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:

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!

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.

That crap will kill you Steam.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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...

Exactly...

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?

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.

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:

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. :)

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

Quote:

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.

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

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnS...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.

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.