been worked out yet. Second even under the most draconian of bans, which would be unlikely to ever pass against the lobbying of the fast food industry, nobody would stop you from making such an artery clogger at home. Absolutely, but the same thing applies the other way around, which is why I question the need to consider such a ban in the first place.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok August - I missed seeing that as your answer though it was before my question.

Well I thought I had answered that before (in post 51) but I don't see regulating sodium content in fast foods as taking away anyones choice. You can always add more salt yourself. On the other hand your position totally eliminates my choice because I cannot take the sodium out once it has been added.

If my impression of your position is incorrect then please explain how you would ever be forced to eat low sodium food.

You do have a choice whether or not you want your food salty. Its called where you choose to go to eat. Want a low salt lunch? Hit subway, cosi or panera for your food. The market provides for that choice - just as it provides for the choice of those who want salty grease dripping into the waxy paper that wrapped their triple stacker from burger king.

This idea of "well just add some salt to your food" isn't going to fly. Think about it - with your idea of regulating all the meals - your taking away my ability to have a triple stacker because while the sodium in one burger patty may make the cut, 3 won't - and the added bacon insures non-compliance. Anytime food is served its the TOTAL amount that your talking, not the amount in any individual part. So by saying your ok with this - your saying "I don't care that I can choose a different eating establishment. I don't care that I can control the amount of sodium I take in based on what I choose to order. I want to make sure that you can't purchase a sandwich you might like because it exceeds what I think is the right amount of salt."

What your really doing here is not going to just affect how salty your fries taste. Its actually going to remove viable, profitable products from the menu because of the TOTAL salt content. So in the end - your taking away the choice of someone else to have that Arby's Giant roast beef sandwich, or the bacon classic from Wendy's.

That is how your removing the choice from the rest of the consuming public. As for your own "low sodium" choices - I seem to recall that many fast food places tried "vegi-burgers" a few times (which were low sodium) and every time they failed. The free market will provide to the demand of the public in general. What you want here is your cake and eat it too - you want a "healthy" low salt burger - and the cost to do it vs the demand has already proven to not be workable in the free market. So the way I see it, your saying free market principles be damned, consumer choice be damned, because you think your food is too salty when you order a Big Mac. Choose something else then - instead of taking everyone elses choice away - because this kind of regulation would mean stuff like the Double Quarter Pounder/Whopper/burger of your choice here is likely to be no longer available.

Also - I picked up some groceries on the way home today. Guess what I saw while getting the peas and green beans and such. Cans of vegetables - and some had a tag line that said "no salt added" - meaning that once again - you as the consumer have the choice of which product you want to purchase - yet this will regulate the amount of salt in the products I purchase - without my choice - even when you have yours.......

[August]

For sure, although I did say that the specifics haven't been worked out yet. Absolutely, but the same thing applies the other way around, which is why I question the need to consider such a ban in the first place.

Because the industry won't do it themselves.

[tater]

Because the industry won't do it themselves.

I keep forgetting, what is it that requires people to eat crap again, instead of real food? Someone follows us around with a gun? Odd, mine must not have been assigned to me. ;)

[August]

I keep forgetting, what is it that requires people to eat crap again, instead of real food? Someone follows us around with a gun? Odd, mine must not have been assigned to me. ;)

:up:

[tater]

He better not be hiding, I'm making Thomas Keller's roast chicken recipe, and it's VERY salty :D

I reduce the salt some, though, entirely because of taste (I also think his preferred brand of kosher salt is less salt for the same volume in the measuring spoon).

[Aramike]

Because the industry won't do it themselves.My point is: so?

Like you said, anyone can go home and prepare whatever they want. So, if people want to be healthy and the industry won't provide options to meet that demand, they can merely go home and prepare healthy food.

I do believe in disclosure, however, even though I'm pretty sure we'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks a Double Quarter-Pounder every day is a healthy option for nutrition.

I do understand your point, here, and can sympathize (admittedly, I'm a total hypocrite in the case of smoking bans - I like them, although on an intellectual basis I can't support them). In the end, it's all about personal, informed choices being made by individuals.

[Aramike]

I do understand your point, here, and can sympathize (admittedly, I'm a total hypocrite in the case of smoking bans - I like them, although on an intellectual basis I can't support them).I hate to quote myself, but this just crossed my mind and I thought it would make interesting food for thought.

I know we all intuitively know about the concept of differing opinions, different strokes, etc. But really, I have to admit, I've never really THOUGHT of any of that. I generally try to be quite considerate and careful in forming my opinions, and I pride myself on not setting any opinion in stone.

But see, I just find this concept interesting:

August is for this legally enforced concept of restricted sodium. August has also had (if I recall correctly) cardiological health issues. August probably likes a good fast food burger now and than, just like anyone else.

Aramike loves the concept of public smoking bans, especially in bars/pubs/taverns. Aramike is a former smoker who now suffers from a recurrence of athsma from his childhood days. Aramike enjoys going out to taverns with his friends a couple of times per week.

Both Aramike and August typically agree in LIMITED government intervention (although we typically aren't quite the hardline of not wanting ANY government regulation). I'm not sure what August thinks about the smoking restriction, but Aramike loves it. August likes the idea of a sodium restriction.

Neither position would be easily predicted by an outsider to be one that either of us individuals would support, judging by our typical stances on policies. And, quite franky, neither position is something that either of us could give rock-solid arguments for (sorry August if I'm being presumptive here), but we both could probably give a continuing stream of logically sound reasons as to why we support such inconsistant positions.

I have a point here, really ... :yep:

Like I said, I was doing a little thinking. Some things just pique my interest, and the human condition is one of them.

This particular example is regarding self-interest. My self-interest dictates that I would love to enjoy a tavern without smoke. My intellectual reasoning dictates that it should be up to the business owner. Furthermore, I can, and will, intellectually create sound arguments as to why smoking bans are a good thing, even though, in principle, I should be against them. In the end, however, I can bitch and moan all I want intellectually, but ultimately I'm not at all mad when I can go into my favorite establishment and not endure the smoke.

Forgive me, August, if I am in any way being presumptive here, but I think the same exact situation applies to your stance on the sodium restrictions. If this thread were about, say, smoking, I would have come out on the other side.

Okay, let me get to the point (finally, right?). Like I said earlier, I think we all intuitively know, "different strokes for different folks". But how often do we actually consider that? Assuming that everyone is like myself, we all spend far more time wondering how anyone can think any differently than we do, when our logic and reasoning is sound, than we do considering the fact that we all have self-interest as a motivation as well, and that such a motivation is as logical and reasoned as any other.

Quite frankly, if we paused just for a minute to consider that something which may not make sense to us, makes sense to the person presenting it FOR A REASON, we'd probably all get along better. I think it'd be an interesting turn of events for us all to accept the idea that "hypocrisy" isn't a substitute word for "self-interest", and that "selfishness" isn't always a bad concept.

Ultimately, perhaps when we toss out the 2+2 intellectualism and forgo a little bit of the strict selfishness we are all capable of, we will one day be able to finally reach true compromises we all can be satisfied with. Right now, we all tend to take our conclusions based upon self-interest and attempt to build intellectual rationalization around them. What if we attempted to take said rationalizations first, and fit our self-interests into the mix second?

Okay, I'm sure some will see this as a ramble, but in my mind I have a point, and that's good enough for me. In the end we should just pause, take a moment, and think of why not everything we all believe is consistant with everything else ... and realize, there's a difference here.

August is not wrong for wanting the FDA to regulate sodium. We should not try to convince him that he is.

However, perhaps the FDA should not regulate sodium, because should be up to the business.

Aramike is not wrong for wanting a smoking ban in public establishments. Don't try to convince him that he is.

However, perhaps such a ban shouldn't occur, because it should be up to the business.

Are we right? Yup. Are we wrong? Yup. But dammit, while we'll both agree that what people want shouldn't dictate what is, I think we'll also both agree that what should logically happen shouldn't dictate what people want.

Hell, logically we shouldn't have cars available to the public if they can go faster than 70MPH. But damn, we want them.

So maybe this is interesting to you; maybe not. But it is to me. This is the dichotomy of the human condition, as it were. Intuitively, we all know its there. We can fault one another for it, or we can try to understand it. Ultimately, if we attempt the latter, I think we'll get along just a little better...

(Sorry about the long post, but sometimes something interesting crosses my mind and I feel the uncontrollable urge to write about it.)

[August]

Presume away Mike. At the end of the day i'm certainly not going to go postal if the government fails to regulate sodium, just like you (I would guess) won't turn in your American citizenship if it succeeds. We may disagree and argue but this is how societies are supposed to work. In the end it's what the majority wants.

As for dichotomy I think a lot of it has to do with life experiences. Your asthma and my heart disease have driven home the ramifications of our actions in a way that someone who has not had those experiences will find difficult to fully appreciate.

[Flopper]

In the end it's what the majority wants.


That's where it gets scary to me. Majority rules vs. individual rights.

[tater]

Smoking is a bad analogy, though, for a number of reasons.

1. No amount of smoke is required for health. Salt IS required by the body.

2. The smoking in question is done by the customer, NOT the business. The analogy to salt would require that we talk about customers being allowed to bring and use their own salt.

3. Having seasoned food does not season someone else's food nearby. If I eat a burger, and you, concerned about salt just get a coke, my salted burger doesn't make your coke salty. Smoke does in fact leave your cigg, and come into MY lungs if I sit nearby.

So smoking is a terribly analogy.

My analogy to water is far more straightforward.

Both salt and water are required to live.

Both salt and water are acutely unhealthful if consumed in sufficient quantity over a short time period.

The difference is that in some quantity of salt that is not harmful in the short term IS potentially harmful if consumed over a long time period.

The argument for regulating this on prepared foods requires that the assumption be made that the consumer is eating that specific food for some substantial % of their food intake. One salty burger will not harm you, the habit of eating them might—just as 1 liter of water won't hurt you, but drink 6 in a few hours, and you might die.

[UnderseaLcpl]

That's where it gets scary to me. Majority rules vs. individual rights.

Precisely, sir. I agree entirely.

This is not a democracy August, and it was never intended to be one. As Benjamin Franklin (I think:doh:) put it; "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner".

I probably won't go postal either, assuming the thing passes. But sooner or later, someone with the ability and the popularity will, over one issue or another, and then it's gonna hit the fan.

There is a growing resentment against the federal government and its agencies. There has been for quite some time. Even external threats aren't galvanizing the populace towards a united will very well anymore.

Sooner or later somebody with political saavy is going to take advantage of these sentiments and there will be a major shift in policy. Let us pray that it does not come to civil war again. That may sound like rhetoric bordering upon idiocy to some, given the seemingly insignificant OT, but one general rule of mankind, that people resent being pushed around, holds true.

What flag the disgruntled and disillusioned may march under, I cannot hope to guess. All I know is that they will be looking for one, and when it is raised they will unite under it. There may be a million different reasons why they are unhappy, but when it comes to reform, they will unite behind a single symbol. They will seek a single, powerful, outlet for their discontent, if you will.

I do not mean to be hurtful, but have you forgotten how the young think? They have their whole lives ahead of them, and they usually view any kind of establishment as a barrier. In other cases, they view it as a suitable means towards an end. They do not care about your health, or your welfare, unless there is some kind of agreeable ideal associated with it. I am one of those (comparatively) young fools. I have been on this earth for less than three decades, but I am resolved to fight and, if need be, die for the ideal of individual rights and responsibilities.

It's kind of funny unless you think about it from an evolutionary standpoint, but I have neither the will nor the space to go into details here. We can discuss the subject in detail if you wish.

[August]

Precisely, sir. I agree entirely.

This is not a democracy August, and it was never intended to be one. As Benjamin Franklin (I think:doh:) put it; "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner".

I probably won't go postal either, assuming the thing passes. But sooner or later, someone with the ability and the popularity will, over one issue or another, and then it's gonna hit the fan.

There is a growing resentment against the federal government and its agencies. There has been for quite some time. Even external threats aren't galvanizing the populace towards a united will very well anymore.

Sooner or later somebody with political saavy is going to take advantage of these sentiments and there will be a major shift in policy. Let us pray that it does not come to civil war again. That may sound like rhetoric bordering upon idiocy to some, given the seemingly insignificant OT, but one general rule of mankind, that people resent being pushed around, holds true.

What flag the disgruntled and disillusioned may march under, I cannot hope to guess. All I know is that they will be looking for one, and when it is raised they will unite under it. There may be a million different reasons why they are unhappy, but when it comes to reform, they will unite behind a single symbol. They will seek a single, powerful, outlet for their discontent, if you will.

I do not mean to be hurtful, but have you forgotten how the young think? They have their whole lives ahead of them, and they usually view any kind of establishment as a barrier. In other cases, they view it as a suitable means towards an end. They do not care about your health, or your welfare, unless there is some kind of agreeable ideal associated with it. I am one of those (comparatively) young fools. I have been on this earth for less than three decades, but I am resolved to fight and, if need be, die for the ideal of individual rights and responsibilities.

It's kind of funny unless you think about it from an evolutionary standpoint, but I have neither the will nor the space to go into details here. We can discuss the subject in detail if you wish.

No, I haven't forgotten how the young think Lcpl (at least not yet), but I do know that the young rarely have any idea of how THEY will think when they get older.

Now I know that the young tend not to trust their elders but please trust me in these two things:

1. Our fine country isn't worth destroying because our government regulates fast food content, bans smoking in public places, enacts socialized health care, or any number of other things the Feds have done in the past 150 years.

2. If there is another civil war, and the Federals loose, our country will indeed be destroyed. It will fragment and the pieces will be at war with each other within a generation.

[tater]

Regulate "fast" food? So if the burger is on the plate in XX seconds it's regulated, but 1 second more and it's not? SOunds petty, but the burger joint might be a nice, sit down place, not a chain. Or only if it has more than XX employees?

I just can't get behind the nanny state that way.

[Aramike]

Smoking is a bad analogy, though, for a number of reasons.

1. No amount of smoke is required for health. Salt IS required by the body.

2. The smoking in question is done by the customer, NOT the business. The analogy to salt would require that we talk about customers being allowed to bring and use their own salt.

3. Having seasoned food does not season someone else's food nearby. If I eat a burger, and you, concerned about salt just get a coke, my salted burger doesn't make your coke salty. Smoke does in fact leave your cigg, and come into MY lungs if I sit nearby.

So smoking is a terribly analogy.
It wasn't a terrible analogy, you just clearly missed the context in which I was using it, which is personal freedom and the freedom of businesses to choose how to operate.

But okay, I'll play devil's advocate and respond to at least your first point.1. No amount of smoke is required for health. Salt IS required by the body.You know that iron is required by the body? Ever hear of a condition called hemochromatosis? That means you have too much. Now should vitamin makers be allowed to put excessive amounts of iron in their supplements, or should the FDA regulate them?

[tater]

But okay, I'll play devil's advocate and respond to at least your first point.You know that iron is required by the body? Ever hear of a condition called hemochromatosis? That means you have too much. Now should vitamin makers be allowed to put excessive amounts of iron in their supplements, or should the FDA regulate them?

This is an excellent analogy.

:yeah:

The dose should be below a single, unhealthful dose. In other words if the average person took ONE vitamin and got sick, then yeah, it's to much. But that's NOT the kind of doses in vitamins, is it. Unlike a cheeseburger, a vitamin is expected to be taken with a specific dose regimen, right? Liek one per day, forever. That changes things.

Any regulation of salt requires some specific dose per day of the food. What is a reasonable daily dose of cheeseburgers from a specific take out joint? For ME it's maybe 2 per year. They'd have to be pretty salty to harm me in 2 burgers.

[Flopper]

Opening up a new fast food joint. First item on the menu:

Ground Salt (small: .25, med: .50, large: .75, super size: $1.00)

[UnderseaLcpl]

No, I haven't forgotten how the young think Lcpl (at least not yet), but I do know that the young rarely have any idea of how THEY will think when they get older.
Well, I can certainly agree with that. I usually don't have any idea what I'll be thinking six months from now. Even at 28 years, I still have so much to learn.

Now I know that the young tend not to trust their elders but please trust me in these two things:

1. Our fine country isn't worth destroying because our government regulates fast food content, bans smoking in public places, enacts socialized health care, or any number of other things the Feds have done in the past 150 years. But the actions they have taken will destroy it, anyways. It's always one little thing at a time; "protect my job from this", "don't let them do that", "somebody should do something about this" "I'm voting for the guy who.....whatever". They're all just straws on the camel's back. Sooner or later they will break the free-market economy, and when that happens, we are all screwed. Giving the government the power to make such decisions only accelerates the process.

2. If there is another civil war, and the Federals lose, our country will indeed be destroyed. It will fragment and the pieces will be at war with each other within a generation.

I'll take your word for it, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. I would much prefer that the Union remain intact, and that there be some peaceful reform of government, but let's be honest, how often does that happen? I think it's a legitimate concern.

As for the pieces of the union going to war with one another within a generation, I think you could be right about that. People always find a reason to go to war, and America would not likely become an exception. However, this is also not the Civil War of 1865. I'm not talking about a bunch of Southerners trying to establish a seperate nation, I'm talking about a nationwide revolution with the intent of overthrowing the whole of government. It'd be nasty as hell and the country would suffer greatly for it, but at some point people are going to get fed up enough with this nickel-and-dime socialism that they will use force to repeal it.

Our government has put us on a highly unsustainable path that can lead only to economic collapse or war, and probably both. When things become scarce, people start fighting. We've managed to pawn off the conflict to other nations in the past, but that is not a sustainable system, either. Wars are very expensive and create longstanding and costly commitments. Moreover, people in the Western world are quite sick of them. Unless we get India or Pakistan or China or someone to go to war with somebody, we're not going to have the economic steroids we've had in the past.

I may not be as experienced as you, but I have learned a few things in my short existence, one of which is that you do not mess with mutually beneficial transactions. Trade powers everything we have, and when you halt it, you are doing immeasurable harm. Did you ever stop to think about what effect your ban would have on the millions of people in the salt-mining, salt-processing, and food industries? It would literally kill a lot of them, and for no reason at all since you can already purchase salt-free foods in great quantity. Come to think of it, it might also literally kill some of the employees in third-world nations. The free market also kills industries every day, but it doesn't go out and wipe a gigantic section of aggregate demand in one fell swoop.

It is ideas like yours that will destroy the free market system, through re-appropriation of wealth or negligence of potential consequences. One simply cannot tell billions of consumers and workers what they may and may not do in a system that relies on the efforts and choices of billions of consumers and workers. Not possible. Nobody on the planet is that intelligent. Put a million brains together, and they won't even come close to devising a system that is good for everyone. Order without design will often far outstrip the plans that men consciously contrive. Some guy said that, but I can't remember who it was.

Proper government has exactly three roles. It must punish fraud, coercion, and use of force. If you give it power to do much else, it will turn on you. That is the natural progress of things. It should never be an agency for anyone to advance an agenda, whatever it might be. If you can try to use it for your own ends, a bigger fish is going to use it more effectively for his.

[August]

It is ideas like yours that will destroy the free market system, through re-appropriation of wealth or negligence of potential consequences.

This free market system you claim that i'm destroying dude, where does it exist? Where has it ever existed? The market has always been subject to regulation and if that's what you're railing against then you're about 233 years too late.

[Aramike]

This is an excellent analogy.

:yeah:

The dose should be below a single, unhealthful dose. In other words if the average person took ONE vitamin and got sick, then yeah, it's to much. But that's NOT the kind of doses in vitamins, is it. Unlike a cheeseburger, a vitamin is expected to be taken with a specific dose regimen, right? Liek one per day, forever. That changes things.

Any regulation of salt requires some specific dose per day of the food. What is a reasonable daily dose of cheeseburgers from a specific take out joint? For ME it's maybe 2 per year. They'd have to be pretty salty to harm me in 2 burgers.But vitamins are intended for daily use ... so the one vitamin argument is out. And as far as the large fast food corporations are concerned, they would LOVE for the average public Joe Blow to use them daily, just like vitamins, and clearly their marketing intends that.

So what if daily use of the one vitamin caused excessive, unhealthy iron levels, although any single one would not (it would be hard to pack an unhealthy amount of iron into any one capsule, as far as I recall)?

Remember: I'm playing devil's advocate and I tend to agree with the other side regarding fast food. But the logic argument isn't as sound as most on here seem to agree. I could probably argue August's point along with him, and no one would be the wiser, because of this analogy alone.

Hence my point about different strokes for different folks. Which, despite its intuitive nature, I still do feel is a personal epiphany.

[CaptainHaplo]

But vitamins are intended for daily use ... so the one vitamin argument is out. And as far as the large fast food corporations are concerned, they would LOVE for the average public Joe Blow to use them daily, just like vitamins, and clearly their marketing intends that.

Gotta jump back in here on this one and point out the flaw in the logic.

Vitamins are intended for daily use WHY? They are designed to supplement the nutrients the body needs but often does not get, with the purpose of increasing one's health. Thus a continual, steady and regular dosage is what is most beneficial (in general) to achieve the goal.

Fast Food on the other hand, while the providers would love for you to use them every day, has no goal other than filling your belly and emptying your wallet. They do not claim to offer health benefits for their most egregious, unhealthy foods. When you go into a greasy spoon joint, you know exactly what your getting yourself into, and its your choice to purchase that food. No one is telling you that you need to be on a Big Mac diet for a month to see improvements in your health. Fast food is a CONVIENENCE - and as such provides a product to the consumer that the consumer wants. What you have here is the government saying "We don't care that the public wants to buy your goods, we are going to intervene in between a private business transaction, and control it."

If Vitamins provided a TOXIC level of a substance over time - yet specifically directed the consumer to intake that substance continuously, then they would be violating the consumers rights - because they have advertised a specific positive while knowing a negative outcome is to be expected. Fast Food has never done this. It has not violated the rights of the consumer, nor does it instruct the consumer in HOW to consume its products "for maximum benefit".

When you start a vitamin regimen, you commit to taking it regularly because that is how to get the best results. Thus, if it were harmful to you, regulating it based on the REQUIREMENT of using it repeatedly (to gain that benefit) is responsible - as it insures that the usage as called for is not harmful. As a consumer, you expect the vitamins to be "good for you". Fast food on the other hand - a consumer KNOWS its not healthy in general, yet chooses - on an individual basis, at individual times, to drive through for their double Whopper with cheese. Regulating salt because someone may choose, for their own ease, to grab a quick meal whenever, when such a thing is not a continual, DIRECTED decision, is ludicrous.

There is a VERY big difference between vitamin use and fast food.

Also, I notice this arguement has centered around fast food, but the reality is that this is going to affect "Processed" foods in general - and thats just about everything you buy in the store. Canned vegetables, salad dressing, bbq sauce, chips, cereal, soups, frozen dinners, etc. This isn't just fries and a burger at a local place, its the vast majority of what everyone consumes - since few people get their vegetables truly fresh. This is what makes such a move so invasive - its the government having its hand even further into everything you eat - whether you like it or not. Go to the grocery store and check out the canned vegetables - they have regular ones, and then you will find the "no salt added" variety. Check your frozen dinners, they have regular ones, and low sodium varieties. Same with soups, etc. So the choices are there for the consumer.

If the choices are there - and the government feels like it has a "need" to regulate those choices - then its boils down to one thing and one thing only:

"Government wants you to do something - you have had the choice to do it or not, and you the public has said you don't want to choose what we want you do to. Fine, we will take the choice away and make you do what we think you should."

If you don't have a problem with that, then I can't see how you can claim you have a desire to keep what is left of our republic alive.

[tater]

Bottom line is that there is no requirement for people to eat multiple doses of fast food. It's unfair to single out a particular seasoning.

A blanket law would be FAIR, and would show how bad the idea is. Every single serving of every single prepared food must have a healthy balance of food groups. How about that? Since you cannot be sure that someone will eat the green beans that come with their burger, I suggest a nutritious wafer containing all groups in a healthy balance. I think I'll call it "soylent." Ban fast food, and replace it with nutritious soylent!

Americans don't need ice cream parlors, we're too fat for that. Ban them! Think about it, if you ate a an ice cream sundae every single meal you'd die for sure.

How is that different than salt regulation? How about all ice cream has to be hippie crap mad with no cream? You know, healthy vegan ice cream (bleech).

[Aramike]

Bottom line is that there is no requirement for people to eat multiple doses of fast food. It's unfair to single out a particular seasoning.Exactly right. That's why I agree with you. But its fun playing devil's advocate, though. :up: