• 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!

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

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

  • Yes, this is for the common good.

    Votes: 11 23.9%

  • Warning labels and a public awareness campaign should be enough

    Votes: 11 23.9%

  • Government managed healthcare gives them a vested interest in this

    Votes: 1 2.2%

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

    Votes: 2 4.3%

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

    Votes: 4 8.7%

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

    Votes: 11 23.9%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 6 13.0%
  • Total voters
    46
DrunkenAsparagus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just curious, does the same logic apply to arsenic? Do the companies "have a right to put as much arsenic into their product as they want to." Or a can baby formula company put as much dog feces into its product as it wants to without telling anyone?

I see no problem with regulatory oversight.

I just disagree with intrastate trade being regulated by the Feds. Interstate trade is all theirs.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
If I have to pay for their medical bills, hell yes regulate it.

If I don't, you're free to kill yourself via hypertension.

The notion of personal responsibility is fine in theory, until you start including the mechanisms of how medical bills are paid.
Click to expand...

Sound point. Of course I oppose the government forcing me and others to pay for the health care of others. Once we have to, maybe we ought to have a say in how those people live. For example, people on welfare really shouldn't be breeding. If they are unable to pay for children they produce, they should not engage in such behavior and thus cost the rest of us money.

However, those who are not on the public dole shouldn't be told what sort of food to buy or eat
 
Hoplite said:
But you generally dont.

I agree with Yossarian, this decision does not impinge on the rights or freedoms of anyone. If you're REALLY concerned about getting all that salt, you're free to eat more. We expect the government to regulate food safety when it comes to contaigens and unsafe ingredients, why is it unreasonable to expect them NOT to regulate against unreasonable levels of certain ingredients especially when high levels of said ingredients are demonstrably deleterious to your health?
Click to expand...

You have admitted to being a socialist. Thus your concept of what involves rights or freedoms is suspect to the point of having no credibility with me. Salt is not an unsafe ingredient any more than water is. Too much of either will mess you up big time. You should be the gatekeeper of what goes into your mouth, not a nanny state which will charge us billions more for that "service"
 
Tucker Case said:
Just curious, does the same logic apply to arsenic? Do the companies "have a right to put as much arsenic into their product as they want to." Or a can baby formula company put as much dog feces into its product as it wants to without telling anyone?

I see no problem with regulatory oversight.

I just disagree with intrastate trade being regulated by the Feds. Interstate trade is all theirs.
Click to expand...


Hyperbole and ridiculous analogies are not your friend.
 
obvious Child said:
If I have to pay for their medical bills, hell yes regulate it.

If I don't, you're free to kill yourself via hypertension.

The notion of personal responsibility is fine in theory, until you start including the mechanisms of how medical bills are paid.
Click to expand...

Serious question. Is there any aspect of our daily lives that you think the government should not establish regulations for in the interest of lowering potential medical costs?
 
Moon said:
Hyperbole and ridiculous analogies are not your friend.
Click to expand...

What is the hyperbole? Lack of regulatory oversight made 53,000 Chinese children sick last year alone. China is proof of what happens with a nearly free market.
 
Hatuey said:
What is the hyperbole? Lack of regulatory oversight made 53,000 Chinese children sick last year alone. China is proof of what happens with a nearly free market.
Click to expand...

I really have to explain it to you?
 
Moon said:
I really have to explain it to you?
Click to expand...

By all means. Please show us how Tucker's comment was hyperbolic? But before you do:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26827110/

Beijing authorities also said that China's biggest producer of powdered milk had known for months that its baby formula was tainted with the industrial chemical melamine. There were complaints about infant formula sold by the Sanlu Group Co. as early as December, 2007, China Central Television reported, citing an investigation by the State Council, China's Cabinet.

"During these eight months, the company did not inform the government and did not take proper measures, therefore making the situation worse," CCTV said.

Melamine, which can cause kidney stones and kidney failure in babies, has since been found in infant formula and other milk products from 22 of China's dairy companies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
If I have to pay for their medical bills, hell yes regulate it.

If I don't, you're free to kill yourself via hypertension.

The notion of personal responsibility is fine in theory, until you start including the mechanisms of how medical bills are paid.
Click to expand...

A fine point against socialized medicine.
 
Hatuey said:
By all means. Please show us how Tucker's comment was hyperbolic? But before you do:
Click to expand...

So you think salt is comparable to arsenic and dog feces? Can you survive without consuming salt? Do you need arsenic and dog feces to survive? If you can't see the hyperbole in the comparison he used, then I can't help you.
 
Tucker Case said:
Just curious, does the same logic apply to arsenic? Do the companies "have a right to put as much arsenic into their product as they want to." Or a can baby formula company put as much dog feces into its product as it wants to without telling anyone?
Click to expand...
Quite an assumption that FDA or USDA do not already regulate for things such as arsenic (actually inorganic arsenic) and dog feces.
 
hiswoman said:
This has been covered. What's the point of lowering it in the first place then? The salt isn't the issue. It's government sticking it's nose in places it has no business sticking it and people being responsible for their own choices.
Click to expand...
This is the same flawed argument people make with HFC. "If you dont want it, avoid it."

Nice in theory but I invite you to go to any grocery store and read the PDVs of Sodium in things you generally dont associate with being high in salt and the salt content of salt in a great many foods. It's exceptionally difficult to avoid foods with high levels of salt without setting aside serious time, effort, and money to do so which is something most of us dont have extra of.

Eating healthy is, contrary to popular opinion, not cheap thus the working poor often do not have the luxury of avoiding processed foods that are almost always high in salt or sugar content.
 
Moon said:
So you think salt is comparable to arsenic and dog feces?Can you survive without consuming salt? Do you need arsenic and dog feces to survive? If you can't see the hyperbole in the comparison he used, then I can't help you.
Click to expand...

No. Tucker's point was to illustrate that what happens when there is a complete lack of regulation can be dangerous - which you seem to have mistaken for hyperbole even though it happens more often than free market advocates would like to admit. Read the post he replied to.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
No. Tucker's point was to illustrate that what happens when there is a complete lack of regulation can be dangerous - which you seem to have mistaken for hyperbole even though it happens more often than free market advocates would like to admit. Read the post he replied to.
Click to expand...

I read it, and don't recall seeing anyone in this thread advocating eliminating regulations. That being the case, his comment certainly was hyperbole.

Honestly, since the government is proposing these regulations out of health concerns, I thought the question DrunkenAsparagus asked was a fair one and even asked it myself. How much government intervention into our lives for health reasons is enough?

My position is that enough information exists for people to make informed choices, and additional government intervention is not necessary. How that got turned into arsenic and dog feces is beyond me, except as hyperbole on Tucker's part.
 
Moon said:
I read it, and don't recall seeing anyone in this thread advocating eliminating regulations.
Click to expand...

This statement does suggest that because everything you do has an effect on other people, then regulation is not necessary.

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.
Click to expand...

Tucker was referring to which regulation you oppose and which you support. He wasn't supporting a ban on products etc. He was attacking the notion that nothing should be done and we should all instead wait for the ghost of the market to deal with itself.

That being the case, his comment certainly was hyperbole.

Honestly, since the government is proposing these regulations out of health concerns, I thought the question DrunkenAsparagus asked was a fair one and even asked it myself. How much government intervention into our lives for health reasons is enough?

My position is that enough information exists for people to make informed choices, and additional government intervention is not necessary. How that got turned into arsenic and dog feces is beyond me, except as hyperbole on Tucker's part.
Click to expand...

The problem with this statement is that the availability of information simply isn't enough. Poverty and health are strongly related in a cycle.

Poverty ensures that the quality of your food will be lower. Eating unhealthy foods is more likely to mean weight gain. Weight gain and health problems mean your capability to work is strongly diminished.

There is strong researching showing that even a slight reduction in salt would be enough to rid a lot of these health problems. In this case, a proposed limit on how much of it producers can put in their foods would be beneficial to the well being of all.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
This statement does suggest that because everything you do has an effect on other people, then regulation is not necessary.





The problem with this statement is that the availability of information simply isn't enough. Poverty and health are strongly related in a cycle.

Poverty ensures that the quality of your food will be lower. Eating unhealthy foods is more likely to mean weight gain. Weight gain and health problems mean your capability to work is strongly diminished.

There is strong researching showing that even a slight reduction in salt would be enough to rid a lot of these health problems. In this case, a proposed limit on how much of it producers can put in their foods would be beneficial to the well being of all.
Click to expand...

Every packaged food item has a label that shows the ingredients and the % daily value of key nutrients, including sodium. The information is there.
 
Moon said:
Every packaged food item has a label that shows the ingredients and the % daily value of key nutrients, including sodium. The information is there.
Click to expand...

Try going through your regular routine at the super market and see how much sodium you walk out with.

I was a bit shocked when I first did it.
 
So, is there something keeping people from adding salt to food?

Personally, I don't think this proposal is the end of the world. People have been programed by advertising and multinational food corporations to eat high salt food, and the government has come up with a plan to try to wean the public slowly of their acquired taste for what is a harmful substance to many, without the food giants having to individually risk losing their addicted customers.

It actually sounds like a good plan to me.
 
The insurance industry has been big on preventative measures and the re reduction of Sodium is indeed an important part of it. Yes the government should not command anything except that the food be labled for all content so that the consumer can make an edicated choice.

This kind of crap can really be sent into orbit. Remember there was a lable on birth control spemacide jel that said " not to be eaten" - hmm well don't take that any further !!
 
Moon said:
Every packaged food item has a label that shows the ingredients and the % daily value of key nutrients, including sodium. The information is there.
Click to expand...

And why do they have those things?

Because there is regulation.

Oh, and next time you want to make the accusation of hyperbole and ridiculous analogies, perhaps a little education would be in order:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/dining/05well.html

Yet it is deliberately being added to chicken in this country, with many scientists saying it is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Unlike both salt an arsenic, dog feces cannot poison someone if it is sterilized. Salt and arsenic are poisonous at certain levels. Teh reason why most people don't die from salt poisoning is because the taste is unpalatable (perhaps like dog feces).

this is why I chose baby formula in the feces example. Babies are fussy anyway. People wouldn't assume they are being fussy because they are being poisoned by teh absurdly high salt content that can occur if "companies have a right to put as much salt into their product as they want to."

I chose arsenic because it is being added to food right now, in the US. ;)




You say hyperbole and ridiculous analogies aren't my friend, and that's true. It's also why my choices were actually based on solid reasoning and knowledge of the facts.
 
Last edited:
While I applaud the action of lowering salt content, my concern is that companies will use even worse and a higher amount of unnatural preservatives in their food products.

I say its best just to make stuff from scratch.
 
megaprogman said:
While I applaud the action of lowering salt content, my concern is that companies will use even worse and a higher amount of unnatural preservatives in their food products.

I say its best just to make stuff from scratch.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and that's a great rule to follow. Eat anything you want, as long as you make it from scratch. Ever made homemade potato chips? Big ole pain in the ass for not a lot of chips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom