Yes, this is for the common good.
Warning labels and a public awareness campaign should be enough
Government managed healthcare gives them a vested interest in this
Processed food is so darned salty, I won't protest
As long as it's legal for folks to add more salt, I'm okay with it
The government is trying to micromanage our lives! No, this is ridiculous!
Other, please explain
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.
Gestures, in love, are incomparably more attractive, effective and valuable than words.
~ Francois Rabelais
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.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.
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.All you've done is prove yet again why I should continue to have little faith in govt regulation.
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.
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.