[quote]orion wrote:
But you would like the very same clowns to tell everyone how to eat?
[/quote]
In our country at least, they have learned something in the last 20 years as well.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
It shouldn’t mean anything to a company. It’s not the responsibility of any company to make sure you’re healthy. That’s your responsibility. Why is this so hard to figure out?
[/quote]
Yes, the american people are really setting a good example of healthy living. The FDA is there to make it easier being healthy. Those responsibility free companies are not making your new public health plan any cheaper for you.
[quote]orion wrote:
But you would like the very same clowns to tell everyone how to eat?
[/quote]
In our country at least, they have learned something in the last 20 years as well.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
It shouldn’t mean anything to a company. It’s not the responsibility of any company to make sure you’re healthy. That’s your responsibility. Why is this so hard to figure out?
[/quote]
Yes, the american people are really setting a good example of healthy living. The FDA is there to make it easier being healthy. Those responsibility free companies are not making your new public health plan any cheaper for you.[/quote]
If the American people don’t want to live a healthy lifestyle in general, why does it matter to anyone else other than those making that choice? I’m not saying I agree with their logic, but it is THEIR logic. The FDA is also there to ban drugs which could have potentially saved thousands of lives. Is that making it easier for us to be healthy?
Salt is a GRAS substance that nearly all evidence I’ve come across shows does not need to be limited in healthy individuals, and much of the evidence for limitation in various disease states is conflicted except for certain, specific conditions. Regardless of anyone’s opinion concerning the role of government here, it’s a stupid substance to target.
Of all the things to go after…they ignore questionable chemical additives and trans-fats (allowed to say “0 g trans-fats” on the label if it’s less than .5 g trans-fats per serving) in favor of effing salt.
I’m in favor of clear, straightforward, factual labeling. Let me make my own informed decisions about what I will or will not eat.
Salt is a GRAS substance that nearly all evidence I’ve come across shows does not need to be limited in healthy individuals, and much of the evidence for limitation in various disease states is conflicted except for certain, specific conditions. Regardless of anyone’s opinion concerning the role of government here, it’s a stupid substance to target.
Of all the things to go after…they ignore questionable chemical additives and trans-fats (allowed to say “0 g trans-fats” on the label if it’s less than .5 g trans-fats per serving) in favor of effing salt.
I’m in favor of clear, straightforward, factual labeling. Let me make my own informed decisions about what I will or will not eat.[/quote]
I was under the impression that we were talking about individuals with already existing conditions that extra salt is generally thought of to make worse. I thought it was more or less accepted that you only need to limit it significantly if you already had problems, like in my case. So, I think you’re correct, it does appear to be stupid as a tactical matter (and as a philosophical one).
What’s the problem? You think I don’t know about aspartame? I clearly think sodium is a problem too, but I still drink the soda. What’s your point?
[/quote]
Obviously you do not know. You may know that its “bad” for you, but you do not know why.
I suggest you inform yourself. If you understood the Problem, you would not still be drinking the soda. Or else you would be termed A Fucking Retard.
These questions are for you. Not I. I already know the biology behind it. You, on the other hand, do not and it seems like you will just about say anything to defend government regulation.
and, btw, there are far, far far far more serious problems than sodium. Say MSG, hydrolyzed vegetable proteins, hydrogenated oils, aluminum in deordorants, mercury in vaccines, neurotoxins in DEET, etc.
I am not, however, calling on the government to ban them. The peoples choices will determine what product lives and what dies. Put the knowledge out there and let the people decide. Its people like you, though, who know that its “bad” but keep buying them, that keep said products alive.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yeah, what a terrible idea for the government to make sure companies can’t put a bunch of shit in your food…
I’m sure that people going to the hospital with blood pressure-related conditions doesn’t cost us any money, either.[/quote]
Is someone forcing you to eat that crap food ? The same crap food that is known to cause health problems regardless of salt consumption ? Consumed by the same people who curiously wonder why living off that crap food has made them sick and who need to be told to exercise regularly?[/quote]
Is someone telling you that you can’t sprinkle some salt on your low-sodium potato chips?[/quote]
No, but they will substitute it with something that will be far worse and 100% FDA approved and 20 years later all of our kidneys will explode.
Would hardly be the first time and if we just put salt on it afterwards anyway, what is the point in the first place?
[/quote]
The point is that most people will probably not add salt, especially if sodium is reduced gradually, as has been suggested.
Who’s deceiving them? It’s not secret. I’m beginning to think you have a problem with words. The idea is to reduce the amount of unnecessary sodium in food, not to galvanize people into taking better care of themselves. Pretty simple.
And of course, you think you know what’s good for people, too. The free market. “Let producers fill food up with unhealthy crap! Nevermind the fact that they’re inundated with it, and it’s in everything, and many of them are busy and don’t have the time or the inclination to study up on micronutrients.” So really, your objection is unfounded, because you turn right around and want them to do what YOU think is good for people.
As I mentioned above, this is exactly the same kind of value judgement that you complain about.
And in this case, I DO know what’s good for people. Everyone knows. So we’re going to do something about it, maybe.
Again, read the sentence, and argue appropriately. You’re either confused, or intentionally twisting things to make your argument sound legitimate. First of all, the FDA is NOT telling people they have to be concerned, and they’re NOT telling companies what the public should want. They’re telling them to quit putting so much sodium into food, from which fact neither of your assertions follow. You see how ideological you’re attempting to make this, when it’s just not?
At the cost of your ideology. gasp “Government regulation might produce a social benefit?!” Other than that, there is very little cost involved. Some manufacturers have begun the process already.
Strike two. As I said earlier, if it upsets you this much, add salt. No one is forcing you to do or to refrain from doing anything. It’s like one of those programs you have to opt out of, or you’re automatically enrolled. It’s not forcing you to do anything, but it does make it more likely for apathetic individuals to make a better “choice.”
Individuals, who are frequently treated at public expense. It’s funny, because a conservative like you would ordinarily be up in arms about this, but because the proposed good would come about as a result of government intervention, you’re against it. Too funny.
Besides that, you could take a little interest in the health of others.
But you still ignore the fact that it costs society lots of money, which could be spent more productively, which is very much a public concern. So you’re the one in error here (even though I’m ignoring the false dilemma between “individualism” and “collectivism”).
It doesn’t matter how many times you trot out that fallacy, it still doesn’t make it true. What about poisoned food? What if a manufacturer wanted to put poison in their food? As long as they listed the ingredient in tiny type on the edge of the box, they should be able to do it. After all, if the individual really wanted poison-free food, he or she would do the research and find out which foods were poisoned and which were not.
Not when they can just as easily slip in a bunch of sodium, which is a cheap way to make their food more appealing.
Ah yes, pointing out the myriad flaws of the free market must mean I don’t understand it. How could I be so blind to not see that the price system handles everything? I’ve never heard that before.
This is a good example of something that the market is not equipped to handle.
Hey, don’t get mad at me. This is your desired system.
I’m not complaining on my behalf, you dolt.
That makes the totally unfounded assumption that most people even think about it, which most do not. Thus, your argument fails. You’d be surprised how many of those grand econ 101 theorems are false when you really look at them.
I’m going to give you one more chance to display a 5th grade level of reading comprehension.
“The FDA is not currently working on regulations nor have they made a decision to regulate sodium content in foods at this time.”
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:Obviously you do not know. You may know that its “bad” for you, but you do not know why.
I suggest you inform yourself. If you understood the Problem, you would not still be drinking the soda. Or else you would be termed A Fucking Retard.[/quote]
Oh I understand. You think you’re smart for knowing about aspartame? Well good for you I guess, but there are legions of things that are bad for you that people still do. Smoking, drinking, eating french fries, etc. All of these and more are bad for you. Are the people who do them ALL retards? The problem comes from our difficulty in judging distant consequences of present actions.
I didn’t know we could just decree what our opponents knew and didn’t know. In that case, you clearly don’t know about the effects of high sodium intake, since you want me to explain it to you. Sorry, you’re going to have to do your own homework here.
And I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that “I will say anything to defend government regulation.” Even if it were true, why would it be a bad thing? You’ll say anything to defend the free market. Your problem is simply that I disagree with you. You seem upset that I’m punching holes in your ideology. Sorry.
Obviously you do not know. You may know that its “bad” for you, but you do not know why.
I suggest you inform yourself. If you understood the Problem, you would not still be drinking the soda. Or else you would be termed A Fucking Retard. [/quote]
Please, read what I wrote again. Try to comprehend it this time.
Knowing something is “bad” is not knowing.
With just knowing something is “bad” , smoking is equal to excessive tv is equal to shooting yourself in the head with a gun.
But in reality, we know shooting your brains out ends your life. Smoking and too much tv? Most dont have a clue. Just a vague idea.
If you show a drug user a spect scan of his brain, explained to him how what he is doing is affecting his life and his goals negatively. For him to keep using, with that knowledge, would yes – make him a retard. And in honesty, for one to keep using, they probably ARE mentally retarded. They simply dont understand.
I called you a retard for using aspartame for I assumed (but I dont really think you know diddly poo about it), being on T-Nation, that your brain and body were what you valued most. I might be wrong.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yeah, what a terrible idea for the government to make sure companies can’t put a bunch of shit in your food…
I’m sure that people going to the hospital with blood pressure-related conditions doesn’t cost us any money, either.[/quote]
Is someone forcing you to eat that crap food ? The same crap food that is known to cause health problems regardless of salt consumption ? Consumed by the same people who curiously wonder why living off that crap food has made them sick and who need to be told to exercise regularly?[/quote]
Is someone telling you that you can’t sprinkle some salt on your low-sodium potato chips?[/quote]
No, but they will substitute it with something that will be far worse and 100% FDA approved and 20 years later all of our kidneys will explode.
Would hardly be the first time and if we just put salt on it afterwards anyway, what is the point in the first place?
[/quote]
The point is that most people will probably not add salt, especially if sodium is reduced gradually, as has been suggested.
[/quote]
You think so?
Will you take personal responsibility if that doesnot happen this way and people are somehow damaged by what they substitute uit with?
Aleady there are plans to alter the molecular structure of salt so that less of it tastes as salty as more of the regular salt.
Will, you, personally, take responsibility when this, or any other substitute, damages human beings, like HFCS, aspartame, artificial flavors etc, and in what form would you express your responsibility?
You would not possibly regard those people as your warden and abandon them if your recommendations have harmed them, wouldnt you?
This is sad really, you’re still displaying all the same fallacies as before.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Sorry, you don’t decide how much is “enough.”[/quote]
You’re right. The people do. I don’t give two shits if they are lazy and that’s the reason why, but they have decided.
[quote]Who’s deceiving them? It’s not secret. I’m beginning to think you have a problem with words. The idea is to reduce the amount of unnecessary sodium in food, not to galvanize people into taking better care of themselves. Pretty simple.
And of course, you think you know what’s good for people, too. The free market. “Let producers fill food up with unhealthy crap! Nevermind the fact that they’re inundated with it, and it’s in everything, and many of them are busy and don’t have the time or the inclination to study up on micronutrients.” So really, your objection is unfounded, because you turn right around and want them to do what YOU think is good for people.[/quote]
You said, “…you’ll have contributed to better public health, all without John Doe having to realize any of it.” That doesn’t sound like deception? I may feel like I know what’s better for people, but I would not force my views on anyone else. No one is forced to participate in the free market. Yes, we should let producers fill food with unhealthy crap, IF the public can stand it. Which they can. For the last fucking time, sodium is not in everything! Look around you for once.
[quote]As I mentioned above, this is exactly the same kind of value judgement that you complain about.
And in this case, I DO know what’s good for people. Everyone knows. So we’re going to do something about it, maybe.[/quote]
Ha ha. At least you admit it.
Dear lord. So, they’re not telling the people what to be concerned about, but they ARE telling them how much sodium companies can put in their food? Didn’t you just say above that you DO know what’s good for people? And that they are lazy, and the FDA must step in to make them more concerned because they don’t have the time to study “micronutrients”? Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese.
Again, there is no such thing as a “social benefit”. It’s a neat ploy that collectivists use to try to impose their will on people. There are only individuals, and they decide what benefit they want PERSONALLY, without a third party telling them what they should have.
Yes they are! They are going to systematically draw down the amount of sodium that companies are allowed to use, so in effect, they are telling me how much I can use from those companies. And, don’t get them wrong, they ARE heading down the path of regulating table salt as well. I guarantee it.
[quote]Individuals, who are frequently treated at public expense. It’s funny, because a conservative like you would ordinarily be up in arms about this, but because the proposed good would come about as a result of government intervention, you’re against it. Too funny.
Besides that, you could take a little interest in the health of others.[/quote]
What is “public expense”? There are only individuals, stop kidding yourself that there is some grand “public” that must be saved by the wise overlords. Yes, I am against it simply because it is the government doing it. You do understand that they operate differently from any company, right? I mean, if you don’t get how government works, then maybe we should just stop here and you should a read a book or two. I am not against the government doing good; I am not an anarchist. Here, they are overstepping their bounds. I am interested in the health of others, but I should not be forced to be interested in their health, nor should they. It’s that simple. If you want to help someone get healthy, then you get your own group together, using your own money that warns people of the dangers of unhealthy food and high sodium intake.
Now you’re changing the subject. We were talking about the morality of this, not the economic side of it.
Why in the hell would a manufacturer want to put poison in their food? Do you honestly think they’re going to make a profit by doing that? Their goal is to make money, and they can only do that (in a free market) by satisfying the consumers’ demands. People would simply stop buying that company’s food if they poison it. Also, I’m not saying that the FDA has never done anything good, but the bad they have done FAR outweigh the good.
So be it. They’re still not forcing the consumer to buy or even like their food.
Clearly, you don’t.
The food industry is one of the best examples of the market at work, and this is no exception. It’s just not what YOU want it to be.
Says the guy with the Marx avatar.
Obviously, but you’re so disconnected with reality it’s truly funny.
Who cares if people think about it? It’s their right to think or not to think about it. I want to let the people decide what they want, and if they are lazy and don’t care, then they will pay the repercussions and hopefully one day wake up to their error. And if not, it is still their choice. If you want to help them, then volunteer your time to educate them, but don’t force people to change their food habits.
[quote]I’m going to give you one more chance to display a 5th grade level of reading comprehension.
“The FDA is not currently working on regulations nor have they made a decision to regulate sodium content in foods at this time.”
So try again.[/quote]
Sigh. “The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans…The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.” Those are all from the article, which is where I found out about this.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yeah, what a terrible idea for the government to make sure companies can’t put a bunch of shit in your food…
I’m sure that people going to the hospital with blood pressure-related conditions doesn’t cost us any money, either.[/quote]
Is someone forcing you to eat that crap food ? The same crap food that is known to cause health problems regardless of salt consumption ? Consumed by the same people who curiously wonder why living off that crap food has made them sick and who need to be told to exercise regularly?[/quote]
Is someone telling you that you can’t sprinkle some salt on your low-sodium potato chips?[/quote]
No, but they will substitute it with something that will be far worse and 100% FDA approved and 20 years later all of our kidneys will explode.
Would hardly be the first time and if we just put salt on it afterwards anyway, what is the point in the first place?
[/quote]
The point is that most people will probably not add salt, especially if sodium is reduced gradually, as has been suggested.
[/quote]
You think so?
Will you take personal responsibility if that doesnot happen this way and people are somehow damaged by what they substitute uit with?
Aleady there are plans to alter the molecular structure of salt so that less of it tastes as salty as more of the regular salt.
Will, you, personally, take responsibility when this, or any other substitute, damages human beings, like HFCS, aspartame, artificial flavors etc, and in what form would you express your responsibility?
You would not possibly regard those people as your warden and abandon them if your recommendations have harmed them, wouldnt you?
[/quote]
Here is the website from the IOM–not one of my favorite organizations–making the salt recommendations.
Can you please show me where they recommend any salt substitute?
Can you please show me a citation for an attempt to “alter the molecular structure of salt” to make salt taste more salty? (Apart from alchemy websites.) I happen to like the taste of potassium and calcium, but it does not alter the “molecular structure” of salt.
And isn’t this discussion backwards? What if the IOM and FDA–or the food industry is such organizations did not exist–decided that a new substance, generally regarded as safe, was to be added to the food supply, just to make it more tasty. Perhaps there would be some side effects, but the consumer could read the label and decide for himself. Now, would that be acceptable?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yeah, what a terrible idea for the government to make sure companies can’t put a bunch of shit in your food…
I’m sure that people going to the hospital with blood pressure-related conditions doesn’t cost us any money, either.[/quote]
Is someone forcing you to eat that crap food ? The same crap food that is known to cause health problems regardless of salt consumption ? Consumed by the same people who curiously wonder why living off that crap food has made them sick and who need to be told to exercise regularly?[/quote]
Is someone telling you that you can’t sprinkle some salt on your low-sodium potato chips?[/quote]
No, but they will substitute it with something that will be far worse and 100% FDA approved and 20 years later all of our kidneys will explode.
Would hardly be the first time and if we just put salt on it afterwards anyway, what is the point in the first place?
[/quote]
The point is that most people will probably not add salt, especially if sodium is reduced gradually, as has been suggested.
[/quote]
You think so?
Will you take personal responsibility if that doesnot happen this way and people are somehow damaged by what they substitute uit with?
Aleady there are plans to alter the molecular structure of salt so that less of it tastes as salty as more of the regular salt.
Will, you, personally, take responsibility when this, or any other substitute, damages human beings, like HFCS, aspartame, artificial flavors etc, and in what form would you express your responsibility?
You would not possibly regard those people as your warden and abandon them if your recommendations have harmed them, wouldnt you?
[/quote]
Here is the website from the IOM–not one of my favorite organizations–making the salt recommendations.
Can you please show me where they recommend any salt substitute?
Can you please show me a citation for an attempt to “alter the molecular structure of salt” to make salt taste more salty? (Apart from alchemy websites.) I happen to like the taste of potassium and calcium, but it does not alter the “molecular structure” of salt.
And isn’t this discussion backwards? What if the IOM and FDA–or the food industry is such organizations did not exist–decided that a new substance, generally regarded as safe, was to be added to the food supply, just to make it more tasty. Perhaps there would be some side effects, but the consumer could read the label and decide for himself. Now, would that be acceptable?[/quote]
First, they did not recommend to substitute fat with simple carbohydrates either. Nor did they recommend replacing coconut oil with trans-fats, wait, no some actually did that.
Anyway that is what happened.
Second, it was an article in the “Spiegel”, will try to find a web version.
PepsiCo Develops ‘Designer Salt’ to Chip Away at Sodium Intake
By BETSY MCKAY
PLANO, Texasâ??Later this month, at a pilot manufacturing plant here, PepsiCo Inc. plans to start churning out batches of a secret new ingredient to make its Lay’s potato chips healthier.
video
News Hub: Designer Salt to Reduce Sodium
5:11
PepsiCo develops a designer salt to cut sodium in snacks. WSJ’s Betsy McKay joins Kelsey Hubbard in the News Hub with more.
The ingredient is a new “designer salt” whose crystals are shaped and sized in a way that reduces the amount of sodium consumers ingest when they munch. PepsiCo hopes the powdery salt, which it is still studying and testing with consumers, will cut sodium levels 25% in its Lay’s Classic potato chips. The new salt could help reduce sodium levels even further in seasoned Lay’s chips like Sour Cream & Onion, PepsiCo said, and it could be used in other products like Cheetos and Quaker bars.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Here is the website from the IOM–not one of my favorite organizations–making the salt recommendations.
Can you please show me where they recommend any salt substitute?
Can you please show me a citation for an attempt to “alter the molecular structure of salt” to make salt taste more salty? (Apart from alchemy websites.) I happen to like the taste of potassium and calcium, but it does not alter the “molecular structure” of salt.
And isn’t this discussion backwards? What if the IOM and FDA–or the food industry is such organizations did not exist–decided that a new substance, generally regarded as safe, was to be added to the food supply, just to make it more tasty. Perhaps there would be some side effects, but the consumer could read the label and decide for himself. Now, would that be acceptable?[/quote]
The food industry does this all of the time. The compound in Coca-Cola/Cargill’s latest sweetener, rebaudioside A, was given GRAS status. The compound is listed on the nutritional information label. Olestra was given GRAS status, along with a requirement to label the package with the side effects. As long as the companies are required to disclose WHAT is in the food, the consumer can decide to eat it or leave it on the shelf.
Regardless, it is fallacious to analogize salt with other, more questionable food additives, as I pointed out earlier.
PepsiCo Develops ‘Designer Salt’ to Chip Away at Sodium Intake
By BETSY MCKAY
PLANO, Texasâ??Later this month, at a pilot manufacturing plant here, PepsiCo Inc. plans to start churning out batches of a secret new ingredient to make its Lay’s potato chips healthier.
video
News Hub: Designer Salt to Reduce Sodium
5:11
PepsiCo develops a designer salt to cut sodium in snacks. WSJ’s Betsy McKay joins Kelsey Hubbard in the News Hub with more.
The ingredient is a new “designer salt” whose crystals are shaped and sized in a way that reduces the amount of sodium consumers ingest when they munch. PepsiCo hopes the powdery salt, which it is still studying and testing with consumers, will cut sodium levels 25% in its Lay’s Classic potato chips. The new salt could help reduce sodium levels even further in seasoned Lay’s chips like Sour Cream & Onion, PepsiCo said, and it could be used in other products like Cheetos and Quaker bars. [/quote]
Crystal size I understand; “molecular structure” I did not.
And so you make my point. When one strips away the false assertions, your argument is that the FDA–and anything that smacks of government–has no right to regulate. I presume you feel “the Market” alone has this right. But, as you make clear, iit is not the FDA that puts things in food, it is the food industry. One must presume that this is a piece of sacred theater that occurs between the Consumer and the likes of Monsanto, Armour and Swift–or, in your example, PepsiCo. And I frankly don’t trust them alone to make the decisions about what should appear silently in the food supply.