• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FDA plans to limit amount of salt allowed in processed foods for health reasons

Wait, in one space you say diffulcult in another you say easily? What gives? And it is not that easy to get around processed foods unless one dedicates their entire life every waking minute to that.

I don't dedicate my life to it. I just east whole foods and prepare them myself. It's really hard to add salt to a zucchini unintentionally.
 
No, in general, they don't care about the risk because the immediate reward is more appealing to them. The long term risk is something they cannot see or feel. The immediate reward they CAN.

You are describing addiction, and not the perfect information error that has been tossed around so carelessly.

Hence why people take up smoking knowing full well the risk. Hence why people will "cheat" on their 'diets'. I know goddamn good and well that a big mac isn't healthy for me. Yet, I want one on occasion and I will have one on occasion. In my younger days, I had them more than on occasion. And pizza. And drugs. And tons of alcohol. And all sorts of other fast foods or unhealthy foods.

You are describing the rational addict, not a consumer society that has perfect information (as has been the claim). In the case of addiction, the government has precedence in forcing firms to become liable for dead weight loss (by product of an externality). Now whether you agree with it or not, it is reality.

Who is impacted by my choice to have a big mac or not?

How many people die every year due to tobacco related illness, heart disease, diabetes, etc.... while receiving government sponsored health care? If you are a tax payer, you are impacted....

I have no clue what you're getting at.

Not the least bit surprising. See the response above.
 
You are describing addiction, and not the perfect information error that has been tossed around so carelessly.



You are describing the rational addict, not a consumer society that has perfect information (as has been the claim). In the case of addiction, the government has precedence in forcing firms to become liable for dead weight loss (by product of an externality). Now whether you agree with it or not, it is reality.
Incorrect. Not talking about addiction at all. Addiction has nothing to do with it.



How many people die every year due to tobacco related illness, heart disease, diabetes, etc.... while receiving government sponsored health care? If you are a tax payer, you are impacted....
And your answer is MORE government bull****?

Sorry, but the answer is less.

I don't think the govt should be paying for ANYONE'S health care. That is the goal I try to achieve via voting, petitioning, writing congressmen, etc. My goal most certainly is not to involve the government even *further*
 
Let's compromise. If the government would label foods with GMOs in them so I can avoid them, we can put the salt back in. Win, win all the way around.
 
Let's compromise. If the government would label foods with GMOs in them so I can avoid them, we can put the salt back in. Win, win all the way around.

The government doesn't label foods.
 
Incorrect. Not talking about addiction at all. Addiction has nothing to do with it.

You described it, not me.

If the public was truly "informed" such industries would not survive unless of course their product displayed some sort of additive property. "Ahhh it feels good!" applies in one way or another, even though you are making the claim that people are aware of the negative ramifications of continued consumption.

So either you are describing addiction (demand regardless of risk) or people are not truly informed.

And your answer is MORE government bull****?

Sorry, but the answer is less.

I don't think the govt should be paying for ANYONE'S health care. That is the goal I try to achieve via voting, petitioning, writing congressmen, etc. My goal most certainly is not to involve the government even *further*

My answer????:rofl

Whether you support it or not, the fast food industry (the prepared frozen section included) is generating billions of dollars, and uncle sam (regardless of political belief) is paying for a great deal of the side effects. Again.... Whether you agree with government or not, my bold statement holds true.

Being as this has little if any effect on me, it is another one of those "who gives a ****" stories.

The government could instead tax it....
 
You described it, not me.

If the public was truly "informed" such industries would not survive unless of course their product displayed some sort of additive property. "Ahhh it feels good!" applies in one way or another, even though you are making the claim that people are aware of the negative ramifications of continued consumption.

So either you are describing addiction (demand regardless of risk) or people are not truly informed.
That's not addiction.


My answer????:rofl

Whether you support it or not, the fast food industry (the prepared frozen section included) is generating billions of dollars, and uncle sam (regardless of political belief) is paying for a great deal of the side effects. Again.... Whether you agree with government or not, my bold statement holds true.

Being as this has little if any effect on me, it is another one of those "who gives a ****" stories.

The government could instead tax it....
And apparently your answer is to have the government impose more regulations. Whereas my answer is to have the government do LESS. (including, less payments for health care)
 
I just want to say that I'm not universally in favor of more government regulation. There are some regulatory ideas that I think are just plain awful, but this one I support.

Sorry, man, but that's complete bull****. The food isn't what's killing people. It's the fact that most people won't take responsibility for what they put in their bodies. Having a can of condensed soup once in a while does not hurt you in the least. Having a slice of processed cheese every now and then does not hurt you in the least. Having a snack bag of doritos every now and then isn't going to cause a heart attack. A soda a week isn't going to give you hypertension or diabetes.

I don't fully agree with your assessment. The percentage of daily values ranges greatly among food products. It's not simply a matter of not drinking 10 cans of pop a day. Each can of pop already contains an absurd level of sugar.

Also, there are additives in foods that are derived from sodium, such as MSG and other flavoring agents, which don't always get tabulated into the percentage value listed on the bottle. I would also like to see legislation for standardization of naming conventions for food additives on packaging. MSG has something like 10 different names that can appear in the ingredients list. Not everyone spends hours a day on the net researching things. How is the average joe supposed to know what all the contents mean, and the interactions?

I agree that excess is part of the problem, but people's educational resources are conflicting. The food industry routinely puts forth "studies" that validate the use of harmful additives in their foods. Even the daily food values chart that we all grew up with is skewed in favor of industry. It's hard for the average joe to know what is okay and what isn't since the media is giving out conflicting info. all the time. I respect that you and I know how to manage values, but this kind of regulation is for everyone.

Also, I don't see what's wrong with a multi-pronged approach. Corporations should not be able to add sodium to their pre-packaged foods that are at harmful levels.

What does cause heart attacks and diabetes is when the idiot notices his pants getting snug and keeps on making a meal out of doritos and soda. That's the problem. And that's not something the government should be getting involved with; that's a Darwin issue.

Bad food is cheaper and so the lower classes will tend to eat it more. That's a socioeconomic issue.

In the health arena, I could really care less what is "bad for business". What is "good for business" is often bad for public health. There has to be a happy medium, and I think limiting sodium content is not that outrageous.

If you want to add more salt to your food, then do it. This law is about trying to reduce comorbid factors for heart disease, a condition which is epidemic in the U.S. It has to be attacked from all angles, not just the consumer choices angle.
 
That's not addiction.

:lol: Ok Ok Ok.... Call it a "dedicated market base".

And apparently your answer is to have the government impose more regulations. Whereas my answer is to have the government do LESS. (including, less payments for health care)

My answer again lol. My answer is a bit more complex than, "i do what i want". Whether or not you agree with government health care, it does exist and you are powerless to do anything about it. Therefore.... (this is important) Taxpayers will in fact foot the bill. Therefore "their choices" will spill over into my life.
 
Even as a libertarian, this is one thing that I (and I hope other libertarians) would hope to support. The truth is that the unhealthy products on your store shelves really don't have the transparency people want them to have. And on a bigger note, the hidden un-health aspect of it creates a negative externality that I doubt anyone could put an exact number on, but would be massive. It'd be the same with mandatory vaccinations for communicable diseases having massive spillover benefits.

While I don't believe in dictating what people do in their lives in general, we do have an obesity pandemic in this nation, and sometimes you have to treat people like ignorant little children. Allowing this to continue is akin to letting your small child burn his fingers on the oven and not letting him know not to do it. If he's too stupid to keep his fingers off the oven, you have to physically restrain him.

This is why I'm more in favor of an "intellectual libertarianism" or "elite libertarianism". Sometimes you have to protect the bereft of brain. Giving them full freedom is essentially giving them the rope and the tree. If people round up in Wal-Mart like cattle and intentionally pick all these God-awful foods that end up making them fat and unhealthy, causing problems in other areas like health care, public welfare, etc. then they need to have their hand slapped and told "no". Those who know better have an innate duty to the ones who don't know, especially if it ends up costing them both in the long run.

I hate it being that way, but until we wake up as a whole, it's the way it should be done. I'm not going to sit back and "hope they do the right thing" while they make themselves an indirect burden on me.
 
Cause I was making a joke about how hard it is to take salt out and immediately follows the prickly responses. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you this time.

I don't think any American is in danger even if the government cuts down on the amount allowed in processed food.

You miss the entire point, and that makes some of us go far beyond prickly.

WE ARE IN DANGER... we are losing our the few freedoms we have... we have and continue to lose liberty... government is coming in everywhere like toxic mold on a mission.

If you want someone to control your life because you or others are too feeble to control your own behavior... then you and your drones call me... I'll run your life for ya. See how you like that.

Jeezuz... what a bunch of losers... really. Looking to Mommy Dearest DC for every damn solution to their lives.

Sad and irritating.

.
 
Last edited:
Just tax it properly and be done. Better labeling would also be quite helpful.
 
Just tax it properly and be done. Better labeling would also be quite helpful.

No... taxation would simply transfer the burden to the consumer, and the corporate behavior would not change. The companies should receive fines instead.
 
:lol: Ok Ok Ok.... Call it a "dedicated market base".
It's just people doing what they want to do. People take risks every day of their lives. Taking a risk doesn't mean that one isn't informed.

My answer again lol. My answer is a bit more complex than, "i do what i want". Whether or not you agree with government health care, it does exist and you are powerless to do anything about it. Therefore.... (this is important) Taxpayers will in fact foot the bill. Therefore "their choices" will spill over into my life.
I am not powerless. I vote, I write congressmen, I keep informed. It may exist now, but my hope is that it will not always be so.
 
You miss the entire point, and that makes some of us go far beyond prickly.

WE ARE IN DANGER... we are losing our freedoms... liberty... government is coming in everywhere like toxic mold on a mission.

If you want someone to control your life because you or others are too feeble to control your own behavior... then you and your drones call me... I'll run your life for ya. See how you like that.

Jeezuz... what a bunch of losers... really. Looking to Mommy Dearest DC for every damn solution to their lives.

Sad and irritating.

.

I think it's interesting when someone responds to one of posts from pages ago. Either I'm very provocative or I'm very annoying. :mrgreen:

No one is forbidding you from adding salt. If you want to sprinkle your cheetoes with salt and then dip them in butter, more power to you.

It's no skin off my back either way, I don't eat processed foods. I got the message that excess sodium is bad for you. I'm mostly concerned about the large majority of overweight Americans who are evidently incapable of getting the message.
 
No... taxation would simply transfer the burden to the consumer, and the corporate behavior would not change. The companies should receive fines instead.

That's the point. By increasing the cost of the good, the quantity demand would decrease as would consumption by default. With the tax proceeds you have a means to sponsor education (so people can be informed).
 
No... taxation would simply transfer the burden to the consumer, and the corporate behavior would not change. The companies should receive fines instead.

So? Heaven forbid people buy fruit instead of hohos.

Better yet, just remove the subsidies. We wouldn't have 16 different forms of corn in so many foods if it was the full price.
 
That's the point. By increasing the cost of the good, the quantity demand would decrease as would consumption by default. With the tax proceeds you have a means to sponsor education (so people can be informed).

Cheap goods have a relatively inelastic demand curve because the poor would keep buying them regardless of what's in them. Even if the price burden is increased marginally because of taxation, they will still be cheaper compared to other more expensive/healthier foods.

The root of the problem is that it's industrial food that is highly profitable. I think fines would be more effective.
 
Bad food is cheaper and so the lower classes will tend to eat it more. That's a socioeconomic issue.

I want to address this in particular because I think we would end up in a circular argument about the rest of it.

But on this: it is almost always used as an excuse that "bad food is cheaper". I don't agree. For the price of two big macs, you can buy a bushel of corn from the farmer's market. Every Friday, for about $20.00, I come home with a bag of tomatoes, 4 cucumbers, 3 pounds of potatoes, a few bunches of baby bok choy, a head of cabbage, and a carton of strawberries. It doesn't get any cheaper, or healthier, than that.

People make bad decisions. It's not about some institutionalized corporate desire to give everyone ass cancer with salt or whatever this thread is supposed to be about. It's really about the bad decisions people make and how some people want the government to take away people's rights to make decisions at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom