A Grain of salt

posted at 9:30 am on April 21, 2010 by Slublog

nyet

A confession.

Yesterday, against my better judgment, I did something awful. Caught in a moment of weakness, perhaps even a moment of insanity, I engaged in behavior that horrified my family and would have given my doctor fits if he’d seen it. The shame burns, but I must admit the cause. My friends…I tried a KFC Double Down. And frankly, it was awful. The first bite was great…tender chicken, spicy mayo, melted cheese, and the bacon…oh, the bacon. Alas, subsequent bites were more disappointing and in the end…there was only salt.

So imagine my relief when I read this earlier today. The government may not have been there to prevent my transgression, but it will be there in the future to help tortured, salt-loving souls like me. Thank you, feds. Thank you.

The government intends to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to adjust the American palate to a less salty diet, according to FDA sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the initiative had not been formally announced.

Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification.

The legal limits would be open to public comment, but administration officials do not think they need additional authority from Congress.

“This is a 10-year program,” one source said. “This is not rolling off a log. We’re talking about a comprehensive phase-down of a widely used ingredient. We’re talking about embedded tastes in a whole generation of people.”

Like Mary Katharine Ham, I’m disturbed by the statist sentiments in this story, even though I have good reason to sympathize with the government’s agenda here. A few years ago, my doctor noticed that my blood pressure was slightly high on a consistent basis. And by “slightly,” I mean 120/95. He advised me to start exercising and cut back on sodium. After six months of somewhat bland, salt-less food and consistent cardio exercise, he took my blood pressure again. The results? 115/90. Thanks, genetics!

Since then, I’ve been on blood pressure medication and I take steps to limit my sodium intake. I choose low-salt snacks and haven’t salted my food in months. Once in awhile, I do indulge (curse you, Double Down!) but for the most part, I follow my doctor’s orders and behave. As shocking as it may seem, the government played no part in my decision to pursue a low-sodium diet. I made the choice to cut back without any help from bureaucrats at the FDA. Imagine. Without help, I’ve made the choice that my health is important enough for me to change my behavior. No one is trying to reset my palate or set my sodium limits. I’m simply choosing to take responsibility for myself without asking anyone else to sacrifice on my behalf.

The Obama administration seems to think I should thank them for freeing me from the horrible burden of taking five seconds to glance at a product’s nutritional information before purchasing it. Unfortunately for them, I am not. Quite the opposite, in fact – I’m insulted by their assumption that I’m incapable of making those choices for myself. Odd. When the ‘right’ to abortion is at stake, liberals like to scream “my body, my choice.” Eating a bag of chips, though? Well, that’s almost sedition, isn’t it?

It’s pretty discouraging. In Obama’s America, killing a fetus is a right, but consuming sodium-rich foods is enough to instigate government regulation. At this point, I don’t know whether to weep or…well, weep. Thanks, 52 percenters, for making this possible.

I have to admit, though. The actions of the president you voted into office haven’t helped my blood pressure all that much.

Oh well, I guess Obamacare will take care of that.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Can someone help me find the words “power to regulate salt” anywhere in the constitution? I have been unsuccesful in my search. I also looked for a justification for the FDA in the document, but cannot find that, either.

Vashta.Nerada on April 21, 2010 at 9:36 AM

After six months of somewhat bland, salt-less food

Potassium Chloride. All the salty goodness, none of the sodium.

Kafir on April 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

…and sugar. Don’t forget sugar. When we finally get responsible government, responsible politicians, responsible administrators who will see to it that our daily rations of salt, sugar, fat, and chocolate are delivered with adequate fresh fruits and vegetables, then, and only then will we be truly free.

Until then, we responsible citizens must hold politicians feet to the fire, and demand responsible delivery of our rights to food, shelter, health care, entertainment, mass transit, and affordable clothing. All produced by green energy.

Skandia Recluse on April 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Soilent Green…

SHARPTOOTH on April 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Wait a minute, we are paying the government to basically limit salt intake yet legalize pot?

I guess I’d better start smoking because none of this makes sense.

ORconservative on April 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Hey this might be great prevention!

Protect people from themselves.

I wrote to my reps about ramdom drug tests for all media and federal employees. With an emphasis on those in Washington. Heck, with all the dope it is hard to tell Georgetown from South Beach on the right night.

I am still waiting for an answer.

IlikedAUH2O on April 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM

I eat salt like a fiend and have low blood pressure. This idea is pathetic and as funny as it is…it isn’t funny. They need to stop fundamentally remaking America.

MayBee on April 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM

A few years ago, my doctor noticed that my blood pressure was slightly high on a consistent basis. And by “slightly,” I mean 120/95. He advised me to start exercising and cut back on sodium. After six months of somewhat bland, salt-less food and consistent cardio exercise, he took my blood pressure again. The results? 115/90. Thanks, genetics!
Since then, I’ve been on blood pressure medication…

This is just my opinion, but if I were you, I certainly wouldn’t be taking BP medication based on those numbers.

Vashta.Nerada on April 21, 2010 at 9:40 AM

This is just my opinion, but if I were you, I certainly wouldn’t be taking BP medication based on those numbers.

Oh, they were much worse than that. 120/95 was kind of the average even when I was sedentary.

Slublog on April 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM

The federal government has no damn business doing 90% of what it’s doing. This is just more of the same.

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Except the best science for nearly half a century — including the government’s own findings on examinations reflecting 99 million Americans’; more than 17,000 studies published since 1966; and even a recent Cochrane systematic review of the clinical trial evidence — fails to support the hypotheses that salt reductions offer health benefits for the general public. Cochrane’s reviewers specifically concluded that such interventions are inappropriate for population prevention programs. … The latest vital statistics data from the CDC National Center for Health Statistics was just released and reported that age-related deaths from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, liver disease and hypertension — all of the causes some want us to believe are due to unhealthy lifestyles, rather than mostly aging — have continued to drop significantly for more than 50 years. The latest Health US report from the CDC found our life expectancy has reached another record high and age-adjusted mortality for the leading causes of death have been cut nearly in half since 1950, including heart disease. There is no crisis of hypertension, no crisis of high salt intake, not even an association between salt and heart disease or premature death. Oddly enough the Japanese have one of the highest salt-intakes in the world, as well as the highest life expectancy. [ more ]

American Elephant on April 21, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Future Drug Corner Hawking: “Hey, kid, want some corned beef? How about some pastrami? Your first taste is for free. I only push the good stuff…”

Mr. Joe on April 21, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Soylent Green…

SHARPTOOTH on April 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

ONLY if it’s low sodium and low fat, having prior approval and inspection from the FDA and is compliance with all applicable laws governing the use of senior citizens, the fed up and other ‘unwanteds’ in the manufacture, process, distribution and consumption of said Soylent Green.

We also gotta make sure the Soylent Green is also ‘Green’. Yeah, yeah, I know the Earth is already dying, but we wouldn’t want to not be in compliance with government environmental regulations during these trying times.

Oh, and be sure you can pay the ‘Soylent Green Tax’.

catmman on April 21, 2010 at 9:50 AM

And the state dept has recently stated that evidence for global warming is “unequivocal.”

The Ministry of Truth will often be found to engage in relatively trivial matters, only to reinforce the perception that its jurisdiction is comprehensive.

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 9:51 AM

New HA tag: “Good Grief”

I am not a racist on April 21, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Potassium Chloride. All the salty goodness, none of the sodium.

Kafir on April 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

There’s a downside to everything. And I don’t like the taste of KCl.

Potassium Chloride

One of the most severe adverse effects is hyperkalemia. There have also been reports of upper and lower gastrointestinal conditions including obstruction, bleeding, ulceration, and perforation.

The most common adverse reactions to oral potassium salts are nausea, vomiting, flatulence, abdominal pain/discomfort, and diarrhea. These symptoms are due to irritation of the gastrointestinal tract and are best managed by diluting the preparation further, taking the dose with meals or reducing the amount taken at one time.

Read more: http://www.drugs.com/sfx/potassium-chloride-side-effects.html#ixzz0lk6BFC42

Oldnuke on April 21, 2010 at 9:54 AM

It’s a one size fits all in the world of The Won. They don’t have the guts to make cigarettes illegal but salt and sugar have to go. Not logical.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2010 at 9:55 AM

This is not about health or nutrition. It’s about the intrusiveness of government and control. If we allow something like this what’s next? Water rationing? Mandated calorie limits? Let’s outlaw beer cause it’s bad for you.

Oldnuke on April 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM

The Obama administration seems to think I should thank them for freeing me from the horrible burden of taking five seconds to glance at a product’s nutritional information before purchasing it. Unfortunately for them, I am not.

I will thank them.

As for those who would complain, I would say that while you can, at any time, pull out your salt shaker and add salt to taste, it’s impossible for those on low sodium diets to take out salt that’s already there.

The FDA’s charter to regulate unhealthful foods and drugs is well established. Those who think this charter is misplaced will find that most Americans oppose them, myself included.

By the way, my wife is the sufferer, and I carry the salt shaker in my family. It doesn’t hurt, so I suggest you get used to it.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM

The government intends to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to adjust the American palate to a less salty diet.

WTF??!!

Why does my palate need adjusted by the government??

cntrlfrk on April 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Potassium Chloride. All the salty goodness, none of the sodium.

Kafir on April 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

I said this on the other salt thread: KCl does NOT taste like NaCl.
You can get used to it like diet pop, but it’s still nasty.
KCl tastes more metallic & the salty goodness (& I am a salt conesseiur(sp?) is nothing close to that of ol’ NaCl.
The govt will take my salt, as someone has already said before, from my cold, dead fingers!!!!

Badger40 on April 21, 2010 at 9:59 AM

It’s a one size fits all in the world of The Won. They don’t have the guts Statist cajones to make cigarettes illegal but salt and sugar have to go. Not logical.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2010 at 9:55 AM

uknowmorethanme on April 21, 2010 at 10:02 AM

As for those who would complain, I would say that while you can, at any time, pull out your salt shaker and add salt to taste, it’s impossible for those on low sodium diets to take out salt that’s already there.

The FDA’s charter to regulate unhealthful foods and drugs is well established. Those who think this charter is misplaced will find that most Americans oppose them, myself included.

By the way, my wife is the sufferer, and I carry the salt shaker in my family. It doesn’t hurt, so I suggest you get used to it.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Makes sense, if your a Communist.

uknowmorethanme on April 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM

The govt will take my salt, as someone has already said before, from my cold, dead fingers!!!!

Ditto. Likewise butter. Margarine is nasty. (And my cholesterol is fine, thankyouverymuch.) I don’t have a problem consuming less of something, but for gubmint to come in and decide that for me is really infuriating.

Laura on April 21, 2010 at 10:07 AM

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM

How quiescent of you. You’ll make a good subject some day.

The FDA has no business telling restaraunts or manufacturers how to cook with ingredients that have been in use for thousands of years!

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Gimme a trans-fat, sea salt, and high fructose corn syrup burrito. I’ve got a hankerin’ for it something fierce.

RachDubya on April 21, 2010 at 10:11 AM

They don’t have the guts to make cigarettes illegal but salt and sugar have to go. Not logical.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2010 at 9:55 AM

The Elected Jesus still hasn’t kicked his habit. He can’t ban what he likes.

Phil-351 on April 21, 2010 at 10:11 AM

While I’m as horrified at the statist wave that we are having forced upon us, I find your piece cheapened by the abortion nonsense. Must we drag the “A” word in to every discussion?

Right now, our common cause for all Americans is to limit government and secure the means to a prosperous and free future. Let’s stick to that agenda and drop the social con agenda. It only serves to dilute our message, divide us, push away those who are more socially libertarian and squanders our strength.

MJBrutus on April 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM

American Elephant on April 21, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Quack science. To prove me wrong, find one link to a scientific study which shows no correlation between sodium intake and blood pressure, along with companion studies which show no correlation between blood pressure and any disease.

There is a definite link to sodium intake and blood pressure issues in many (but not all) people. People with kidney diseases related to diabetes or lupus are most strongly at risk.

For non-quack science, see here or here or here or here:

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of reduction in dietary sodium intake on cardiovascular events using data from two completed randomised trials, TOHP I and TOHP II. DESIGN: Long term follow-up assessed 10-15 years after the original trial. SETTING: 10 clinic sites in 1987-90 (TOHP I) and nine sites in 1990-5 (TOHP II). Central follow-up conducted by post and phone. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 30-54 years with prehypertension. INTERVENTION: Dietary sodium reduction, including comprehensive education and counselling on reducing intake, for 18 months (TOHP I) or 36-48 months (TOHP II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularisation, or cardiovascular death). RESULTS: 744 participants in TOHP I and 2382 in TOHP II were randomised to a sodium reduction intervention or control. Net sodium reductions in the intervention groups were 44 mmol/24 h and 33 mmol/24 h, respectively. Vital status was obtained for all participants and follow-up information on morbidity was obtained from 2415 (77%), with 200 reporting a cardiovascular event. Risk of a cardiovascular event was 25% lower among those in the intervention group (relative risk 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.99, P=0.04), adjusted for trial, clinic, age, race, and sex, and 30% lower after further adjustment for baseline sodium excretion and weight (0.70, 0.53 to 0.94), with similar results in each trial. In secondary analyses, 67 participants died (0.80, 0.51 to 1.26, P=0.34). CONCLUSION: Sodium reduction, previously shown to lower blood pressure, may also reduce long term risk of cardiovascular events.

You do all readers here a strong disservice by promulgating quack science.

The flip side of too much sodium intake is too little sodium intake, but any person eating food made in the USA is unlikely to suffer from same.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Hundreds of millions of people making decisions for themselves each meal will produce better results all around than one person -the FDA head- making decisions for hundreds of millions of people’s meals forever.

By this standard the FDA would be completely within its (imagined) power to ban meat, or even milk, eggs and butter, or impose taxes on such things until only federal employees can afford them.

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Aha. Lead had been in paint for hundreds of years too. Would you paint your child’s nursery with lead paint if offered the opportunity?

My point: History doesn’t make for valid health.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Morton’s Lite Salt. Half potassium, half sodium chloride. I have chronic low potassium levels (which causes irregular heartbeats), so this is an acceptable alternative for me.
But, if you want to eat salt cod three meals a day, go for it. None of my business. Which is what I want to say to the government.

Sarah2053 on April 21, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Makes sense, if your a Communist.

uknowmorethanme on April 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM

That’s a first for me. A guy who can’t spell properly calling me a Communist.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Nice piece…

PatriotRider on April 21, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Potassium Chloride. All the salty goodness, none of the sodium.

Kafir on April 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

And not good either for people with kidney diseases, since potassium is another electrolyte associated with high blood pressure. I’d hate to think that the manufacturers would try to get around decreased sodium mandates by substituting potassium chloride.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 10:18 AM

If anyone cares about the health implications of sodium intake, he should pay attention to that debate and decide for himself.

For the govt to compel my behavior one way or another is tyranny. It may be trivial tyranny, it isn’t prima nocta, but it’s tyranny nonetheless.

Comestibles were not in the Founders’ purview. If they saw fit not to involve themselves with what citizens ate, we should defer to their wisdom.

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM

That’s true as long as we get to keep them.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Rumor has it that sea salt have 1/3 of the sodium for regular salt.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2010 at 10:28 AM

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 10:19 AM

We’re talking about food, not building supplies. If people eat building supplies they might get sick.

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 10:33 AM

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Your points may be valid, or they may not. I have borderline high blood pressure and the only thing I find that regulates it is exercise. The more active I am, the lower my daily blood pressure. I’ve never noticed it go up or down in relation to the food I eat. Sodium and Potassium are necessary for normal cell funtion, this is a fact. Too much of either can cause problems, but I personally feel this may be a result of inactivity, not necessarily ones diet. Walking a couple of miles a day isn’t gong to do anything. 100 kettlebell snatches will regulate the crap out of some sodium and facilitate proper perfusion of the bodies cells!

Either way regardless of if I am right or wrong I would prefer to regulate my own plate thank you very much. I’m a big boy.

gator70 on April 21, 2010 at 10:34 AM

They can pry my gourmet salt collection out of my cold, dead hands. I like my salt (although I don’t use ordinary table salt), and my BP is fine. The key is to avoid over-processed foods, stuff like microwave dinners or fast food. Shop around the outside of the grocery store, that sort of thing. I don’t need the government to tell me to do that, and I don’t need the government to tell me how to eat. If I want to eat nothing but ramen and canned ravioli, it’s my choice.

And I hope the brilliant people in charge of figuring out ways to reduce sodium in foods are aware that some foods need salt – like bread. I can’t bake bread without the stuff. I can, however, bake it without HFCS, which in my opinion, is worse than salt – not that I would support government intervention on that either. The market seems to be dealing with that without government help just fine.

Anna on April 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I think it’s only fair they remove all the sugars from foods for diabetics’ sake, and nuts for those with allergies.

When we go out to eat, we can carry a big basket of condiments, and we’ll call it freedom!

cntrlfrk on April 21, 2010 at 10:39 AM

My blood pressure (so far) stays low, whether I am active or sedentary. I’m not a big salt eater, but I occasionally indulge in something salty.

Peanuts (I found out last year) are a migraine trigger for me, and when I am restricted from something in my diet, I know I will have to read labels. When it comes to dietary restrictions, reading food labels is a given. As is finding alternatives (tahini instead of peanut butter, yummm). Sometimes, there are whole restaurants you can’t eat at anymore (Chick-fil-A, Popeye’s *sniff*), but avoiding negative consequences is SO worth it.

Why should everybody else avoid peanut-oil fried food because of me? Why should everybody eat bland food because someone has a problem with salt?

Sekhmet on April 21, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Not that I agree with using the gov’t for this purpose, I don’t think this is a major over-reach of gov’t regulatory power. I think that this is the kind of thing that is appropriately within the power of the federal gov’t.

I think it is bad policy and foolish and nanny-statism and all the rest, but I would not argue that this is tyranny.

Monkeytoe on April 21, 2010 at 10:41 AM

The market seems to be dealing with that without government help just fine.

Anna on April 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Markets always have a way of working it out, that is why we see more things like gluten free products hitting the shelves, there is more of a demand. I do not notice more low sodium products, because they are basically crap and folks do not want them. If only we could have a government that understood basic economics! How grand that would be!

gator70 on April 21, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Rumor has it that sea salt have 1/3 of the sodium for regular salt.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Unlikely. Sea salt comes from evaporated sea water. Ground salt also comes from evaporated sea water, from seas that no longer exist. I think the big difference is that unprocessed sea salt might contain more mineral flavors, to where less sea salt can do more.

Sekhmet on April 21, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Sekhmet – That sucks about not being able to go to Chik-fil-a. I’m allergic to peanuts, but I can eat there – apparently, when they refine the peanut oil, the protein is removed. Severe allergy sufferers should still be wary, but I’ve never had a single reaction. And I would never want such yummy things like peanut butter (my kids love the stuff) taken off the market because my immune system over-reacts to peanut protein. It’d make my life harder!

Migraines suck.

Anna on April 21, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Getting the Democratic Congress and Obama out of office will do more good for blood pressure than FDA regulating salt. Let’s take the more beneficial approach.

michaelo on April 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM

I think that this is the kind of thing that is appropriately within the power of the federal gov’t.

Monkeytoe on April 21, 2010 at 10:41 AM

I refer you to my comment at the very top. Show me where the constitution gives the feds the power to regulate salt, or any other ingredient.

Vashta.Nerada on April 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Aha. Lead had been in paint for hundreds of years too. Would you paint your child’s nursery with lead paint if offered the opportunity?

I don’t have a child, but I can’t strip the old paint in my house because I’d have to bring in an expensive lead abatement contractor. So I either have to replace all the woodwork, or I have to paint over the existing paint with all its cracks and chips.

Farmer_Joe on April 21, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Salt will be on the black market, along with big screen tv’s in CA. We can just start a whole underground in banned foods, light bulbs and bring this economy back one banned substance at a time. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

Kissmygrits on April 21, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Anna on April 21, 2010 at 10:47 AM

My husband is more upset about Chick-Fil-A than I am. Popeye’s was the real bad one :(

And this is a migraine trigger, not an allergy. Whatever causes the migraine may not be the same protein that causes the allergy.

As for salt, the common way to mine most commercially-available salt is to flood a salt cave with water, pump the water out, and chemically/physically separate the salt from the minerals that might come out with it. Nobody wants salt a’la mud, and most of the minerals that come out with the salt are extraneous. Sea salt is made by more antique methods of evaporating sea water, and the minerals in the sea water are retained.

Sekhmet on April 21, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Jesus called his followers the “salt of the earth”, and that was apparently a compliment.

For those who worry about sodium intake, there are all sorts of “low-sodium” foods out there, which people can buy and eat if they so choose. Salt is not a poison, and is necessary in small quantities, and can be harmful if over-consumed, just like Vitamin A. Will the FDA ban Vitamin A supplements, because someone might take a whole bottle at once and poison himself?

Why can’t the FDA just require food producers to inform the public about the sodium content of their food, and let people decide what they should and shouldn’t eat?

Steve Z on April 21, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Hey….lets BAN dopey politicians, they are really the most dangerous to man kind.

grapeknutz on April 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Not a food nazi, but if your blood pressure is really bad, or if you need to cut back on any “problem” element to your system, eliminate junk food and eating out prior to succumbing to Rx pill popping with all the negative side effects occurring on top of the “bad” nutritional intake causing the problems.

Regarding blood pressure and good health in general, it is amazing what a diet of fresh/frozen produce, brown rice and meat (with lecithin before bed) can cure without the “dependency” on Rx prescription drugs that long term will cause problems not made known today–not to mention harmful immediate side effects.

As with the good life, maintain free will in America and keep statism in Europe from whence it came. Damn socialists never figured out Liberty, only opportunistic corruption for authoritarian gain with themselves on top of their pyramid constructed by serfs. Do recall the story leading up to the enslavement of the Hebrews by the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph who built the Egyptian storehouses and system of dispensation. Given drought and starvation, the Pharaoh took workers’ tools in payment for food allotment. Then went the jobs, working for the Pharaoh instead of for themselves, working with the Pharaoh’s tools instead of with their own. Eventually, the obvious transpired with the Hebrews buying enslavement.

maverick muse on April 21, 2010 at 11:01 AM

While I’m as horrified at the statist wave that we are having forced upon us, I find your piece cheapened by the abortion nonsense. Must we drag the “A” word in to every discussion?

Right now, our common cause for all Americans is to limit government and secure the means to a prosperous and free future. Let’s stick to that agenda and drop the social con agenda. It only serves to dilute our message, divide us, push away those who are more socially libertarian and squanders our strength.

MJBrutus on April 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Horse-hockey. His comment has everything to do with smaller government, and you don’t have to be a pro-lifer to see the hypocrisy in people claiming to be pro-choice being perfectly willing to regulate every other aspect of your life.

Bobbertsan on April 21, 2010 at 11:07 AM

You can’t have salt…says the jugged eared dope who smokes cigarettes.

Alden Pyle on April 21, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Tax it into oblivion. It’s the only way.

a capella on April 21, 2010 at 11:21 AM

‘no salt for Thee……

dammit, michelle, where are my newports??’

skeedro on April 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Comestibles were not in the Founders’ purview. If they saw fit not to involve themselves with what citizens ate, we should defer to their wisdom.

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM

There are many things which weren’t in the Founders’ purview, but which we consider important today. Consider the other example in my comments — lead in paint. The founders were not concerned about that either, so you are, I think saying that either only states should be concerned, or that only cities should be concerned, or even that we as individuals should be able to make a choice about whether we want lead in our paint or not.

Lead isn’t a health risk to adults — it is a health risk to children, so only the minor portion of the population is affected.

Applying the salt argument to this analog, I claim that the government is right to regulate consumables when health issues are involved, while you are arguing that they are wrong.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Either way regardless of if I am right or wrong I would prefer to regulate my own plate thank you very much. I’m a big boy.

gator70 on April 21, 2010 at 10:34 AM

My point exactly. I would like to regulate my plate. It’s why I keep the salt shaker nearby. But I can’t remove salt from a meal set before me if it has too much, yet I can always add more if it has too little.

I view the proposed rules as increasing choice, not decreasing it.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Does anyone remember why Ghandi was rioting in India? Salt regulations.

Look into history and see the number of times there were riots because of salt restrictions.

Look into history to see how many times tyrants tried to regulate salt.

barnone on April 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Applying the salt argument to this analog, I claim that the government is right to regulate consumables when health issues are involved, while you are arguing that they are wrong.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Painting my house with lead affects others, especially if I sell the house. But how much salt I eat only affects me, and is not the governments business.

For those of you ok with this, I ask: What would it take for this government to scare you? How far is too far?

kenro85 on April 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM

My But I can’t remove salt from a meal set before me if it has too much, yet I can always add more if it has too little.

I view the proposed rules as increasing choice, not decreasing it.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Do you think your market opinion is a popular one? If it is then the sellers of food will change their recipes to sell to more people. If yours is NOT the popular opinion, then the sellers of food will continue as they feel their consumers will choose.

Or we could just mandate that all recipes be “Federally” approved. You know, I don’t think people should be useing that much basil. I think we need to regulate that too.

barnone on April 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

There are many things which weren’t in the Founders’ purview, but which we consider important today. Consider the other example in my comments — lead in paint. The founders were not concerned about that either, so you are, I think saying that either only states should be concerned, or that only cities should be concerned, or even that we as individuals should be able to make a choice about whether we want lead in our paint or not.

Lead isn’t a health risk to adults — it is a health risk to children, so only the minor portion of the population is affected.

Applying the salt argument to this analog, I claim that the government is right to regulate consumables when health issues are involved, while you are arguing that they are wrong.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Show your argument – point to the specific section of the constitution that gives power to the federal government to regulate salt, or lead in paint, for that matter.

Vashta.Nerada on April 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM

My point exactly. I would like to regulate my plate. It’s why I keep the salt shaker nearby. But I can’t remove salt from a meal set before me if it has too much, yet I can always add more if it has too little.

I view the proposed rules as increasing choice, not decreasing it.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM

But you could ask that the food be prepared with low or no added salt, right? In restaurants they will do that for you. Why should I have to eat bland food because of your (or your loved one’s) medical condition? And don’t say that adding salt afterwards is the same, because it isn’t.

If someone’s allergic to walnuts does that mean that restaurants are not allowed to serve walnuts and we should bring our own walnuts with us when we eat out? Or does it mean that customers should ask waiters if the food they’re about to order contains walnuts?

DrAllecon on April 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM

And don’t say that adding salt afterwards is the same, because it isn’t.

Excellent point! Cooking with salt changes the chemical composition of certain foods, which helps gives it a specific taste, it’s not salt in itself you are tasting, but the change it causes. Soup without salt is terrible, I’ve tried the low sodium stuff. It might as well be hot water. No soup for you!

gator70 on April 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Applying the salt argument to this analog, I claim that the government is right to regulate consumables when health issues are involved, while you are arguing that they are wrong. unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM

As I said, someday the govt -meaning perhaps, one man- could decide that we should all be vegans. Maybe then you’ll sing a different tune.

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM

I just ate some Wheat Thins. Somebody call the salt police STAT!

txag92 on April 21, 2010 at 12:05 PM

After six months of somewhat bland, salt-less food and consistent cardio exercise

And I’m guessing you shed a couple pounds; which can also make a significant difference.

This is like me saying Zeus is helpful in financial matters because when I was having trouble making ends meet I prayed to Zeus for guidance, and made a monthly budget that I stuck to and now things are under control. Go Zeus?

Seriously, there are a minority of people who are significantly affected by salt; and they really do need to watch their intake, but weight is more of an issue for most people than sodium.

gekkobear on April 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Applying the salt argument to this analog, I claim that the government is right to regulate consumables when health issues are involved, while you are arguing that they are wrong.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Some people have reactions to salt, so salt should be banned. Gotcha.

when we ban salt, peanuts, shellfish, fish, eggs, dairy, wheat, and all possible food-based reactions from the marketplace, then we can eat our gruel in peace… right?

Or is it just your personal health issues that justify a ban, while my cousin’s allergy to nuts is something she should deal with and not get the government to ban all nuts in all food? Why exactly are you this special again?

Are you someone famous and I’m just not recognizing you?

gekkobear on April 21, 2010 at 12:18 PM

I also have a problem with high blood pressure and salt. I would like to know what I am eating so I can make decisions about my food. Salt is not where you think it will be. I was in a airport and looking at a sandwich that looked good for me. It had 1200 mg of sodium! I ate the fried chicken sandwich instead. It had half the sodium.

jeannie on April 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM

You can’t have salt…says the jugged eared dope who smokes cigarettes.

Alden Pyle on April 21, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Along with marijuana and cocaine when he can get it, by his own admission.

Oldnuke on April 21, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Rumor has it that sea salt have 1/3 of the sodium for regular salt.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Unlikely. Sea salt comes from evaporated sea water. Ground salt also comes from evaporated sea water, from seas that no longer exist. I think the big difference is that unprocessed sea salt might contain more mineral flavors, to where less sea salt can do more.

Sekhmet on April 21, 2010 at 10:44 AM

http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/02ocean/swcomposition.htm

The linked article shows concentrations of various ions in seawater. Salts, in general, are compounds of strongly reactive metals (positive ions) with strongly reactive negative ions, which dissociate into positive and negative ions when dissolved in water, but precipitate out as solids when the water is evaporated. Since the salts are electrically neutral, they contain equal numbers of positive and negative ions.

According to the linked article, sodium ions represent 10.752 parts per thousand in seawater, out of a total of 12.866 parts per thousand of total positive ions (sodium, magnesium, calcium, potassium, and strontium). This means that sodium represents 83.6% (by weight) of the total positive ions in seawater. If “regular” table salt is considered to be pure sodium chloride, sea salt would have about 16.4% less sodium than table salt, but much more than 1/3 of the sodium of table salt.

Sea salt does add more “salty” taste to food than table salt (for the same amount added), possibly because some of the other compounds in sea salt have a stronger “salty” taste than sodium chloride. It would therefore be possible to obtain the same “salty” taste using less sea salt, and thereby less sodium, than using table salt, but sea salt is more expensive than table salt.

Steve Z on April 21, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Horse-hockey. His comment has everything to do with smaller government, and you don’t have to be a pro-lifer to see the hypocrisy in people claiming to be pro-choice being perfectly willing to regulate every other aspect of your life.

Bobbertsan on April 21, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Double horse-hockey :-) People are not showing up at Tea Parties to protest abortion or to promote NDOP. The momentum we have is based on economics. If you want to see this movement of ours degenerate in to small gatherings of religious zealots, then keep on pushing what few people consider to be relevant and that many find to be offensive.

Let’s stick to what unifies us, not to what divides us!

MJBrutus on April 21, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Pretty soon, the only salt we shall be able to taste will be the liberals tears come No-vember.

carbon_footprint on April 21, 2010 at 12:45 PM

They can pry my salt from my cold, dead shaker!

carbon_footprint on April 21, 2010 at 12:46 PM

I also have a problem with high blood pressure and salt. I would like to know what I am eating so I can make decisions about my food. Salt is not where you think it will be. I was in a airport and looking at a sandwich that looked good for me. It had 1200 mg of sodium! I ate the fried chicken sandwich instead. It had half the sodium.

jeannie on April 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM

I would very much support restaurants and other places that serve food having readily available the nutritional content of the food they serve. That way, people can make educated choices about what’s best for themselves to eat. I certainly prefer that to banning salt “for our own good.”

DrAllecon on April 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM

We’re talking about food, not building supplies. If people eat building supplies they might get sick.

Akzed on April 21, 2010 at 10:33 AM

The problem with lead is — they do. Yet there is no Constitutional mandate to regulate lead use. According to several commenters here, that means that lead use should not be regulated.

And, coming back to your reasoning, you appear to imply that if something makes people sick, the government has an interest in regulating it.

The circle closes.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Or we could just mandate that all recipes be “Federally” approved. You know, I don’t think people should be useing that much basil. I think we need to regulate that too.

barnone on April 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

By all means. If you can convince me via any number (greater than zero) of controlled medical studies which show that basil affects a large number of people’s health adversely, I’ll sign on with you. Post a link, and I’ll read it.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Double horse-hockey :-) People are not showing up at Tea Parties to protest abortion or to promote NDOP. The momentum we have is based on economics. If you want to see this movement of ours degenerate in to small gatherings of religious zealots, then keep on pushing what few people consider to be relevant and that many find to be offensive.

Let’s stick to what unifies us, not to what divides us!

MJBrutus on April 21, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Triple horse-hockey. If your wallet means more than our children do, you will ultimately fail, and fail hard.

Follow that advice at the peril of the nation.

KinleyArdal on April 21, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Some people have reactions to salt, so salt should be banned. Gotcha.

Didn’t say salt should be banned. Salt is one of those ingredients that can be added at will, but cannot be removed once added. Hence, a light hand is preferable.

I view decreased salt content as giving people more choice, not less, with the added side effect of improved health for those with diabetes and lupus.

Are you someone famous and I’m just not recognizing you?

gekkobear on April 21, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Almost certainly. Give your self a little time, and it will all come back. It’s the episode with the red shirted guy.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2010 at 2:01 PM

I take towards the idea of government knowing what is ‘right’ about public health in the same way Mark Twain viewed the topic:

Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.

Consider the ‘Food Pyramid’ of years ago, full of that healthy set of carbohydrates and such in much larger proportion to protein, which got a much smaller part of the Pyramid. If you lobbied the government hard enough you just might be able to get a better Pyramid place… and those who did helped to push carbohydrate rich foods out the door because it was ‘healthy’.

Turns out carbohydrates break down into sugars in the blood stream at a very rapid pace, thus you were giving your body quite a sugar rush going for the pasta, pizza, and breakfast bagel with OJ. Fast-forward 40 years and a much more complex interaction between protein uptake, fat utilization, types of fat (beyond the dreaded Trans-Fat) and alcohol all change metabolism when mixed with carbohydrates. Fiber in carbs plays a role on uptake, generally retarding it, thus a very high fiber food that has a relatively high total carb amount has a much lower net carbohydrate impact on your body.

What happened to that generation raised on high carb foods with low fiber, protein and fat? Overweight and have a prevalence of type II diabetes as their systems no longer can handle the incoming sugar loads and has grown resistant to its own insulin because of the surges done on a multiple times daily basis for years and decades. Mind you that was without a law in place to make it mandatory, save for the experimentation of our school children to get them hooked on ‘healthy eating’ which had the net result of pushing the onset of type II diabetes to a younger and younger age.

As for the FDA and the banning of products, it is notable that the reason we got an FDA, the drug so bad it had to be outlawed, was not so bad to sufferers of a particular disease. The drug was thalidomide, and the disease is ages known to mankind – Hanson’s Disease. Thalidomide would prove to be one of the first of a class of medications that actually was able to halt Hanson’s Disease and later medications would start ridding one’s system of it. Hanson’s Disease is hard to get, but the effects are debilitating and horrific. People were sent away from civilized areas so they would not interact with others. That disease had another name: Leprosy.

Another medication discovered oversease, used for decades and proven extremely safe and effective for its users faced a tough time getting past FDA approval. Even though it was effective for a class of disorders, no one knew how it worked, just that it did work. The drug has few side effects and has demonstrate a remarkable lack of bad symptoms if one overdoses on it… a child in France took a man’s supply for a month and got through the episode with no permanent ill effects, or even short term ones. It did, finally, get into the US once we started to understand the seratonin system, but it is not exactly a SRI… nor is it an amphetamine… it is beneficial in combination with some anti-depressants, but not for working with them but for helping to regulate a part of life essential to everyone: sleep. The drug is Modafinil, and the military uses it for those needing long periods of attentiveness for hours or even a day or two at a time. Its main users are narcoleptics, and it is beneficial to those who have depression not only for its stimulation of the nervous system, but for allowing sleep even when in the bloodstream. The FDA took its sweet time with that one…and it is still a Schedule IV drug… yet it is not addictive and the only misuse you can do with it is staying up way too long without sleep. Of course it is ‘abused’ by stock traders (or was) meaning there was a black market of the stuff. Interactions with illegal drugs is unknown due to lack of cross-use and clinical studies. But then the exact way it works is also, still, unknown but is helping to unravel what sleep is, how seratonin levels impact mood and emotions… and has a decades long safety record with millions if not 10s of millions of users over the last 30-40 years. You might use it to have a nice, long, wakeful weekend and then do your regular sleeping during the week to make it pass by faster… and that would be ‘abuse’!

For every ‘good’ of the FDA you can find drugs that have been banned that have other uses outside of its introductory use, drugs held up in the pipeline for years even though they have demonstrated track records, and classification of medications that is often head-scratching. Add that to the ‘healthy diet’ that is pushed when we finally learn that diet is individuated and that even in groups of people trends cannot tell you what the outcome of a given eating regimen is to YOU… and then you do begin to question of how such good things that government wants for a ‘majority’ of the population effects you when you are in the ‘minority’ to which those things do not apply. Heaven help you if you get sick and government has dictated that the things you need are not available, hard to get, or illegal.

ajacksonian on April 21, 2010 at 2:43 PM

If you decide to take anything Obama says with a grain of salt, he takes your salt away…

Welcome to Obama’s America!

Glenn Jericho on April 21, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Salt is bad. Abortion is good.

Dhuka on April 21, 2010 at 6:59 PM

You could successfully argue that salt facilitated manifest destiny in that it cured food and killed bacteria and disinfected wounds. Lewis and Clark had discovering concentrations of it on their shopping list. Now that we’ve become complacent… bowing… apologizing… and such.

ericdijon on April 21, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Massive long-term study finds no valid correlation between high salt and CVD or hypertension

Cochrane review of studies shows no significant benefit to low-salt diets

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Journal of the American College of Nutrition – yeah, these are all crackpots and quacks.

Or maybe Doctors, like Climatologists, are just as susceptible to groupthink and failing to do their homework as other human beings are, because they’re HUMAN BEINGS, not angels or computers.

JunkFoodScience is not currently being updated but you can search the archives…

I sympathize with those on low-sodium diets, because I’m on one (for fluid control). They suck and the resources are slim – but manufacturers are bringing out new products all the time – we don’t need more expansion of federal power – I’d be unsurprised (given their track record) if processed food had MORE sodium in 10 years.

I see no reason to ruin everyone else’s food because I have special needs, any more than I see a reason to ban the use of wheat in canned soup because I have Celiac disease. I have special needs that I have to deal with, I CAN deal with, and I don’t need to ruin your day because of it.

Merovign on April 21, 2010 at 9:18 PM