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?

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.

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)?

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

How do I not understand it?

I understand the process completely. I disagree with it.

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:

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:

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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?