• 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

That's kind of where I sit with it except for the government taking care of it for them.

Dammit, if I want to eat a bag of salty funions once a month, I want my funions exactly like they are.

Maybe we can have two sets of food. One for those that thing oreos and canned mushrooms are a balanced diet and one for those that realize even funions can be enjoyed in moderation.:mrgreen:

I wouldn't worry about it changing. I'm sure they'll find something that tastes exactly like salt that will turn out to cause cancer in ten years.
 
Maybe we can have two sets of food. One for those that thing oreos and canned mushrooms are a balanced diet and one for those that realize even funions can be enjoyed in moderation.:mrgreen:

I wouldn't worry about it changing. I'm sure they'll find something that tastes exactly like salt that will turn out to cause cancer in ten years.

That is a concern...the devil you know versus the one you don't.
 
That's kind of where I sit with it except for the government taking care of it for them.

Dammit, if I want to eat a bag of salty funions once a month, I want my funions exactly like they are.

I wasn't aware of how much salt is in our diet till I got on a restricted one. I'm sitting here drinking "all natural" limeaid and even it has 15 mgs of sodium in it.

Mmmmmm Funyuns..yummi.
 
Not really. When I was crunched for time a couple years ago, I ate a lot of frozen dinners. I could tell I was getting too much sodium (water retention, heart burn, etc). I make almost everything I eat now and I use a LOT of salt. Haven't had a single problem. There's a lot more sodium in processed food than in the home made version of the same thing.


Interestingly enough, it appears the processed food producers are completely on board. So is it okay if Americans eat less salt because private companies force them to?

I don't see how that is forcing anyone to do anything. If a company makes a product I don't like, then I don't buy it.
 
That's kind of where I sit with it except for the government taking care of it for them.

Dammit, if I want to eat a bag of salty funions once a month, I want my funions exactly like they are.

Maybe Congress can pass a cap and trade law for salt.
 
FDA plans to limit amount of salt allowed in processed foods for health reasons



I spoke with Harkin's office and this is what the babe manning the phones told me:

The bill is for as much for environmental reasons as health reasons.
By reducing salt in our food, our stool production will be up to 15% softer and this would allow for faster fragmentation of the mass. That is critical to reducing the amount of double flushing necessary for the smaller toilet tanks mandated by Congress. Billions of gallons of potable water would be saved over the decades.

.

Look here. I want my salt, I want my death by chocolate deserts, I want my chicken fried steaks, and I want my gravy fries. What I choose to put in my own body is none of the government's damn business.
 
Look here. I want my salt, I want my death by chocolate deserts, I want my chicken fried steaks, and I want my gravy fries. What I choose to put in my own body is none of the government's damn business.

No. You must give up all pf those things for the good of the collective. Resistance is futile.
 
I wasn't aware of how much salt is in our diet till I got on a restricted one. I'm sitting here drinking "all natural" limeaid and even it has 15 mgs of sodium in it.

Mmmmmm Funyuns..yummi.

Yeah but a low sodium diet is anything under 1300mgs a day. That's still a lot of sodium. I don't see how a person can ingest that much, let alone the 2700mgs that is permitted in a normal diet.
 
I think the regulation is a good idea. Heart disease and stroke are the number one killers and hypertension is a comorbid factor. The average amount of salt that you would sprinkle onto your own food from the salt shaker pales in comparison to the concentrated levels that companies are putting into the food to up the taste profile.

Companies have the right to make profit but they shouldn't have the right to poison the public, and that's what high levels of sodium are: poison. Just because salt is an every day part of our society it's easy to overlook the fact that it's damaging to the body.

If you want to poison yourself, then add more salt to your food. No one is stopping you. I have always supported regulations for products that have high levels of transfat, sugar, and salt. These three substances are the main killers in today's world. If you love them so much, then add them to your own food. Food shouldn't come pre-loaded with them, and in the case of sugar, the only reason why it's in so many products and in such high levels is because the sugar industry saddled itself with government a long time ago. Now we have a type II diabetes epidemic.
 
Last edited:
What is so bad about this? I can see so much positive in this. Kids who can't control what their parents bring into the house and feed them will benefit, it's good for our country's health, it saves water even if it is a pennywise move, it doesn't hurt. But this shouldn't be used as an excuse, by any stretch of the imagination, for taking a step towards a healthier, more eco-friendly America.

If I'm overlooking something, please tell me as I'm fairly new to politics.
 
What is so bad about this? I can see so much positive in this. Kids who can't control what their parents bring into the house and feed them will benefit, it's good for our country's health, it saves water even if it is a pennywise move, it doesn't hurt. But this shouldn't be used as an excuse, by any stretch of the imagination, for taking a step towards a healthier, more eco-friendly America.

If I'm overlooking something, please tell me as I'm fairly new to politics.
Here's where I have problems. It's not the govt's job to control people's home, not even for the children.
 
Here's where I have problems. It's not the govt's job to control people's home, not even for the children.

But they're not controlling people's homes.

They're just mandating a reduction of the salt content of foods that people bring into their homes.
 
Here's where I have problems. It's not the govt's job to control people's home, not even for the children.

They're not controlling your home. They're not even controlling how much salt that you personally add to your food. They are regulating corporations.

Big difference.
 
I think the regulation is a good idea. Heart disease and stroke are the number one killers and hypertension is a comorbid factor. The average amount of salt that you would sprinkle onto your own food from the salt shaker pales in comparison to the concentrated levels that companies are putting into the food to up the taste profile.

Companies have the right to make profit but they shouldn't have the right to poison the public, and that's what high levels of sodium are: poison. Just because salt is an every day part of our society it's easy to overlook the fact that it's damaging to the body.

If you want to poison yourself, then add more salt to your food. No one is stopping you. I have always supported regulations for products that have high levels of transfat, sugar, and salt. These three substances are the main killers in today's world. If you love them so much, then add them to your own food. Food shouldn't come pre-loaded with them, and in the case of sugar, the only reason why it's in so many products and in such high levels is because the sugar industry saddled itself with government a long time ago. Now we have a type II diabetes epidemic.

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.

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.
 
Well the only way you are going to get away from that is to live in the wilderness somewhere away from human contact. Your decision to live in a society does not give you a right to limit the liberties of others because you think that the natural responsibilities one has to society are just too damned much for you to bear.



Then go somewhere that you don't have to pay for medicare. However, the small amount you contribute to the public fund for medicare does not give you a right to regulate the personal decisions of society at large.



No, but you are restricting business practices based on the idea that the consumer should not have the choice in what to consume. If you can't handle the natural responsibilities to society that you incur by living in one, find somewhere away from people.
Despite your attempts to bully me, your argument is invalid.

Capping the sodium content of prepackaged/processed foods is not an infringement on anyone's personal liberty because you can add all the salt you want.

Seat Belt laws are an example of an infringement on personal liberty.
 
Despite your attempts to bully me, your argument is invalid.

There was no attempt to bully you and my argument was totally valid as evidenced by the fact that you made zero attempt to rebutt the argument.

Capping the sodium content of prepackaged/processed foods is not an infringement on anyone's personal liberty because you can add all the salt you want.

It absolutely limits the rights of the business owner to implement his business model. The encroachment by the government in this begins before the food ever hits the table.

Seat Belt laws are an example of an infringement on personal liberty.

Hardly. If you are going to be on a public road, following public safety laws is not an infringement of your liberty. Nice try though.
 
Look here. I want my salt, I want my death by chocolate deserts, I want my chicken fried steaks, and I want my gravy fries. What I choose to put in my own body is none of the government's damn business.
You're rant is nothing more. You are not restricted from adding salt to your food or your shoes if that's what floats yer boat.

I agree with you in your Anarchist ideal that no one should have authority over another, not a government nor any organized body. However, we live in society and that society has an obligation to protect itself so we create government. So now we have a Representative Democracy and we tell the government to protect us. So the government says that business cannot poison society. Adding too much salt to the foods we buy is harming society. If you don't agree, then you can tell your Representative not to pass that law.
 
It seems to be a common theme in this thread that these proposed regulations will really not do much to impact people's salt consumption, since you can still ad as much salt as you want, and consume as much prepackaged food as you want.

So what's the benefit of this regulation, then? Is it worth the cost of creating and enforcing the regulation, not to mention the added cost to businesses to adjust their products and packaging?

Honestly, all I see is additional federal intrusion into the marketplace, with no perceptible benefit to Americans.
 
It seems to be a common theme in this thread that these proposed regulations will really not do much to impact people's salt consumption, since you can still ad as much salt as you want, and consume as much prepackaged food as you want.

So what's the benefit of this regulation, then? Is it worth the cost of creating and enforcing the regulation, not to mention the added cost to businesses to adjust their products and packaging?

Honestly, all I see is additional federal intrusion into the marketplace, with no perceptible benefit to Americans.

Don't you know? It gives liberal hysterics a chance to codefy their hysterical cause du jour into a law for the rest of us to deal with. Because you know...you can't possibly know what's good for you without some liberal nutjob standing over you telling you what's good for you.:roll:

The only benefit is to make a whiney segment of the population feel good about their dramatics.
 
It seems to be a common theme in this thread that these proposed regulations will really not do much to impact people's salt consumption, since you can still ad as much salt as you want, and consume as much prepackaged food as you want.

So what's the benefit of this regulation, then? Is it worth the cost of creating and enforcing the regulation, not to mention the added cost to businesses to adjust their products and packaging?

Honestly, all I see is additional federal intrusion into the marketplace, with no perceptible benefit to Americans.

Because then people who want to eat toxic processed food won't have sodium added by default to the list of other horrible things already present.

I don't see how there's much added cost. Processed food is already tested for the sodium content.
 
Because then people who want to eat toxic processed food won't have sodium added by default to the list of other horrible things already present.

I don't see how there's much added cost. Processed food is already tested for the sodium content.

There will be cost of reformulation and testing of the recipes, cost of new packaging, cost of disposal of old product if it can no longer be sold, cost of writing and publishing the new rules, and cost of enforcement by the nanny state just off the top of my head. So yes, there will be additional cost involved, and guess who gets to pay for this nonsense that will provide zero benefit?
 
Don't you know? It gives liberal hysterics a chance to codefy their hysterical cause du jour into a law for the rest of us to deal with. Because you know...you can't possibly know what's good for you without some liberal nutjob standing over you telling you what's good for you.:roll:

The only benefit is to make a whiney segment of the population feel good about their dramatics.

Yeah, that's pretty much the same conclusion I came to as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom