About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox falsely links voluntary NYC-led salt reduction initiative to federal health care reform

January 12, 2010 1:49 pm ET — 26 Comments

Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy claimed that a New York City-led initiative to encourage reduced salt intake would allow the government to "decide how much salt is in our diets," tying the voluntary guidelines to "some sort of government-run health care," repeating a consistent pattern of Fox personalities distorting voluntary guidelines as illustrating government mandates that would exist under health care reform. However, as the New York City government makes clear, the program "is a voluntary initiative, not a regulatory measure."

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Fox & Friends suggest voluntary initiative is government mandate

Doocy: "[O]ne other component to that" is "the more they take over on our health care, the more they're going to crack down on the stuff we eat." Introducing a segment discussing the initiative, co-host Steve Doocy commented: "So far, they've regulated trans fats and they've battled high calorie counts and fast food, but this time, New York City health officials are going national, issuing guidelines to restaurants and food manufacturers across the country to cut our salt levels down 25 percent over the next five years. But the big question is: Should the government be able to decide how much salt is in our diets, what we really eat?" Doocy subsequently stated:

DOOCY: [T]here's one other component to that and that is there are some critics of this who say, hey, look, we're getting closer to some sort of government-run health care and the more they take over on our health care, the more they're going to crack down on the stuff we eat. First it was trans fat, then it's calories, now it's salt.

Next thing you know, they're going to say, OK, you know, if you drink too much, that could be bad, you could get into a car wreck, so we're going to limit you to one Schlitz a week.

Fox guest: Mayor Bloomberg is "slowly but surely regulating New Yorkers' diet." During the discussion, Center for Consumer Freedom senior research analyst Justin Wilson commented: "I think Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg fancies himself to be a big brother. You know, he's slowly but surely regulating New Yorkers' diet towards being just plain old bland. And I think it's just inappropriate for the government to mandate how much salt that we can eat, especially when you consider that not everyone needs to have a low-salt diet. In fact, only about 30 percent of people with high blood pressure actually need to reduce their salt intake. And the problem is that this is a one-size-fits-all policy for a very small proportion of the population and then the rest of New Yorkers end up with bland food." Wilson also stated: "You know, I think there's a lot of people out there that would say they should keep the government out of their bedroom, and I'm the guy that says we need to keep the government out of our kitchen, too."

Fox & Friends echoing Limbaugh. During his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh similarly stated: "It's none of their business. It is none of their business how much salt I eat. Salt is necessary. They're going to cause more problems, getting more people frightened to eat any salt, and you have to have it. Once they get health care, this is the kind of stuff -- and even worse -- that's going to be coming down the pike. This will be the new norm. Everything we do will be in the context of health care and the expense that it will cost to protect us, and to cure us, and to make us well once we get sick. This is just a harbinger." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/11/10]

NYC program "is a voluntary initiative, not a regulatory measure"

Initiative fact sheet repeatedly makes clear targets are voluntary. In a National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI) fact sheet, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene states, "Targets are voluntary, not mandatory, so they cannot force products off the market." The initiative fact sheet also states: "As a first step, the NSRI has worked with industry to set salt-reduction targets that are significant, voluntary, achievable and measurable. The next step is to measure progress over time in a public and transparent fashion to ensure a gradual reduction in sodium across a wide range of food categories." Concerning the effect of the initiative on nutritional labeling, the NSRI fact sheet states: "The NSRI is a voluntary initiative, not a regulatory measure. It is modeled after a successful initiative developed in the United Kingdom. It will not affect federal, state or local nutrition labeling laws."

WSJ: The "salt-lowering initiative is voluntary." The Wall Street Journal -- owned by Fox News' parent company, News Corp. -- reported: "New York City, leading a group of cities and health organizations, on Monday announced voluntary sodium-reduction targets for restaurants and food makers. It wants to lower Americans' salt intake by at least 20% by 2014, but unlike the city's ban on trans fat in restaurant food or rules requiring eateries to post calorie info, the salt-lowering initiative is voluntary." [Wall Street Journal, 1/11/10 (subscription required)]

Fox previously claimed nonbinding health recommendations amounted to government rationing

Fox News hosts repeatedly claimed nonbinding health guidelines illustrated government rationing of health care. Fox news personalities Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Ablow, and Marc Siegel repeatedly cited nonbinding guidelines that some women get fewer breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings as representing government rationing of health care that would be implemented under health care reform legislation, with Hannity claiming, "[T]his is where the greatest danger lies with government health care." In fact, neither the United States Preventive Services Task Force nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued binding recommendations.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 2:07 pm ET)
        6
      Limbaugh's take is right on this one. It's just more of the lefts insatiable appetite to control more of our lives.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by CrashGordon (January 12, 2010 2:41 pm ET)
        4  
        I guess I just can't figure out how a voluntary goal is going to control anything let alone our lives. As far as I know, these restaurants will still have salt shakers on the tables. And if not, you'll be able to bring your own. Salt it up all you want. I always got amused that the wingnuts saw a terrorist behind every tree and now it looks like they see a government regulation behind every idea.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
            5
          Because the left loves government regulation and trying to be everybody's mommy. They pace themselves, start out with voluntary and then it's easier to squeeze the mandatory in there at some point. What business of it is theirs how much salt we care to use. Sure, it may not be too healthful but it's a free country. I don't need the government to be involved in my personal choices over what I eat, or how I season my food.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (January 12, 2010 3:02 pm ET)
            1  
            The compliance officer will be over in approx. 12 minutes to repossess your salt cellar. Please have all documents and papers in order.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
                3
              Sorry, they will have to take it grain by grain, the bags all burst.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hugacat7374 (January 12, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
                4  
                Just out of curiosity, can you, right ON, give an example or two of when the government has started something out as voluntary then made it mandatory?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
                    3
                  Soon it may be health care, if we get fined for not having it. Seat belts. Smoking bans. Food labeling. Cigarette labeling.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hugacat7374 (January 12, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Do you think those are bad things? Is it really that detrimental that smokers know that it could cause low birth weight if they smoke when pregnant? Or how many calories from fat there are in a Twinkie? And, I myself, have only benefited from making it mandatory that everyone have car insurance.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
                        1
                      You didn't ask me whether they were good or bad things, and that wasn't what I was talking about from the get go. I was merely commenting on the "big brother" aspect of government control.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by hugacat7374 (January 12, 2010 4:49 pm ET)
                           
                        Right. But the tone of your posts (and perhaps it's my own inference) was that these regulations were bad, I was just looking for clarification.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 5:21 pm ET)
                             
                          The tone was that the government is not there to mommy us. We can actually do it to ourselves.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 4:10 pm ET)
                         
                      Besides, if the barometer for government control is based on what's good for us, then why not regulate the amount of TV we watch? Or get rid of salty fattening snacks altogether?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by CrashGordon (January 12, 2010 6:20 pm ET)
                        2  
                        The three examples you cite do not apply. Non of them are federal bans. Seat belt laws are state laws and many of those states were decidedly Republican when the laws went into effect. No doubt, the insurance industry had some influence since the use of seat belts reduces injuries and thus greatly reduces what they pay out in claims. Smoking bans are local ordinances--there is a smoking ban in federal buildings but it doesn't actually keep anyone from smoking, there are always designated smoking areas nearby. Labeling of cigarettes wasn't even a ban. It was merely a way to communicate that the product has been proven dangerous. I guess someone though it was a good idea to tell people that they were killing themselves. I'm with hugacat. I can't think of a single voluntary, federal guideline that was made mandatory.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
                             
                          Who said anything about a federal ban? The discussion was government control and mandatory regulation.

                          So the examples I gave were perfectly appropriate responses. Sorry you didn't like them.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by foghornleghorn (January 12, 2010 8:21 pm ET)
                               
                            Great examples Tommy!!! Keep knockin' 'em over the fence.

                            My hero!!!!!
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by CrashGordon (January 13, 2010 8:42 am ET)
                               
                            OK, since you seem to be hung up on semantics (a tough concept I guess, like context), non of the examples you cite actually regulate anything at the federal level. Again state laws regulate seat belt use and many of those states were Republican when the laws went into effect. Local laws regulate smoking except in federal buildings but they don't stop people from smoking, they just require that smokers go where they aren't violating non-smokers rights to not be subjected to cancer-causing cigarette smoke. Cigarette labels are strictly informative and don't regulate anything.
                            Report Abuse
          • Author by rumpleteasermom (January 12, 2010 6:34 pm ET)
            1  
            Right ON

            Why are you trying to take away MY freedom?

            You can choose to add salt to anything you please I, however, cannot take it out once it is in the food.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 12, 2010 6:39 pm ET)
                 
              Your freedom lies in the fact that you can choose another food product at the outset.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by rumpleteasermom (January 13, 2010 6:01 pm ET)
                   
                Really? Have you read labels lately? Do you now how hard it is to find low-sodium food in restaurants?

                Yes, I choose to cook from scratch most of the time, but there are still times when circumstances force me to eat food prepared elsewhere, and there is precious little to choose from.

                A cheeseburger (not double, single cheeseburger) and small fries from McDs uses 2/3 of my daily sodium allowance. A grilled chicken Caesar salad with balsamic dressing uses more than 100% of it.

                Eating at home is fraught with danger too. Two slices of multi-grain bread typically contains about a third of my daily allowance. Cereal, instant oatmeal, crackers, bread, frozen foods, all of them are chock full of very unhealthy amounts of sodium.

                As I said before - you are free to add as much salt as you want to your food. I am NOT free to eat most of the food available today.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (January 12, 2010 2:07 pm ET)
         
      Scary, ain't it, how we could all become saline challenged 'cause of this "suggestion>directive>new age order.

      However, it could be interpreted to mean that the alien life forms will no longer find us savory enough to consume.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by angel122 (January 12, 2010 3:02 pm ET)
      3  
      What a paranoid rant. What ever happened to fact checking. These people sound like a bunch of junior high school kids hanging out in the tree house after school making up stuff and trying to out do each other with each statement. It's some kind of competition to see who can make up the most fantastic story. Why does anyone even tune into this drivel with these mush minds?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rowdimus (January 12, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
      3  
      Sounds like more manufactured outrage!! And the circus continues....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MBK (January 13, 2010 11:19 am ET)
      1  
      Let's face what actually is: no one has said it would be mandatory. It is only the opinion of "Fixed Views" (sorry I mean Fox News) . But the fact is, we get too much salt...period. Does anyone wonder why is it that things that kill you slowly are ok (alcohol, smoking, salt)? But things that kill you quickly are illigal. Stop and think. It's safe to say that salt has killed more people over time then the holocost AND 9/11...but it's all cool, right? Conservatards are so one dimensional and bland in spite of all the salt they consume. Perhaps the government should give them extra tax credits in the form of sodium every year and we would all be better off. Better yet, put the salt in Ronald Reagan shaped salt shakers!

      As a person who had hypertension, I have always felt sodium should be a controlled substance when you study the research and hypertension statistics worldwide.


      Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.