View Poll Results: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, this is for the common good.

    14 22.22%
  • Warning labels and a public awareness campaign should be enough

    12 19.05%
  • Government managed healthcare gives them a vested interest in this

    1 1.59%
  • Processed food is so darned salty, I won't protest

    3 4.76%
  • As long as it's legal for folks to add more salt, I'm okay with it

    5 7.94%
  • The government is trying to micromanage our lives! No, this is ridiculous!

    22 34.92%
  • Other, please explain

    6 9.52%
Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 198

Thread: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

  1. #81
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Today 1300 mg
    Yesterday 2196 mg
    Monday 1987 mg
    Sunday 1370 mg

    I could keep going...

    I mean, I know you weren't asking me and all, but what exactly WAS your point?
    The average American has NO idea what they eat or how much of anything they consume.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  2. #82
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    The average American has NO idea what they eat or how much of anything they consume.
    And? That doesn't negate the fact that the information is readily available to them at their fingertips. On every item they pick up. Prior to purchase, prior to consumption.

  3. #83
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    And? That doesn't negate the fact that the information is readily available to them at their fingertips. On every item they pick up. Prior to purchase, prior to consumption.
    Be that as it may, as I have pointed out prior, knowing what is healthy and being able to afford doing something about it are two different things.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  4. #84
    Traditional
    hiswoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Last Seen
    04-04-13 @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,051
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Nobody's dictating anything. You can eat an entire salt-shaker full of salt if you want to.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Because, as your mother always said, you can always add more but you can't take it out.
    DrunkenAsparagus's response below pretty much covers how I feel about it. The issue isn't the salt levels. As others have said, there are other options for those who don't want the extra salt. High sodium food isn't the only available food out there. The issue is the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    Of course one is free to put more salt in their food if they want, and yes, others could pay for your medical bills later on for too much salt intake. However, the notion that others may feel some of the effects of your decisions down the line isn't an excuse to regulate your behavior. Everything you do affects others in one way on another. Should all speed limits be 25mph or all alcohol banned? The companies have a right to put as much salt into their product as they want to. It is an agreement between the consumer and the company, not Uncle Sam.




    Gestures, in love, are incomparably more attractive, effective and valuable than words.
    ~ Francois Rabelais

  5. #85
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    Be that as it may, as I have pointed out prior, knowing what is healthy and being able to afford doing something about it are two different things.
    Good food is cheaper. And, it's always cheaper NOT to buy the potato chips or twinkies.

  6. #86
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by hiswoman View Post
    As others have said, there are other options for those who don't want the extra salt. High sodium food isn't the only available food out there.
    Actually, for some groups of prepared food, it can be hard to find ones without lots of salt.

    I understand your point, and I don't generally disagree with it, but reality rules. People are consuming way too much salt now, and that costs us all.

  7. #87
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    So, the entity that knowingly allows arsenic to be put into food without putting it on a food label is the very entity that you are here arguing should be mandating how much SALT is put into foods?
    Actually, I'm not necessarily saying the governemnt "should" be mandating how much salt is put into foods, I'm saying it is one of the federal government's duties to regulate interstate trade, and thus, it is well withing it's right to do so.

    If the food is only sold within the same State that it is produced, the Feds shouldn't have any authority. But as soon as it crosses state lines, the Feds have a duty to regulate it.

    Salt is poisonous at high levels. Just like arsenic is. According to the constitution, the Federal government can create maximum salt levels for foods if those foods are involved in interstate commerce.

    It's very simple. Just like they do with arsenic.

    If the food goes beyond the maximum quantities, then it cannot be used in interstate commerce.

    However, if a State does not have these mandates, the product can be produced in said state and sold in said state at whatever levels the producer wants.

    If a State wants to have an entirely hands off, no regulations approach to commerce, that is their choice. Producers can do as they wish within said State.

    The "trust" issue is a red herring. I don't care that there are low levels arsenic added to poultry. I do care about it being kept at low levels, though.



    The only thing that needs to be mandated is the labeling. Anything else is unnecessary and excessive. But apparently the govt can't even get the labeling issue right.
    But in this case the chicken is still 100% chicken. That's the only ingredient. The arsenic is deliberately added through the chicken feed indirectly. As in, it's not an ingredient. Right now, regulations mandate a maximum acceptable level of arsenic.

    This is how government regulation work for things like insect parts in vegetables, feces in ground meats, pesticides, hormones, steroids, etc.

    There are maximum allowable levels.

    If labels were all that was required we'd have labels that had so much **** on them that nobody would have the time to read them all.

    Instead, they set maximum acceptable levels for these things.

    Having a maximum salt level is no different.

    If the commerce is interstate, the feds have a right to regulate it however they see fit. If it is intrastate commerce, no. They must stay the **** out of it.

    I suppose if I were totally ignorant of food processing and things like this, I'd believe that labeling was the only necessary regulation for interstate commerce. Thankfully, I'm not so I realize that maximum acceptable levels is by far and away more efficient and harms business far less than labeling everything that ends up in our food would be.

    Setting a maximum acceptable level of salt is no different than setting a maximum acceptable level for arsenic or bug parts or hormones or bovine feces.

    And the only way the Feds could overstep their bounds here is if they decide to regulate intrastate commerce instead of interstate commerce.

    I don't get mad when the Federal government proposes legislation that actually falls well within the limits of its powers as described in the constitution. I get mad when they go past those limitations.

    Regulating maximum allowable levels for certain things falls well within their powers if it is limited t interstate trade. It's a non-issue as long as it is limited to interstate trade.

    I don't know if this proposal is limited to interstate commerce, however. If it is not, I would oppose it. If it isn't, I don't give a ****. I try to buy local as much as possible, anyway, and I can always add salt if I want to.

    All you've done is prove yet again why I should continue to have little faith in govt regulation.
    Why? The government regulation prevents too much arsenic from being added to the foods by regulating a maximum allowable level. It is effective at this.

    Just because they don't damage the businesses by making them label anything and everything that gets indirectly added to their products doesn't mean they aren't doing the job of making sure those things aren't being kept at low levels.

    None of the chicken in the study exceeded the regulatory limits for arsenic, but some chicken that didn't have the arsenic added to their feed still had low levels of arsenic.

    In my view, the government does a pretty solid job of regulating produce in general. I don't mind low levels of arsenic being added to the food.

    However, I vehemently oppose the idea that "companies have a right to put as much" [insert potentially harmful item here] "into their product as they want to."

    It's ridiculous. Salt is potentially harmful at high levels. There's nothing wrong with setting a maximum allowable level of potentially harmful things in food items.

    This includes salt.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #88
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Actually, I'm not necessarily saying the governemnt "should" be mandating how much salt is put into foods, I'm saying it is one of the federal government's duties to regulate interstate trade, and thus, it is well withing it's right to do so.

    If the food is only sold within the same State that it is produced, the Feds shouldn't have any authority. But as soon as it crosses state lines, the Feds have a duty to regulate it.

    Salt is poisonous at high levels. Just like arsenic is. According to the constitution, the Federal government can create maximum salt levels for foods if those foods are involved in interstate commerce.

    It's very simple. Just like they do with arsenic.

    If the food goes beyond the maximum quantities, then it cannot be used in interstate commerce.

    However, if a State does not have these mandates, the product can be produced in said state and sold in said state at whatever levels the producer wants.

    If a State wants to have an entirely hands off, no regulations approach to commerce, that is their choice. Producers can do as they wish within said State.

    The "trust" issue is a red herring. I don't care that there are low levels arsenic added to poultry. I do care about it being kept at low levels, though.





    But in this case the chicken is still 100% chicken. That's the only ingredient. The arsenic is deliberately added through the chicken feed indirectly. As in, it's not an ingredient. Right now, regulations mandate a maximum acceptable level of arsenic.

    This is how government regulation work for things like insect parts in vegetables, feces in ground meats, pesticides, hormones, steroids, etc.

    There are maximum allowable levels.

    If labels were all that was required we'd have labels that had so much **** on them that nobody would have the time to read them all.

    Instead, they set maximum acceptable levels for these things.

    Having a maximum salt level is no different.

    If the commerce is interstate, the feds have a right to regulate it however they see fit. If it is intrastate commerce, no. They must stay the **** out of it.

    I suppose if I were totally ignorant of food processing and things like this, I'd believe that labeling was the only necessary regulation for interstate commerce. Thankfully, I'm not so I realize that maximum acceptable levels is by far and away more efficient and harms business far less than labeling everything that ends up in our food would be.

    Setting a maximum acceptable level of salt is no different than setting a maximum acceptable level for arsenic or bug parts or hormones or bovine feces.

    And the only way the Feds could overstep their bounds here is if they decide to regulate intrastate commerce instead of interstate commerce.

    I don't get mad when the Federal government proposes legislation that actually falls well within the limits of its powers as described in the constitution. I get mad when they go past those limitations.

    Regulating maximum allowable levels for certain things falls well within their powers if it is limited t interstate trade. It's a non-issue as long as it is limited to interstate trade.

    I don't know if this proposal is limited to interstate commerce, however. If it is not, I would oppose it. If it isn't, I don't give a ****. I try to buy local as much as possible, anyway, and I can always add salt if I want to.



    Why? The government regulation prevents too much arsenic from being added to the foods by regulating a maximum allowable level. It is effective at this.

    Just because they don't damage the businesses by making them label anything and everything that gets indirectly added to their products doesn't mean they aren't doing the job of making sure those things aren't being kept at low levels.

    None of the chicken in the study exceeded the regulatory limits for arsenic, but some chicken that didn't have the arsenic added to their feed still had low levels of arsenic.

    In my view, the government does a pretty solid job of regulating produce in general. I don't mind low levels of arsenic being added to the food.

    However, I vehemently oppose the idea that "companies have a right to put as much" [insert potentially harmful item here] "into their product as they want to."

    It's ridiculous. Salt is potentially harmful at high levels. There's nothing wrong with setting a maximum allowable level of potentially harmful things in food items.

    This includes salt.
    If they don't put something on a label, then I can understand the regulation. But sodium IS on the label, thus the regulation becomes unnecessary. All it is, is more regulation with no benefit but to make certain people feel better about themselves for helping to save people from themselves. It will do no good, and only open that door- that's already too wide- for the government to stick their nose into out dietary habits even further.

  9. #89
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    If they don't put something on a label, then I can understand the regulation. But sodium IS on the label, thus the regulation becomes unnecessary. All it is, is more regulation with no benefit but to make certain people feel better about themselves for helping to save people from themselves. It will do no good, and only open that door- that's already too wide- for the government to stick their nose into out dietary habits even further.
    It doesn't actually affect people's dietary habits in any way shape or form.

    They are still absolutely free to put any amount of salt on to their food that they wish to put on it. It just regulates what the companies are allowed to put in the food that is involved in interstate commerce. People are still free to add more if they feel the need.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #90
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    If they don't put something on a label, then I can understand the regulation. But sodium IS on the label, thus the regulation becomes unnecessary.
    So how much sodium did you consume yesterday? Was it higher or lower than the recommended daily allowance for you?

Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •