• 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

Kelzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

The mentality is annoying as hell. That's what pisses me off to no end. Drones.

It's the same lame brain mentality that defends the government writing laws for the loudness of commercials because the jerk stains are too lazy to click the sound down from the remote.

It is skin off my back and the backs of food manufacturers... and wait..this is only the start.

The large faction of American Fatties choose to be that way. It is their CHOICE to ram food down their gullets in large quantities and sit on their duffs. If that's what makes their boat float... fine... don't make me pay for the healthcare, and leave us the **** alone. We're tired of government's incessant intrusions.

Government can **** Off and go away... leave us alone. We are supposed to be The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave... not the land of the controlled and home of the controlled idiots.

.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

We would not have an obesity epidemic if people were informed. The majority of Americans are not ignorant. Unless of course, Americans have a food addiction ;)

Also: As long as the elderly vote in mass number, government health care will always be here. I don't see that changing in my lifetime, do you?
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the food items but the opportunity cost of making the food. Cooking takes time and people in lower socioeconomic levels usually can't make it happen. Fast food is just that: fast. The industrial food system is partly designed to decrease the amount of time required to stay at home so that the labor force is more mobile.

jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it should be a multi-pronged approach: teaching people about their consumer choices while cracking down on deliberate poisoning of food with agents that we know are harmful.

I don't think corporations are out to create cancerous situations. They are about maximizing profit and so we have to examine them based on that behavior. It's the regulatory agencies that need to tell them what's not acceptable, and it's up to the consumer to try and stay up to speed on healthy choices.

Also, the FDA doesn't do its job well enough. It is reviewing less products per year now than it did a decade ago, and a lot of things are getting fast tracked. It's getting sloppy which is why more people are getting sick.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
We would not have an obesity epidemic if people were informed. The majority of Americans are not ignorant. Unless of course, Americans have a food addiction ;)

Also: As long as the elderly vote in mass number, government health care will always be here. I don't see that changing in my lifetime, do you?
Click to expand...

Really? And what happens when that doesn't work???
Off to the gulag?

Frankly, now that government is the healthcare delivery monster, I hope the number of fat people triples... and with that weight... the system implodes. Euros aren't as fat, but they are corrupt... combine their corruption with mass obesity and we could cripple socialist medicine in half the time the Euros and Kanuckistani's took.

Government only makes matters worse... for example, their food chart is designed to create fat people. It is designed to pump sugar into our system in rather large quantities.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
The mentality is annoying as hell. That's what pisses me off to no end. Drones.

It's the same lame brain mentality that defends the government writing laws for the loudness of commercials because the jerk stains are too lazy to click the sound down from the remote.

It is skin off my back and the backs of food manufacturers... and wait..this is only the start.

The large faction of American Fatties choose to be that way. It is their CHOICE to ram food down their gullets in large quantities and sit on their duffs. If that's what makes their boat float... fine... don't make me pay for the healthcare, and leave us the **** alone. We're tired of government's incessant intrusions.

Government can **** Off and go away... leave us alone. We are supposed to be The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave... not the land of the controlled and home of the controlled idiots.

.
Click to expand...

Calm down, you can still have as much salt as you want. And the food manufacturers support this completely, sooo...

Since moon wasn't biting on my previous offer, I'll make you another one. Howabout we get rid of subsidies on corn, wheat, and soy and drive up the costs of junk food exponentially? And in return, you can keep your salt.
 
zimmer said:
Really? And what happens when that doesn't work???
Off to the gulag?

Government only makes matters worse... for example, their food chart is designed to create fat people. It is designed to pump sugar into our system in rather large quantities.

.
Click to expand...

Really how so?
 
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not if it is taxed appropriately. Secondly, food demand as a whole is quite inelastic. The price of a good does not impact elasticity. Lack of a substitutes and/or superiority are the primary determinants of a single good. Now if you were to compare goods, the cost price elasticity confirms my previous statement. An increase cost in one good increases the demand in another (in regards to food).

The root of the problem is that it's industrial food that is highly profitable. I think fines would be more effective.
Click to expand...

Fines would be passed down to the consumer as well. The only difference is the lack of enforcement on behalf of government.
 
Kelzie said:
Calm down, you can still have as much salt as you want. And the food manufacturers support this completely, sooo...

Since moon wasn't biting on my previous offer, I'll make you another one. Howabout we get rid of subsidies on corn, wheat, and soy and drive up the costs of junk food exponentially? And in return, you can keep your salt.
Click to expand...

Listen... and listen good dear.
NO CALMING DOWN.

This is another attack on our lives and freedoms.
It has real implications for food manufacturers.
It is yet another intrusion where government has no role.
Perhaps you like it when government controls you.
You seem like a good tron, as in Obamatron.

I prefer freedom. A strong government where it should be strong, and feeble where it should be feeble.

In this case, as with scores of others... it should be feeble.
Non existent.

You libs liked the... Keep your Rosaries out of our ovaries... so we abort a million kids a year... but...

HEY YOU! ASSHOLE!!!!
THE GOVERNMENT IS HERE TO TELL YOU HOW MUCH SALT YOU CAN PUT IN YOUR FOOD!!!!
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
Not if it is taxed appropriately. Secondly, food demand as a whole is quite inelastic. The price of a good does not impact elasticity. Lack of a substitutes and/or superiority are the primary determinants of a single good. Now if you were to compare goods, the cost price elasticity confirms my previous statement. An increase cost in one good increases the demand in another (in regards to food).
Click to expand...

You're right, but people with a higher income have a more diverse range of food choices and more time to prepare healthy food. Those in the lower class who eat cheap food that is unhealthy will largely keep eating it, regardless.

Taxation is not going to fix it. The behavior needs to be changed and the only way that can happen quickly is with stiff penalties.

Goldenboy219 said:
Fines would be passed down to the consumer as well. The only difference is the lack of enforcement on behalf of government.
Click to expand...

Corporations see finances in terms of quarterly ranges only. Hefty fines have a deeper impact on the short term than taxation.
 
zimmer said:
Listen... and listen good dear.
NO CALMING DOWN.

This is another attack on our lives and freedoms.
It has real implications for food manufacturers.
It is yet another intrusion where government has no role.
Perhaps you like it when government controls you.
You seem like a good tron, as in Obamatron.

I prefer freedom. A strong government where it should be strong, and feeble where it should be feeble.

In this case, as with scores of others... it should be feeble.
Non existent.

You libs liked the Keep your Rosaries out of our ovaries...

We can abort a million kids a year... but...

HEY YOU! ASSHOLE!!!!
THE GOVERNMENT IS HERE TO TELL YOU HOW MUCH SALT YOU CAN PUT IN YOUR FOOD!!!!

.
Click to expand...

:shock:

I'm not sure you've read my post yet. The government is not telling you as an individual how much salt you can consume. The government is telling businesses how much of a chemical they can put in, like they do for many other chemicals. You can always add more.
 
Orion said:
You're right, but people with a higher income have a more diverse range of food choices and more time to prepare healthy food. Those in the lower class who eat cheap food that is unhealthy will largely keep eating it, regardless.

Taxation is not going to fix it. The behavior needs to be changed and the only way that can happen quickly is with stiff penalties.

Corporations see finances in terms of quarterly ranges only. Hefty fines have a deeper impact on the short term than taxation.
Click to expand...

I bet if doritos were $15/bag they'd find their way to the produce pretty quickly.
 
Orion said:
You're right, but people with a higher income have a more diverse range of food choices and more time to prepare healthy food. Those in the lower class who eat cheap food that is unhealthy will largely keep eating it, regardless.

Taxation is not going to fix it. The behavior needs to be changed and the only way that can happen quickly is with stiff penalties.



Corporations see finances in terms of quarterly ranges only. Hefty fines have a deeper impact on the short term than taxation.
Click to expand...

Proof?

First... the wealthy tend to be busier... you know... ask a busy person to get something done. The poor... tend to have more time.

Vegetables aren't expensive, and it doesn't take a chef to cook decent food.

Poor may eat more fast food... could it be because they're lazy?

Taxation is not going to fix it. The behavior needs to be changed and the only way that can happen quickly is with stiff penalties.
Click to expand...
Priceless.
Taxes... stiff penalties.
ROTFLOL... spoken like a true left winger of the Trudeau Clan.

.
 
Orion said:
You're right, but people with a higher income have a more diverse range of food choices and more time to prepare healthy food. Those in the lower class who eat cheap food that is unhealthy will largely keep eating it, regardless.
Click to expand...

The point is; previously more expensive goods are priced similar to processed foods. The substitution effect greatly reduces inelasticity.

Taxation is not going to fix it. The behavior needs to be changed and the only way that can happen quickly is with stiff penalties.
Click to expand...

It has seen recent success in the Tobacco market; one which is very much so inelastic. Fines are far too arbitrary for my taste.

Corporations see finances in terms of quarterly ranges only. Hefty fines have a deeper impact on the short term than taxation.
Click to expand...

And there's the catch. This is not about punishment, more or less internalizing an externality.
 
Kelzie said:
I bet if doritos were $15/bag they'd find their way to the produce pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have to get to that point. All the companies would have to do is add less salt to the doritos. That would actually reduce their input costs and would prevent them from being fined in the first place.
 
Kelzie said:
:shock:

I'm not sure you've read my post yet. The government is not telling you as an individual how much salt you can consume. The government is telling businesses how much of a chemical they can put in, like they do for many other chemicals. You can always add more.
Click to expand...

Well, why not? if the concern is the health of Americans, why not have the government tell everyone how much they can consume? Makes sense, doesn't it?
 
Moon said:
Well, why not? if the concern is the health of Americans, why not have the government tell everyone how much they can consume? Makes sense, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

...plus, think of how many jobs we would create by hiring salt police!
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The point is; previously more expensive goods are priced similar to processed foods. The substitution effect greatly reduces inelasticity.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what you mean by the bolded part?

Goldenboy219 said:
It has seen recent success in the Tobacco market; one which is very much so inelastic. Fines are far too arbitrary for my taste.
Click to expand...

Although there are a lot of additives in food now which maximize pleasure response, I think you'd have a hard time comparing processed food to tobacco addiction. The reasons for inelasticity are different. Processed food consumption relates more to socioeconomic factors.

Goldenboy219 said:
And there's the catch. This is not about punishment, more or less internalizing an externality.
Click to expand...

I call it: hurting them where it counts.
 
Moon said:
Well, why not? if the concern is the health of Americans, why not have the government tell everyone how much they can consume? Makes sense, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

No it really doesn't sense since it is not a cookie cutter recipe. Some people for what ever reason so require more salt in their diets. And if salt were to be regulated by the big bad gubbermint those people would still have the option adding the required salt.
 
Kelzie said:
:shock:

I'm not sure you've read my post yet. The government is not telling you as an individual how much salt you can consume. The government is telling businesses how much of a chemical they can put in, like they do for many other chemicals. You can always add more.
Click to expand...

Nice try... you haven't read my posts.
Perhaps reading comprehension problems?

The point is... I may like the food as they manufacture it, and after eating the cardboard version mandated by government... might never buy it again. IT IS NOT THEIR BUSINESS to mandate salt levels in food, especially for their intended reasons. I could understand it during a war and rationing, but we aren't at that point.

WE ARE SUPPOSEDLY FREE, BRAVE PEOPLE. ROTFLMFAO...

Let the market decide, not a few hundred **** heads in DC.

Amazing how people are ignorant of how they lose liberty every day... but think it's OK for the beast in DC to run over them and their kid's lives.

Does freedom mean anything to you?

.
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
...plus, think of how many jobs we would create by hiring salt police!
Click to expand...

My question was serious. If you're concerned about what people consume, then why not have laws in place that specify how much one can consume. People know from reading the label how much sodium is in any given product, and obviously they can't be trusted to stick to a healthy diet, so why shouldn't the government step in and tell us all how much salt, fat, sugar, etc. we can have each day?
 
Orion said:
It's not just about the food items but the opportunity cost of making the food. Cooking takes time and people in lower socioeconomic levels usually can't make it happen. Fast food is just that: fast. The industrial food system is partly designed to decrease the amount of time required to stay at home so that the labor force is more mobile.
Click to expand...

Apple: 30 second preparation time to wash
Banana: 15 second preparation time to peel
Orange: (now this one is a chore) 1 minute prep time to peel

All these things are very low cost, even in off season. Have nutritional value and are readily accessible.

I work 40+ hours a week and spend 10 hours a week at the gym and have a fairly active social life. Don't tell me it's not possible to make a low cost, nutritional meal happen because I know better. I make it happen every day. It may not be what I want to eat, but it's going to be good for me. Like everyone else, sometimes I just want to eat a bag of oreos and a can of beefaroni. But I don't because I know that is the way to wind up having a chat with Wilford Brimley about the diabeetus. And no one finds a 300 pound man with missing leg riding a Hover-round chair attractive.

It's about decisions. People need to learn to make the good ones others need to stop trying to curb the consequences for them. Darwin called...he wants gene selection to be natural again.
 
winston53660 said:
No it really doesn't sense since it is not a cookie cutter recipe. Some people for what ever reason so require more salt in their diets. And if salt were to be regulated by the big bad gubbermint those people would still have the option adding the required salt.
Click to expand...


Then obviously we need government-provided diet monitors to establish diets for each individual.
 
zimmer said:
Nice try... you haven't read my posts.
Perhaps reading comprehension problems?

The point is... I may like the food as they manufacture it, and after eating the cardboard version mandated by government... might never buy it again. IT IS NOT THEIR BUSINESS, especially for their intended reasons.

Let the market decide, not a few hundred **** heads in DC.

Amazing how people are ignorant of how they lose liberty every day... but think it's OK for the beast in DC to run over them and their kid's lives.

Does freedom mean anything to you?

.
Click to expand...

No, I've read them. Lots of caps, lots of ****s, lots of "give me liberty or give me death!!!!" Very dramatic, brought a tear to my eye.

Add salt, if you don't like how it tates. The few times I end up with low-sodium chicken broth I add my own salt.
 
Orion said:
Can you explain what you mean by the bolded part?
Click to expand...

Lets say a packaged hot pocket cost $2 less than a 1 lb of chicken breast. As the cost increase on the hot pocket to the point where the prices of the two are similar, substitution will most definitely occur. The only case you can make is that people who purchase cheap goods are not good at cooking.

Although there are a lot of additives in food now which maximize pleasure response, I think you'd have a hard time comparing processed food to tobacco addiction. The reasons for inelasticity are different. Processed food consumption relates more to socioeconomic factors.
Click to expand...

Which gives taxation another advantage. It is not as though you are taxing food, only processed food.

I call it: hurting them where it counts.
Click to expand...

I am not often moved by populism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom