[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.[/quote]
See my comments, supra.
You will note that the IOM paper–which is a marvel of redundancy–emphasizes that it is the standard of “GRAS” that is to be re-examined.
It seems you argue for a stronger FDA, with tighter regulations.
PepsiCo Develops ‘Designer Salt’ to Chip Away at Sodium Intake
By BETSY MCKAY
PLANO, TexasÃ?¢??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.[/quote]
So salt is changed in some way and we do not know what the long term results will be?
Just to be sure?
And you trust career politicians more than food companies?
PepsiCo Develops ‘Designer Salt’ to Chip Away at Sodium Intake
By BETSY MCKAY
PLANO, TexasÃ??Ã?¢??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.[/quote]
So salt is changed in some way and we do not know what the long term results will be?
Just to be sure?
And you trust career politicians more than food companies?
Interesting![/quote]
And you think that the FDA is comprised of “career politicians?” Can you name one? (I have reasons to dislike them, but it is not because they are career politicians.)
And you think that the food companies records and research is open to public scrutiny?
More interesting!
You live in a society where your government determines the legal radius of curvature of a banana, and how many sesame seeds must be on a Kaiser roll.
Perhaps you have more work to do at home.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Doc, maybe you’ve never witnessed bureaucracy inaction but it reeks of politics…and these politicians don’t have to run for office.[/quote]
Understood.
But not a convincing argument that this particular bureau should disappear in favor of the “benign” motives of the food industry.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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]
Just wanted to say that I had to go to work before and I didn’t get a chance to read that article, but I just did (and a few more). While they aren’t (or claim not to be…which is probably BS) necessarily intending to regulate yet, it clearly is an option they’re considering. Either way, if they did regulate, everything I said still serves as a counter-point to that. The article also said, “Whatâ??s needed, the report stated, is mandatory action that will create a level playing field, something thatâ??s â??critical to any successful effort to reduce the sodium content of the overall food supply.â??” So, obviously it’s on the table either way.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
And you think that the food companies records and research is open to public scrutiny?
More interesting![/quote]
It should be. Even though I’m arguing that the FDA is wrong in this situation, these things should be open to the public in the sense that if a food company conceals relevant information, they should be subject to suit for fraud and made to pay heavy fines. I’m not sure how much this happens though right now.
[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.[/quote]
See my comments, supra.
You will note that the IOM paper–which is a marvel of redundancy–emphasizes that it is the standard of “GRAS” that is to be re-examined.
It seems you argue for a stronger FDA, with tighter regulations.
And that is my coup-de-GRAS.[/quote]
Hardly. I am not arguing for a stronger FDA; if anything, I’ve argued for the status quo. If you want to discuss whether GRAS merits revision - that’s an entirely different discussion.
And, if the Post article is incorrect; if there are no plans to regulate sodium content - good.
But the motives of the food industry are not benign. Do they not have an incentive to keep their customers paying customers?
Your assertion that “bureaus” should be trusted instead of markets contains the same criticism you make about markets: What motivates bureaucrats to care more about Coca-Cola customers than Coca-Cola, for example?
Are we supposed to believe bureaucrats are not driven by their own career interests and the same vices that the lesser beings of Coca-Cola are? We don’t even necessarily have to assume that all bureaucrats are evil. It is enough just to imagine the possibility that a few of them are incompetent. And then there is the bigger question: How does this monopolistic agency know it is successful without some sort of customer feedback?
Besides, regulations do not automatically make people safer because regulations do not prevent people from doing stupid things or behaving immorally.
What makes people safer is information. Thankfully there exists private and nonprofit consumer advocacy groups that do actually care about protecting consumers. I trust them more than the FDA.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But the motives of the food industry are not benign. Do they not have an incentive to keep their customers paying customers?
Your assertion that “bureaus” should be trusted instead of markets contains the same criticism you make about markets: What motivates bureaucrats to care more about Coca-Cola customers than Coca-Cola, for example?
Are we supposed to believe bureaucrats are not driven by their own career interests and the same vices that the lesser beings of Coca-Cola are? We don’t even necessarily have to assume that all bureaucrats are evil. It is enough just to imagine the possibility that a few of them are incompetent. And then there is the bigger question: How does this monopolistic agency know it is successful without some sort of customer feedback?
Besides, regulations do not automatically make people safer because regulations do not prevent people from doing stupid things or behaving immorally.
What makes people safer is information. Thankfully there exists private and nonprofit consumer advocacy groups that do actually care about protecting consumers. I trust them more than the FDA.[/quote]
The food industry ensures that the long-term effects of its additives are insensible to the consumers. An individual paying consumer will not feel the effect of BHT, or transfats, or arguably, salt. As I have argued in another context, information is not freely held, and in this particular aspect, there isn’t a free market.
Oh, but the FDA does indeed respond to citizens, consumer groups, advocacy groups, etc. Do not kid yourself.
Last, if you trust private and nonprofit consumer advocacy groups, then surely you trust the IOM, part of the NAS, which produced these recmmendations regarding salt regulation.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
As I have argued in another context, information is not freely held, and in this particular aspect, there isn’t a free market.
[/quote]
Of course there is a free market for information because people are free to compete to revise information and develop it anew. Which is a necessary requirement for every generation. The field of medicine would not exist if what you say is true.
Just because one person has information that others do not does not mean that information is even relevant.
Ideas are not scarce. No one can have a monopoly on ideas. In fact what the government is trying to do – against natural law – is create a monopoly on information. Only they are allowed to give out “official” information – and what they say is, de facto, true. No one is even allowed to question it.
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]
Just once, I would like to see you make an appropriate argument. Without fail, you argue against positions no one is taking.
I am not recommending we come up with a salt substitute, simply that sodium gradually be reduced. Those people who wish to add salt may of course do so, but this in no way requires or suggests the development of salt alternatives, or salternatives (that may have been the worst joke I’ve ever made).
No, it doesn’t sound like deception, as long as the ingredients and their amounts are still listed. How could even a “stealth” lowering of sodium amount to deception while the stealth increase in the first place did not?
And you ignore the fact that you still want the free market to be imposed on everyone. The free market is not the only economic option. So you’re still making the same kind of value judgement which you then turn around and complain about.
There’s nothing to admit. This is not controversial. It’s just like I know that it’s best for people not to smoke, or drive drunk.
It should be telling that you have to attempt to complicate such a simple scenario in order for your argument to become viable.
The only way anything in my argument could be unclear or confusing is through deliberate misreading and obfuscation. The consumers and the food manufacturers are two different groups. The government is not telling consumers they have to be concerned about their sodium intake. They are considering requiring manufacturers to lower the amount of sodium in their products, which requires nothing of consumers. Do you not see how these two things don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other?
An occurrence that benefits society in a systemic manner is a social benefit. Sorry, try again. You may not value it, but that doesn’t negate its existence. You don’t have a leg to stand on in this argument, which is nicely illustrated by the fact that you must continually distort the arguments, deny facts, and debate semantics. There is no personal freedom whatsover being infringed upon here, and you know it.
No, they are not. It’s pathetic that you are trying so hard to spin this. Once again, if it’s not salty enough, add salt. This is no way prevents you from using as much salt as you want.
Have you not heard of Medicare and Medicaid? Were you previously unaware of the large amount of taxpayer funds we spend on health care in this country? This argument you are trying to make is laughably pathetic, as you try to ignore the existence of society.
Pointing out the absurdity of your “moral” argument was so trivially easy, I decided to allot some space to an economic critique as well.
Why, to make a profit, of course. The problem you have is that you pretend that companies only take noble routes to profit. Why don’t you ask the Chinese why they put that melamine in their milk? Please, examine the real world.
Alright, on the flip side, the government is not forcing you to eat the food as is. Add table salt, you crybaby.
Keep telling yourself that.
It is one of the best examples of a market working, made more efficient by government involvement, I agree. Except, you simply ignore the parts that you find unpalatable.
What is this supposed to mean? Do you think that Marx secretly wanted a capitalist democracy? Are you calling our current system Marxist? If so, why?
Ahaha! Your entire argument hinges on denying reality. Denying society, denying the real operation of markets, in favor of a utopian textbook theory, pretending that a simple regulation somehow deprives you of any rights.
You’re simply too funny.
Of course it’s their right to think about it or not, but the logic of your argument depends on the assumption that they DO think about it, so here’s yet another place where you contradict yourself.
This was a rumor which was denied by the FDA the following day. Which of course doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not planning it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No, it doesn’t sound like deception, as long as the ingredients and their amounts are still listed. How could even a “stealth” lowering of sodium amount to deception while the stealth increase in the first place did not?[/quote]
Because the consumers willingly tolerated the “stealth increase”. Look, if for some odd reason the producers were in complete opposition to the consumers and refused to serve them as they wanted, then you would have a point. But why would they do that in the first place?
No, but it’s the only one that is largely free of coercion. I mean, I don’t get what you’re saying here. Like, you do want YOUR economic system imposed on people right? I just think mine is better.
Well the drunk driving thing is a different issue because it involves people who didn’t voluntarily agree to be part of that “contract”, but even if you know that it’s not good for them to smoke, as long as it doesn’t effect anyone else physically then it should be their choice. You’re right, no controversy here, I hope…
I didn’t say your argument was unclear. I said it was weak. Consumers and food manufacturers are different groups, but they correspond to each other. One cannot exist or prosper without the other. So, if the government is telling food manufacturers, who consumers voluntarily agree to consume their products, to lower the sodium content of the food that they choose to eat, how is that not controlling what they eat (albeit in a small way)?
Ok, that’s a more reasonable definition I suppose, but it still doesn’t get at the fundamental problem of your argument which is that you fail to take into account what the individual desires, rather than what is supposedly good for the “group”. Again, this has nothing to do with whether I value a benefit to people. It has everything to do with how that “benefit” was achieved and what means were used in that process.
That doesn’t negate the principle here. Whether I can add salt or not is irrelevant.
What does this have to do with what I said?
Your contempt for others’ beliefs would be truly scary, if it wasn’t so damn funny.
Not at all. It is simply in the companies’ interest to take the route that the consumer desires most. You think China operates in a free market? Even if what you’re saying is true to a free market, it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you 10? Crybaby? Sheesh. No, they’re not forcing us, but they are forcing the people who feed us food.
Will do, champ.
Hey, look I can do that too! It is one of the best examples of a market working, made less efficient by government involvement.
I honestly have no clue how you derived that out of what I said.
I’m not denying society, I’m simply placing it lower on the totem pole than the individual. I was denying “social benefits”. I have a question for you, do you think Marxism has ever been truly tried in real life (that is assuming you’re a Marxist, correct me if I’m wrong)? Because, if you’re one of those who says that it hasn’t, then isn’t your ideology essentially a “utopian textbook theory” as well? And, I’ve never said I’m in favor of a 100% free market, so stop referring to my ideology in that way.
Uh, try again. I said it was their right to think about it or NOT to think about it, so nowhere in my argument does it depend on the fact that they DO think about it. Stop distorting my arguments for your own gain.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No, it doesn’t sound like deception, as long as the ingredients and their amounts are still listed. How could even a “stealth” lowering of sodium amount to deception while the stealth increase in the first place did not?[/quote]
I think you’re getting confused here. You started off talking about deception, but now you seem to be arguing “morality.”
This is patently false, and in any case does nothing to address my criticism. I suppose you’re content to contradict yourself.
It is not controlling what people eat because, as I have repeatedly observed, there is nothing inhibiting them from adding salt to their food. All this amounts to is a measure designed to nudge people toward making better decisions without diminishing any of their freedoms, which is actually a very desirable thing, in my opinion. If done gradually, a lot of people probably won’t even notice the difference.
I agree with you in the abstract but I think you’re mistaken in categorizing this the way you do. I must again observe that this is to be accomplished without limiting anyone’s freedom whatsoever.
No, it’s the very crux of the matter. Since your objection is, specifically, that “this action will infringe upon/diminish/limit an individual’s freedom to choose to eat salty foods,” then the individual’s access to salty foods is in indeed at the heart of the matter. Now, if the FDA were to decree that, henceforth, no man may consume more than x mg of sodium, then I would agree with you. However, they have not set any limit on the amount of sodium which may be consumed.
You seem to have softened your stance in this post (or maybe I was unclear previously), but before, it seemed like you were denying that a reduction in stroke, heart disease, and other effects of high blood pressure, to which the consumption of large amounts of sodium contributes, had any beneficial effect on society.
No no, I do not have contempt for your beliefs. In fact, with respect to the particular principle which we are debating here (an individual’s autonomy), I share your beliefs. What I have tried to make clear is that this freedom is in no way being violated, and that your argument is fundamentally flawed.
Tell me, what does the free market have to do with this? It is in the company’s best interest to do what is the most profitable, which doesn’t necessarily coincide with providing the customer the best service. Look at the airlines. Don’t you think that customers would prefer to pay less for tickets and not be subjected all sorts of fees? Probably. Yet lo and behold, look what’s happening. What about the health insurance industry? According to your theories, you’d think a company, after having covered a person for many years, would pay for their medical expenses once they got sick, since that is essential to maintaing the loyalty of existing customers and a good reputation for acquiring new ones. Yet lo and behold, look what’s happening. Similarly, you’d think an investment bank would try to make its customers money, so that they would continue to give them their business and because it would attract new customers. You would never expect for them to sell a client a product they knew to be garbage so that they could make a one-time profit on the back end by betting against it. Yet lo and behold…
The point, as I’m sure you see, is that this kind of stuff–presumed impossible, or at least unlikely in econ 101–happens all the time.
I honestly don’t know what you expect when you’re complaining that you can’t eat salt anymore because the FDA is thinking of asking manufacturers to reduce the sodium in their products. The people who feed us? Who is that? Is somebody spoonfeeding you? Seriously, why can’t you just add a pinch of salt (other than the fact that it would torpedo your argument)? Having to sprinkle salt on your food is a step too far?
The only problem with that is, as usual, your facts. It is not made less efficient by government involvment. In fact, regulation and some degree of standardization can increse efficiency.
I suppose you were just making an empty statement. It was cryptic, and so I sought an explanation
“Marxism” has never been tried because Marxism is not an economic or political system. And no, Marxism is anti-utopian.
And pardon me, it only seemed like you were a complete laissez-faire guy, since, if you can’t mildly regulate sodium, what can you do?
I’m not, you’re simply unaware of the implications and assumptions of your own argument. Earlier, you said the preponderance of high-sodium food indicated that consumers preferred high-sodium food, which could only be the case if they made a decision to purchase high-sodium food, which would require them to have thought about it. Yet you undermine the argument in this last post. Which is it?
