With a grain of salt: Right-wing media claim government is coming for your shaker
Following reports that the FDA is considering regulating the amount of salt in processed foods, media conservatives have falsely claimed that the Obama administration is "seizing our salt shakers." In fact, the FDA review has nothing to do with consumers' use of table salt and instead invovles examining warnings about high sodium content in processed foods and restaurant meals, the sources of 77 percent of sodium intake.
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.
Right wing invokes fear that big government is coming for your salt shaker
Rush: "We can now thank the regime for seizing our salt shakers." During the April 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh commented: "We can now thank the regime for seizing our salt shakers." Limbaugh added that "they're going to take away our salt shakers, and we're supposed to thank the regime for seasoning our food."
Martha MacCallum: "Can't we make our own decision about whether or not we salt our food?" Announcing a Fox News online poll on the potential regulations, co-host Bill Hemmer said on the on the April 20 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom: "Do you think the government should regulate the ingredients in the food we eat?" Co-host Martha MacCallum asked: "Can't we make our own decision about whether or not we want to salt our food?"
Fox & Friends: "Food police" are "taking salt away from you." During the April 22 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade teased an upcoming segment by stating, "Coming up straight ahead, all this talk about the government taking salt away from you because it's so bad for you, but aren't there good things about salt?" Later, senior managing editor of FoxNewsHealth.com Dr. Manny Alvarez said, "I hate the government getting involved and telling me what to eat." Co-host Steve Doocy replied: "Food police!"
Jane Skinner: "Will the government take the spice out of life and the thrill out of cooking?" During the April 20 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jane Skinner asserted: "The FDA is making a major push to limit how much salt you eat. Will the government take the spice out of life and the thrill out of cooking?"
Bolling: "Hide the salt and pepper." Teasing an upcoming segment on the April 20 Fox Business' Happy Hour, co-host Eric Bolling stated: "Hide the salt and pepper. The government is about to shake up -- Get it? -- your eating habbits."
FDA reviewing warnings of high sodium levels in processed and prepared food, not regulating salt shakers
FDA is "not currently working on regulations nor has it made a decision to regulate sodium content." In an April 20 press release, the FDA stated: "A story in today's Washington Post leaves a mistaken impression that the FDA has begun the process of regulating the amount of sodium in foods. The FDA is not currently working on regulations nor has it made a decision to regulate sodium content in foods at this time." The release further stated that the agency plans to review a recent Institute of Medicine report on the dangers of excessive sodium intake in processed and prepared foods and plans "to work with other federal agencies, public health and consumer groups, and the food industry to support the reduction of sodium levels in the food supply." [FDA, 4/20/10]
Institute of Medicine warns of "sodium in foods across the board by manufacturers and restaurants" where "the vast majority of people's sodium intake comes from." An April 20 brief from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies called for "a coordinated effort to reduce sodium in foods across the board by manufacturers and restaurants [emphasis added] -- that is, create a level playing field for the food industry." The brief stated:
As its primary strategy for sodium reduction, the committee recommends that the FDA set mandatory national standards for the sodium content in foods -- not banning outright the addition of salt to foods but beginning the process of reducing excess sodium in processed foods and menu items to a safer level.
The report brief stated that the majority of salt in food is "added as it is being processed or prepared by the food industry." An accompanying press release stated, "[T]he vast majority of people's sodium intake comes from salt that companies put in prepared meals and processed foods."
CDC: "Most sodium comes from processed and restaurant food." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states: "Most of the sodium we eat comes from packaged, processed, store-bought, and restaurants foods. Only a small amount comes from salt added during cooking and from being added at the table, and most Americans have already exceeded their daily limit of sodium before cooking or adding salt at the table."
An accompanying chart explains that 77 percent of Americans' salt intake comes from processed and restaurant foods; only 6 percent is added at the table:
Yale University's Dr. David Katz: "The issue is not what you do with your salt shaker." Appearing on the April 20 edition of Fox Business' Happy Hour, Yale University's Dr. David Katz explained that "the FDA is not actively regulating anything" but that "[t]he industry has not fixed this problem on its own so the Institute of Medicine, which looks out for our health, is encouraging the federal authorities to do something about it." Katz also commented, "The issue is not what you do with your salt shaker," and added: "We often have these discussions about federal regulation as if the choice is between Big Brother telling you what to do or you making your own well-informed choice. So the question is, how informed are you now? Do you know that most commercial breakfast cereals are saltier than your diet should be on average?" Katz concluded: "It's not a choice between you taking personal responsibility because you don't have complete information."
Center for Science in the Public Interest praised report. In an April 20 release, the Center for Science in the Public Interest stated:
Legislators and public health groups today praised a long-awaited report from the National Academies' Institute of Medicine that calls for urgent, government action to reduce salt in packaged and restaurant foods.
"Limiting salt in packaged and restaurant foods is perhaps the single most important thing that the Food and Drug Administration could do to save hundreds of thousands of lives and save billions of dollars in health-care expenses," said Center for Science in the Public Interest executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "The FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture should quickly implement the Institute of Medicine's recommendations, starting with mandatory limits on salt, which could be phased in gradually over time." [Center for Science in the Public Interest, 4/20/10]
Fox previously suggested NY salt reduction initiative was mandatory
Fox misrepresents NY voluntary initiative as a government mandate. Following the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's January announcement of a National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI), Fox News anchors and personalities misrepresented the initiative as mandatory, despite the health department stating: "Targets are voluntary, not mandatory, so they cannot force products off the market."
The only good thing is that if it's run by liberals it will take awhile. First there will be a committee formed to study it six ways to Sunday and then get off publishing their findings. That will take dozens of bureaucrats, tons of money, and lots of time.
And the salt-eating public doesn't take good enough care of themselves - it's not like they're doing a good job now managing their weight and salt intake on their own. Clearly the public IS too stupid, or too lazy, or too ill-informed and undereducated to make good sodium decisions.
And so what will happen is that they will be educated via the voluntary targets and by food product manufacturers advertising that they are following those voluntary guidelines. And that will be a good thing.
If you weren't such a clueless individual I would say you are an elitist. It's none of your business, again. When you understand that, you will worry less.
And overall, we see yet again YOUR inability to refute a thing I said results in YOU making a baseless personal attack.
off to the emergency room
'ooo but you have that fancy socialized medicine'
yea, but lets get back to the 'stupid' part. i don't put it past 25% of the trogs to NOT sign up as it will be 'patriotic' or some such pap.
so yea. cut off the salt.
But you might not know that the three Oreo cookies you had at lunch account for 11 percent of your recommended daily salt intake. Or that a serving of low-fat cottage cheese equals more than one-quarter of your intake.
Add it up, a government-commissioned report said last week, and you get a recipe for perhaps 100,000 premature deaths a year from sodium overload in the American diet, chiefly due to hypertension and related disease. The Institute of Medicine, the report’s author, said salt amounts in some grocery and restaurant foods should be declared unsafe.
Health advocates have campaigned for years to get Americans to cut back. Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, calls salt “the single most harmful substance in our food.”
The thing is, it’s tasty. “Salt is very addicting,” said Sidney Alexander, a cardiologist at the Lahey Clinic Medical Center near Boston. He has watched his heart patients struggle to live with less of it. “Even though there are good salt substitutes and other spices they can use, they have a hard time giving it up,” he said.
And it’s hard to avoid, unless you make your meals from scratch. About three-quarters of the salt Americans consume is delivered by processed foods. At restaurants, you are what you are served — many entrees contain double or more the daily recommended intake.
Healthier people are less ill and more productive. That helps the US economy, and brings the wages of every American up.
Teaching our children to eat healthier will help our future generations.
As I've explained to you about 4 times, the gov't has many initiatives that protect the health of Americans. This will simply be another one. And the American public supports these interventions!
This reminds me of the arguments over wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. People should have the freedom to eat all the salt they want...and the rest of us can pick up the tab when their heart blows up, or their blood sugar maxes out.
For you to deny that THIS financial impact is why it is a law is blind partisanship. You're too center-right to understand this apparently.
It's safer to skydive than many other things, and if a skydiver is killed or injured, it doesn't cost us all a lot of money to repair their injuries. How many injured drivers do we have versus how many injured sky divers do we have each year? You're just throwing stuff out now, seeing what will stick, and it's a stinky way to debate ANY topic.
The big question is always, "How dangerous is skydiving?" Each year, about 30 people die in parachuting accidents in the United States, or roughly one person per 100,000 jumps. Look at the US Skydiving Incident Reports to get an idea of the types of problems that lead to fatalities. If you make one jump in a year, your chance of dying is 1 in 100,000.
How does the fatality rate in skydiving compare to other common activities? Since most adults in America drive cars, let's compare skydiving to driving. Roughly 40,000 people die each year in traffic accidents in the United States [ref]. That's 1.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. Therefore, if you drive 10,000 miles per year, your chance of dying in a car wreck in any given year is something like 1 in 6,000. In other words, we accept a higher level of risk by getting into our cars every day than people do by occasionally skydiving. You would have to jump 17 times per year for your risk of dying in a skydiving accident to equal your risk of dying in a car accident if you drive 10,000 miles per year.
"We often have these discussions about federal regulation as if the choice is between Big Brother telling you what to do or you making your own well-informed choice. So the question is, how informed are you now? Do you know that most commercial breakfast cereals are saltier than your diet should be on average?" Katz concluded: "It's not a choice between you taking personal responsibility because you don't have complete information."
So - you want to legalize all drugs then? Heroine, cocaine extacsy, crystal meth, all of it?
You go ahead and figure out why your leap is ridiculous. But I will answer your idiotic off topic irrelevant question anyway, I am for the legalization of drugs.
My leap is not "ridiculous" as you cleary made the point that what individuals put into their body is their own business. How is my question then a leap when I'm referring to things that people put into their bodies. See? The anaolgy is to things people ingest not to salt specifically.
Try Sylvan...
The anaolgy is to things people ingest not to salt specifically.
I wanted to know how consistant you are. In that case, you were. But then you had to ruin by posting drivel.
[url= http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/]Sylvan is for you.[/url]
Maybe you can.
No - it would make you a hypocrit after typing this...
See?
No - it would make you a hypocrit after typing this...
See?
Huh? My god you are dishonest. Heroin is currently illegal so "government oversight" is pretty much a given. Salt is not.
You are the troll. And a transparent one to boot.
Add liar to troll. After I just answered your first question above. Ha! Why are you posting here, to look like an idiot?
You will be held to the same standard as you hold him. We will use your words, or lack of them against you.
You must respect my foreign AUTHORITY!!!
Can I sum up righton's latest masterpiece ?
" I don't believe the government should put any restrictions on things, except for things restricted by the government."
Unbelievable.
And may I add - the government isn't GOING to restrict salt in processed food and restaurant food! The gov't is only going to make recommendations. Now, it's fairly certain that many products WILL reduce the sodium/find alternative sodium products/add other spices or flavorings to processed food, and many restaurants will either follow suit or offer more low-sodium offerings, but it won't be mandated restrictions!
That's a fair point. I cannot see a reason to argue with that. Recommending better food for Americans is not a bad thing. Our food habits are deplorable in this country.
But then again, I just like tweaking him because he will usually contradict his own posts. I've even seen him contradict himself in a single post. If I don't laugh I'll cry.
If you hadn't been dishonest from your very first post here you wouldn't be forced to try and save your nonsense now. Don't blame me for that.
:)
So sad you still can't see how ridiculous your assertions are.
Enjoy your Friday.
Nothing is stopping you from adding your own condiments to the food you buy.
You should be worried more about why processed foods and restaurants need such sodium levels to make their food edible to people.
The government is responsible to promote the general welfare of the people and such, help prevent the effects of hypertension and all the other issues with excessive sodium.
Worry about your own sodium, we don't need liberals to mommy us.
Thats why the word "promote" is there. If they find that excess use of an ingredient over time can prove harmful to your health, they provide information, have items labeled with warnings or content and all sorts of options. Look at cigarette packaging, you can still buy them but they have a warning label now. We still have the freedom of choice.
But, I am all for providing detailed information so people can make better decisions.
When my bowl of breakfast cereal uses up 1/6th of my daily sodium allowance, we have a problem in our food supply. Yes, I can cook everything from scratch, but not everyone can do that. Some don't have time, some don't know how.
That simple fact renders your argument illogical and incorrect. We tell businesses all the time how they MUST protect Americans' health.
Has anyone else noticed that right On keeps leaving a word out? Freudian slip?
They (as part of the gov't we've chosen via elections) do it by restricting dangerous workplaces. They do it by demanding that certain foods be fortified to protect people from preventable disease. We mandate vaccines. We get protected from all kinds of food-borne illnesses by restrictions on producers of processed foods and by restaurant inspections and rules.
For you to suggest that THIS voluntary guideline is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back is ludicrous and unsupportable in any way.
Actual rules that don't protect us from harmful things, like laws against pot? Those should go, without a doubt.
Me too, but I also want to HAVE choices and if the government regulating the food industry leads to more foods everyone can eat, that is not a bad thing.
Right now, I don't have choices. I have no choice but to cook almost everything I eat from scratch.
You know, pretty much every time you've ever written a sentence and ended it with "period." you've been way wrong. There's a lot of argument to be made about the role of government and personal responsibility, but playing the freedom card, or pulling out the Constitution, or riling people up by claiming that the government's coming for your salt shaker, these kinds of rhetorical culdesacs have no place in reasonable debate.
It isn't even just that they are cheaper. I'll use the people I babysit for as an example, a young family, mom, dad and two kids (3 and 8.) Both parents work full time, he works 5 days a week 11am to 9pm, she works 4 days a week ~12 hour days, usually 7 to 7. Sure, three days a week she might have time to cook, but usually she is so busy catching up with her house and her kids that even those days she ends up using at least some convenience foods.
And then there is the issue of cooking skill. I can only think of a handful of people I know who would be able to make a cream soup or casserole entirely from scratch. I don't know anyone else who makes their own granola from scratch.
As for playing the freedom card, I'll play it. I want to be free to buy food like everyone else is. I want to be free to pop into a fast food restaurant for lunch when I'm in a rush without having to take a water pill to get rid of the extra sodium that night. I want to be free to buy jars of spaghetti sauce instead of having to make it from scratch every time I serve pasta. I want to be free to keep frozen convenience foods at the ready to nuke wen I'm in a rush.
Bravo.
Example, I once bought frozen boneless skinless chicken breasts. I didn't think to check the sodium content because it was plain meat. When I swelled up after eating them, I looked at the package and found they had 800 mg of sodium per serving. It's ridiculous the places high levels of sodium is lurking in our food supply.
Then why have we had food inspections for a century? Why do we have OSHA? I could go on and on with an infinite number of ways that the gov't protects the well-being of Americans with education.
You, again, don't have a leg to stand on with this argument!
If you can't argue on topic with sodium, don't try. The leap many of you are taking makes you look silly.
Why do you think that pointing out that a poster who apparently hasn't been around in years still puts your panties into a wad makes YOU look like a superhero, when it really makes you look weak and lame?
I AM arguing on the topic YOU raised in your previous post. You said to me, "You have no say in the matter."
But you're wrong. I DO have a say in the matter. Just as my votes in elections and other American's votes in lots of elections have led us to have all kinds of gov't interventions to protect the welfare of Americans!
And so that's why I provided a couple of examples of THOSE regulations and guidelines that my votes have made happen!
You're the one who looks silly here, trying to defend the indefensible.
Serious libertarians suggest that a private organization like Consumers Reports could do the job of "safe" that the FDA does. I think that's a stretch, but even if it were true the economics and disruption of transitioning to such a private organization would defeat any plan to do it. The FDA should stick to safe and stop trying to guarantee "effective". There is no conclusive evidence anywhere that 2 tsp/day of sale will harm me. There is only evidence that some people are benefited by reducing salt intake.
Here government oversteps its bounds. It seems like it is trying to control yet another corner of American life.
FDA has no business recommending anything to me, my family or my company. FDA is over funded if they have people and money to do this. I suggest the FDA is a prime place to reduce expenses and start lowering our debt.
That's a fair point. I'll give you that. I would rather they put less sodium in almost everything. On a serious note, you need very little salt to add flavor. The rest of it is just silly.
Since we have OSHA, How come there are still work place accidents? Not all are employer caused.
Guess you wont be satisfied until a gov't worker tucks you in at night.
Classic! Well said, I may be forced to steal that one from you, but I will give due credit.
Agreed. My desire for regulated sodium content in food is admittedly self-serving. But, no I don't think this is a quick fix for the entire American diet. That is a cultural problem that can only be repaired with lots and lots of education.
So when it comes to salt, the person has the right to choose what's best for them...but if a woman is pregnant, you and the government get to decide, right? If Terri Shiavo is brain dead and those who know her and her intentions best want to pull the plug, that decision is yours and the government's...do I have this right?
i'm thinking...no? you're going to 'go it alone'?
you maverick you
i just shuddered.
I don't understand exactly WHY they hate experts, but they do.
Nope, there are others who should reduce their sodium consumption:
older than 50, are black or have a health condition such as high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease or diabetes
Health advocates have campaigned for years to get Americans to cut back. Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, calls salt "the single most harmful substance in our food."
So, if we can save some of those 100,000 lives every year, you don't think it'd be worth it?
I swear, you rightwingers who lack the empathy gene make me sick.
pure salt
Bastards took lead out of paint too.
If we can cut down the amounts in processed foods and restaurant foods, our newer generations could learn to live with less salt too.
(Did anyone not see this whine coming from a mile away???)
Many people would be content with less salt in their foods.
Many young people and future generations could have their taste buds trained to learn to like less salt in their foods.
Salt can be added to food, but cannot be removed from food once added.
Educating people by publicizing these voluntary targets and guidelines for processed food are always a good thing, and a good way to trend to change people's behavior at home.
And last but not least, no one will touch your salt shaker at home or at any restaurant.
i don't think so. If you don't think your food is salty enough, add salt.
Why should the consumer get to choose how much salt there is in tinned soup? Choices are bad. Better for the manufacturers to decide how much salt there should be.
And can someone please explain to me why you would even want rice krispies to be salty?
I have a friend who's a fairly prominent writer. A few years ago, we were batting around the various populist terms that politicians and pundits used to ingratiate themselves with anti-intellectual mouthbreathers. Elitist came up a lot. I think Rush Limbaugh popularized the notion that if someone is smarter or better educated than average, they're uppity - that probably stems from Mr. Limbaugh's own fairly rudimentary education, that inferiority complex that informs his life's work.
Anyways, my buddy, he says to me, the definition of elitist is somebody who has standards; as opposed to a snob, who believes only his standards apply. The dictionary definition of elitist is more along the lines of somebody who believes that society should be lead by an elite, i.e. qualified to lead, class.
So, when G.W. Bush was elected President, and all those man-on-the-street interviews sort of pointed to the idea that he won the White House because he was "just like us," how'd that work out?
I want a leader in the White House. I want people who are better than average making the laws and writing policy. I don't want some high school graduate whose suspicion of higher education manifests as an intellectual little man's complex running my country. So, yeah, I'm an elitist. What's wrong with that?
As for decision-making, you position this as a matter of choice. Now, quite outside the argument of government's role is the obvious question of law. Does the government have the authority to mandate standards for processed foods? Can the Federal government regulate substances based upon their harmful affect on the overall health and wellbeing of the American people? Well, yeah, they can.
So, to paraphrase the great statesman, John Stewart, I think you're confusing the term "mommy state" with "you lost the election."
If you are incapable of making decisions about your own sodium intake, fine - get a sodium adviser. However if you feel that you are smarter than most so you need to make their decisions for them, well, you don't. Another trait of an elitist, thinking you know better.
You got 'em all covered.
Note, you've been right a few times, and people here have always spoken up when they agree with you. You've been right a few times and forced a concession or two from several regular posters here. But you have never acknowledged that you were wrong, especially when your demonstrable incompetence in a subject overshadows even your cynical, stumbling attempts to rephrase tired old Heritage Foundation talking points. You might think about that, for a second.
But probably you won't....
This > "Elitists....I have a friend who's a fairly prominent writer. A few years ago, we were batting around the various populist terms that politicians and pundits used to ingratiate themselves with anti-intellectual mouthbreathers"
Elitism on display above.
"you syphilitic jackass"
Desperation on display above, potty mouth as the vehicle.
"But you have never acknowledged that you were wrong"
Lie above. I have admitted when I was wrong when I was wrong, nobody is right all the time. If you haven't seen it fine, but to make a statement like that just illustrates more desperation and lack of credibility. So the next time you and your elitist author get together, you know, the "prominent" one, to discuss snobbery and elitism save yourself the added effort, they are the same thing.
All the fools who voted for Bush, you don't think that affected my life detrimentally, the damage he did to our standing in the USA? I have lost friends and lost income because of the loss of goodwill around the world because of Bush. You don't realize that my future income was sorely affected by Bush's trashing of our economy with all his unnecessary deficit spending? It was. Other people should have made better decisions - their poor decisions affected me.
And people overeating and eating too much salt ALSO affects me. Health problems in individuals affects ALL Americans who use the healthcare system, who pay insurance premiums, and who pay local, state and federal taxes - EVERYONE in the USA, in other words.
Sure it does. That's the scary part about living in a free country that is run as a democratic republic. Sometimes the majority is wrong.
"All the fools who voted for Bush, you don't think that affected my life detrimentally, the damage he did to our standing in the USA? I have lost friends and lost income because of the loss of goodwill around the world because of Bush." - Dolly
OK. But, even if I give you that, you cannot legislate that out of the system. There will be a time when the American people once again elect a moron.
I KNOW that about the American public. The evidence is in front of us every day. Consumer debt is WAY too high, because the American public doesn't understand what they can afford and how to deny themselves and how detrimental it is to get themselves into such financial straits!
For you to deny that the American public understands this is ludicrous and disingenuous, and 100% typical of the dishonest comments you make here every day!
They do care about the sodium levels in the foods that are sold to the masses, marketed to the kids and eaten everyday by millions of people.
Again its about the general welfare of the people, you have your freedoms and are losing none.
Some simple correlations can be made, lets say, increases in childhood obesity and increases in fast food purchases.
No one is stopping our kids from eating that fast food burger, but the government can help make those parents make informed decisions.
By providing more information and letting the people make better decisions, its promotes the welfare of the people, thus my argument.
I like you, you're fun to debate with. ^^
Come on. Any parent that doesn't know fast food burgers are fattening are living on another planet. You cannot absolve people of responsibility because you claim they may not know. It is their responsibility to find out, and fast food burgers' fat content is not some secret. Give me a break.
Government is not mommy. Sorry.
And I like you too. ;)
I would hope that the future (or current) parents of that group would do the best for their children. But with how easy and cheap it is to feed a family of three with fast food, I think they are priced out of consistent healthier eating.
People should take responsibility for their decisions, I just want them to have the chance to make the best decisions they can. In my opinion some information is better than none.
Dorks.
Shakers don't kill people, salt kills people.
A lifetime of ingesting salt, in the amounts found in processed foods, will almost inevitably lead to hypertension, a silent killer.
But it DOES cause it in many people, and we can't readily identify those people for whom it's a contributing factor and those for whom it won't matter a whit how much salt they ingest.
And because we can't tell, we should protect our nation's best interests by educating the public and encouraging processed food manufacturers and restaurants to voluntarily lower the salt content of their food items.
Special K (1.1oz) 220mg
Tortilla Chips (1oz) 130mg
Prego "Heart Smart" traditional Italian Sauce (1/2 c) 360mg
Frosted Cherry Pop Tarts (1 pastry) 160mg
Kraft Light Raspberry Vinaigrette dressing (2T) 240mg
The Prego sauce actually boasts reduced sodium. The salty tortilla chips have the least amount of sodium. They are also probably the least processed of all the foods mentioned here.
We see words like "light", "heart smart" and "natural" on the label and assume it's healthy. These nutrition labels have been on our food for years. Time we started reading them, and demanding better nutrition from the manufacturers.
Maybe you already did.
Why stop at salt, when there are many thousands of diabetics that need help. We need to limit everyones intake of: Tomatoes, ALL Grains, Skim milk, Onions, Bananas, Straw berries, Apples (which have been medicaly deamed to cause cancer), Peaches, Carrots, Corn, Most beans and anything High in carbohydrates as the carbohydrate levels in these foods are harmful to a diabetic. Are you ready to cut back on these?
I can't wait to get the burger with who knows what new added preservative chemical to replace salt and with no pickle, no onion, no tomato, no ketchup, no bread and no cheese, just because a small portion of the people are (let me get this politically/liberaly correct) "informationally challanged" to make their own healthy choice options for themselves.
Oh, and by the way it was the Gov't that added a much needed vaccine to salt, as it was the only stable way to ensure the masses got this vital substance into their diet as you cannot simply add it by itself to food as it is prepared. That substance is IODINE.
With complete respect for the Blind, Deaf and Foreign visitors. All food should come with labels printed in braille. the label should also have a micro chip that has a prerecorded voice (in multiple languages), activated when the item is picked up so all consumers including the "Reading or English Challanged" are completly informed about the choice they are about to make.
Don't forget that butter and cheese are bad for you, due to the fat content. Yet when compaired to the LOW FAT, HEALTHY options, the real stuff is actualy better.
Years ago these wheere bad for you: EGGS, Pork, Beef and dairy products.
NOW:
The incredible edible EGG.
Pork, The other white meat.
Beef, It's whats for dinner.
Cheese from California cows or laughing cow.
My point is you people make these food items socially unexceptable only to find out years later that you need these food items in your diet.
You people want everyone to pitch in on health care to cover those that supposedly can't make proper choices in their lives, yet you say that someone whom endulges at McD's morning, noon and night doesn't know any better or that it isn't their fault. OLE Ronnie twisted their arm.
Then there is the argument, "I don't have time to cook fresh". BS, You can make a real meal in just about the same time as throwing a boxed dinner in the oven.
Bull pucky.
Oh, sure there are a few things you can cook quickly. But try making spaghetti sauce in the time it takes to open jar. Mac and cheese from scratch can be made relatively quickly but it still takes longer than a mix. Ever make bread from scratch? A couple of hours there, with a bread machine you could program it and leave it, but even that takes time. Cereal from a box - yeah a lot faster than the granola I made from scratch last week which took and hour and a half.
I could go on, but you get the drift.
No one is asking that they remove salt entirely. The amount needed for preservation is a fraction of what is added these days.
The government is not your mommy.
As I said before, if the food manufacturers had behaved responsibly in the past and produced a variety of foods to meet everyone's needs, I would agree with you. But left to their own devices, the food manufacturers produced products in this country have gotten less and less nutritious and more and more packed with ingredients that can be harmful to large segments of the population.
"No one is asking that they remove salt entirely. The amount needed for preservation is a fraction of what is added these days."
...And what amount would be proper and how do yuo know?
Large amounts of salt is bad for you. Food producers put lots of it in to get you addicted to their food. I for one will be glad for the government to put a stop to this practice.
How does it feel?
Too much sun causes skin cancer. Lets create a Gov't agencey to limit public sun exposure. OH yea I'll be paying in to help cover those medical costs.
Too much alcohol causes serosis of the liver. Lets ban it. I'll also be paying in to cover medical costs.
Alcohol leads to homoside. Lets ban it.
Alcohol leads to abuse. Lets ban it.
Sweets/candy cause tooth decay and obeisity. Let set up Gov't control.
Sodas contain CO2 lets ban it. CO2 is bad for the evnvironment and your health. Let Gov't control it.
See where this is going?
Don't give them any ideas. :)
All purpose flour is explosive, yet we put it in the oven. Don't you people know it's dangerous. Gov't needs to BAN IT too.
So, no fact was "thumbed down".
On top of that, trolls and jerks get their posts thumbed down because people get tired of their nonsense posts, and so it's a kneejerk reaction on the part of some raters. You're a victim of your own previous dishonest behavior. And lastly, your post has nothing to do with this topic. The government has had a ton of responsibility to improve the health and safety of the American public. Even if they didn't invent/require EVERY safety feature/safety inspection/regulation that businesses follow to protect the public, that doesn't mean that they have had a significant role in that protection!!!!!!!!!
Um... last I looked alcohol IS regulated by the government. And much more strictly than any of the proposed sodium initiatives.
And Right on, sweetie, here in America, we have this little agency called the ATF. Now, you may associate them with guns, but the 'A' in there stands for 'alcohol'. The federal government regulates the production of alcoholic beverages.
So, just as you seem not to be aware that the government regulates what can and can't be in you favorite malt liquor, if the government exacted new sodium regulations, I'm sure you would remain ust as blissfully unaware of those as well.
You're grasping at straws here. We regulate all kinds of things to protect the American public. There's no way to argue against this fact. It's a fact.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but NOT their own facts.
Because it sure sounds like you have been arguing against something that only exists in Howard Kurtz's mind.
1. The proposal does NOT limit your personal consumption of sodium, just as the laws regulating the manufacture of alcohol do not affect your personal consumption of alcohol. This new proposals from the IOM wouldn't change YOUR ability to salt your food one bit. It would increase the number of choices people like me have when we go shopping.
2. The conversation here, compared this new proposal to the way we regulate alcohol manufacture. I wouldn't have made the connection, but there are some similarities. As you so clearly point out, regulating manufacture of a consumable does not take away your right to use and overuse that consumable.
Just like we educate people better now than we did a generation or two ago about alcohol usage. Just like we educate people better about tobacco usage. We still allow people to drink and smoke, but we have fewer people dying and being injured by those two products because we've educated them to the dangers. We've stopped people from having to inhale second hand smoke in offices and other public spaces.
Anyone who can't understand this is either really, really ignorant or is trying to pretend to not understand it.
Would you be talking about Mayor Bloomberg's initiative to a plan aimed at reducing the amount of salt that restaurants and food manufacturing companies put in their food by 25 percent over five years. which is a voluntary program?
Or perhaps you are confusing the Institute of Medicine's report that calls for government intervention to very slowly reduce the amount of sodium found in processed food in such a way that no one will even notice it happening with an actual done deal of a government mandate. There is still time for manufacturers to wise up and produce better food. One company already is.
I ask you, are you going to also let GOV"T limit the masses intake of the foods I mentioned above, that are harmful to a diabetics?
Have you people even looked at the labels on low fat foods? The fat content is lowered but the other bad things increase: Sugar, carbs and ect.
4 minutes after that fool MADE his post, your post was registered. It likely took YOU about a minute to read his post if you read it when it was immediately made (when YOU made it, because he's one of your sockpuppets?) and then replied to it, and so let's say 3 minutes after he posted it, you're whining that no one has replied to it?
Really?
Diabetics have lots of choices, everything from soda to cookies to cakes and ice cream are available in diabetic safe forms. We don't need the government to step in and convince manufacturers to service that community because they already do. I have yet to find a commercial bread and luncheon meat with a low enough sodium content that I can have a sandwich.
Honestly though, I'd rather see them go after the HFCS first and tackle the salt second. I know how to cook from scratch. Actually, I know how to make my own soda too, but that's a pain in the a$$,
You unfettered market people are either brain dead or amnesiacs. Either way, you're just as cracked as your economic theory.
This was already explained to you.
Next, it's an effort at education, mostly. And yeah, the gov't DOES try to educate people about the dangers of ignoring diabetic issues, as well as addressing the nation's problems with obesity!
So yeah, I am ALSO strongly in favor of the government trying to help Americans be healthier. I want them to continue running OSHA, the FDA, and these programs to educate people about better eating habits!
And to respond again to you, The "Life Savers" brand put the hole in their candy TO prevent choking.
When you go to a resturant, DO you ask that your food be prepared without salt? I'm still waiting for a resturant where I can be seated in the non-alcohol no-children section.