• 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?


  • Total voters
    46
Interesting post. I just have one thing that bugs me.

Your opinion is that if a state wants to put say, 10x the acceptable amount of arsenic into chicken feed, it's got the go ahead by you, as long as it doesn't cross state lines? That doesn't seem logical.

Hey, as long as it's on the label!
 
At what point are we going to start to care though? We're already at what, 67% of Americans are overweight? Are we going to wait until 90% until we realize that our system isn't working?
What system? The system of personal freedom, choice, and liberty?

Humans have evolved for millions of years to seek out foods with sugar, fat, and salt because it guaranteed our survival. Now that instinct is being turned against us to make a profit. I know we have a choice. But at what point are we concerned about our collective health enough to realize that most people don't make the right choice?
No one has any right to say that someone else is making the 'wrong choice' for themselves. It is THEIR BODY. Who the hell are you, or anyone else, to step in and say, "You're making wrong choices, so from now on I'm going to make them for you?"

Looking at it another way, given the choice, most people would drive well over the speed limit. But it's a danger to public safety, so we passed speed limit laws. I know it's not a perfect analogy, and I'm not suggesting we pass laws overseeing every part of nuitrition. But limiting salt would help millions of Americans. A few might be inconvenienced because they have to get their salt shakers.
That's different. One person's diet choices for themselves do not make other people unhealthy.

But now we're back to the health care debate.

It ends up being your problem anyway.
No, my problem is the government being involved in health care at all. And one of the reasons why it's a problem is THIS very reason we're discussing. If the government has a vested financial interest in our health, then they are going to continue legislating and mandating our eating and exercise habits. I will not ever, EVER condone that kind of invasion of privacy. It needs to stop now before it continues further.
 
No, my problem is the government being involved in health care at all.

Yes, that's your problem too.

Like it or not, the health of others will be your problem sometimes. The only question is the cheapest, easiest way to deal with that problem.

And one of the reasons why it's a problem is THIS very reason we're discussing. If the government has a vested financial interest in our health, then they are going to continue legislating and mandating our eating and exercise habits. I will not ever, EVER condone that kind of invasion of privacy. It needs to stop now before it continues further.

It's an invasion of privacy for the government to regulate the use of potentially harmful substances in your food?
 
What system? The system of personal freedom, choice, and liberty?

I was referring more to our dietary system.

No one has any right to say that someone else is making the 'wrong choice' for themselves. It is THEIR BODY. Who the hell are you, or anyone else, to step in and say, "You're making wrong choices, so from now on I'm going to make them for you?"

Happens all the time in the name of public safety. People do make the wrong choices and most of them are aware of it. Very few people want to be overweight.

That's different. One person's diet choices for themselves do not make other people unhealthy.

When obesity become the standard, what little motivation people have to be healthy fades. There are some people that want to be healthy for healthy's sake. Many, many more people maintain a low weight because they want to be attractive. When 90% of American are overweight, what motivation is there?
 
Yes, that's your problem too.

Like it or not, the health of others will be your problem sometimes. The only question is the cheapest, easiest way to deal with that problem.



It's an invasion of privacy for the government to regulate the use of potentially harmful substances in your food?

It's only potentially harmful if I eat it in large amounts. That requires making conscious choices to do so. That requires eating more than one singular product.

No ONE serving of any ONE product is going to put me over the edge sodium-wise.

They regulate that the ingredients and nutritional values must be on the label. That is all they need to do.
 
I was referring more to our dietary system.
Which is a system wherein the people choose for themselves what they will eat, when, and how much.

Happens all the time in the name of public safety. People do make the wrong choices and most of them are aware of it. Very few people want to be overweight.
Yes, people do make wrong choices. And they should be perfectly free to do so.

When obesity become the standard, what little motivation people have to be healthy fades. There are some people that want to be healthy for healthy's sake. Many, many more people maintain a low weight because they want to be attractive. When 90% of American are overweight, what motivation is there?
Motivation for what? Everyone has their own motivations for anything they do. I don't care who is overweight or why or what their motivations are. I only care that our country maintains their freedom to do so.
 
Which is a system wherein the people choose for themselves what they will eat, when, and how much.

Yes, people do make wrong choices. And they should be perfectly free to do so.

And indeed they still can. However, the government has the ability to control the amount of chemicals in a manufactured food intended for consumption. They limit a vast number of chemicals that are toxic in high amounts. Just like salt.

You however, are free to add as much salt, arsenic, or ammonia to your food as you'd like.

Motivation for what? Everyone has their own motivations for anything they do. I don't care who is overweight or why or what their motivations are. I only care that our country maintains their freedom to do so.

So if 90% of America was overweight you wouldn't begin to think this freedom to be fat might not be the right path to follow?
 
Last edited:
And indeed they still can. However, the government has the ability to control the amount of chemicals in a manufactured food intended for consumption. They limit a vast number of chemicals that are toxic in high amounts. Just like salt.

You however, are free to add as much salt, arsenic, or ammonia to your food as you'd like.
It's not their job to try and save me from myself. I don't like the ever widening door this pushes open

So if 90% of America was overweight you wouldn't begin to think this freedom to be fat might not be the right path to follow?
No, why would I? Their bodies, their health, their choice. I care very little about what choices people make for their own health, good or bad.
 
It's not their job to try and save me from myself. I don't like the ever widening door this pushes open.

But you're okay with them limiting other chemicals that are toxic in high amounts?

No, why would I? Their bodies, their health, their choice. I care very little about what choices people make for their own health, good or bad.

Because at some point we have to take a look around and realize our current philosophy isn't working. If 95% of people are living in poverty in a socialist country, I would feel comfortable saying that system isn't working. Likewise, we are fast approaching the point where I wonder if allowing corporations to play on people's deep rooted desire for salt, fat, and sugar is in our best interest as society as a whole.
 
no, I just think food companies already put waaay too much salt in pre-prepared foods, I'd like if they lowered the sodium content on their own, but if not, then perhaps they should be forced to.

I'm also one of those people who hates high fructose corn syrup

If you want to reduce the use of high fructose corn syrup then tell the government to LOWER the tariffs on imported cane sugar.
 
In this case, the government is helping you help yourself.

Importantly, the proposed regulation does not restrict the negative liberty of the individual, but instead restricts the actions of food producers. The individual is in no way disadvantaged by this.

Therefore, philosophical objections to the role of government do little to invalidate the gains of social utility that are certain to occur.


Hyperbole.

You dismiss the argument, you miss the point.

The proposed regulation does not diminish individual freedom.

If the government puts a ban on all bright clothing it infringes on the freedom of all of us even those who do not want to wear bright clothing but esp. those who want to wear bright clothing.

If the government wants to restrict how and what food is available the same applies.
 
But you're okay with them limiting other chemicals that are toxic in high amounts?
If they don't put those chemicals on the label, yes.


Because at some point we have to take a look around and realize our current philosophy isn't working. If 95% of people are living in poverty in a socialist country, I would feel comfortable saying that system isn't working. Likewise, we are fast approaching the point where I wonder if allowing corporations to play on people's deep rooted desire for salt, fat, and sugar is in our best interest as society as a whole.
There is no "system" for eating. It's not a system failure, it's an individual failure.
 
If they don't put those chemicals on the label, yes.

Ammonia is not on the label for ground beef. You still eat it every time you stop by MickyDees. If it was on the label and the government decided that the current amount allowed could still be toxic if enough ground beef was consumed and it needed to be lowered, would you object?

There is no "system" for eating. It's not a system failure, it's an individual failure.

The food chain is most definately a system.
 
Interesting post. I just have one thing that bugs me.

Your opinion is that if a state wants to put say, 10x the acceptable amount of arsenic into chicken feed, it's got the go ahead by you, as long as it doesn't cross state lines? That doesn't seem logical.

If a state chooses to allow it, and it isn't my state, I have no pressing desire to prevent it (although I would feel it is exceedingly stupid of said State and would hope that the residents of that state would want the practice discontinued, but to each his or her own) nor do I have any reasonable right to try and prevent it when it clearly doesn't affect me in any way.

However, if it's my state, I want arsenic levels regulated. I would absolutely oppose my state choosing to allow such things, to the point that I would be inclined to move to another state if my state did allow such things. I have a right to prevent such things because it can directly affect me.

It's not the federal government's job to dictate to the states how they operate within their own territory. It only becomes the federal government's business when things travel across state lines/affects multiple states.
 
It's cheaper than covering your health care when you get diseases from too much salt.

Not sure there are any diseases from too much salt, just conditions that are aggravated by too much salt...
People who salt their food before tasting it are insulting the cook.

I have a friend who salts everything out of habit. He has a medical condition that suggests he should limit his salt intake. If he dies and salt contributed to the event, that is on him. The government should stay out of it...
 
Not sure there are any diseases from too much salt, just conditions that are aggravated by too much salt...
People who salt their food before tasting it are insulting the cook.

Yeah to a snooty chef with control issues.

I have a friend who salts everything out of habit. He has a medical condition that suggests he should limit his salt intake. If he dies and salt contributed to the event, that is on him. The government should stay out of it...

the government is out of it. He can put as much salt as he wants to on his food.
 
If a state chooses to allow it, and it isn't my state, I have no pressing desire to prevent it (although I would feel it is exceedingly stupid of said State and would hope that the residents of that state would want the practice discontinued, but to each his or her own) nor do I have any reasonable right to try and prevent it when it clearly doesn't affect me in any way.

However, if it's my state, I want arsenic levels regulated. I would absolutely oppose my state choosing to allow such things, to the point that I would be inclined to move to another state if my state did allow such things. I have a right to prevent such things because it can directly affect me.

It's not the federal government's job to dictate to the states how they operate within their own territory. It only becomes the federal government's business when things travel across state lines/affects multiple states.


Weird. I know the whole "state's rights" thing is important to some people, but to me a good law is a good law and everyone should follow it, no matter who it comes from.
 
Ammonia is not on the label for ground beef. You still eat it every time you stop by MickyDees. If it was on the label and the government decided that the current amount allowed could still be toxic if enough ground beef was consumed and it needed to be lowered, would you object?
I object to trans fat bans and limitations. So yes.

As long as a consumer is informed, that's all I care about.


The food chain is most definately a system.
Eating is not. It's an individual thing.

If everyone dressed ugly, would you call it a failure in our dressing system? ;) There is no system for people to dress. There is a system for manufacturing clothes, just as there is a system for manufacturing food. But there is no system for food choices and eating habits any more than there is a system for dressing habits.
 
Yeah to a snooty chef with control issues.

Yeah I guess that could describe me, but it is seriously insulting. I mean, if you want to salt it after you taste it, you're still wrong because I always season everything perfectly, but I won't be insulted.

Salt it before you even taste it though? I'll be in a huff the whole meal.
 
I object to trans fat bans and limitations. So yes.

As long as a consumer is informed, that's all I care about.

...okay. So if ammonia is a controled chemical, not on the label, and the government decides to lower the acceptable amount, you'd be fine with that?

Eating is not. It's an individual thing.

If everyone dressed ugly, would you call it a failure in our dressing system? ;) There is no system for people to dress. There is a system for manufacturing clothes, just as there is a system for manufacturing food. But there is no system for food choices and eating habits any more than there is a system for dressing habits.

Eating is the final step in a long line of processes. Have you ever read The Omnivore's Dilemma? I highly recommend it, it's a great book.

One's choice of clothing usually doesn't impact their health though.
 
...okay. So if ammonia is a controled chemical, not on the label, and the government decides to lower the acceptable amount, you'd be fine with that?
Yes. If consumers aren't informed (which they should be, IMO) then it does need to be more heavily regulated/watched by *someone*. I'd prefer that consumers were just informed, though.


Eating is the final step in a long line of processes. Have you ever read The Omnivore's Dilemma? I highly recommend it, it's a great book.
I realize that, but it's still the consumer's choices that impact their eating habits and nutrition.

One's choice of clothing usually doesn't impact their health though.
That doesn't matter, it's the same process. It's an individual choice. And poor clothing choices aren't a breakdown or failure in a system any more than poor eating choices are.
 
Yes. If consumers aren't informed (which they should be, IMO) then it does need to be more heavily regulated/watched by *someone*. I'd prefer that consumers were just informed, though.

The total amount of chemicals that is present in food is large enough to be quite prohibitive in listing them all. Not to mention how extremely difficult it would be for the average consumer to educate themselves about acceptable levels in their food.

I realize that, but it's still the consumer's choices that impact their eating habits and nutrition.


That doesn't matter, it's the same process. It's an individual choice. And poor clothing choices aren't a breakdown or failure in a system any more than poor eating choices are.

I would say a system is broken when people no longer make rational choices. Given the number of people who are overweight, but don't want to be, I'd say we passed rationality years ago.
 
Yeah I guess that could describe me, but it is seriously insulting. I mean, if you want to salt it after you taste it, you're still wrong because I always season everything perfectly, but I won't be insulted.

Salt it before you even taste it though? I'll be in a huff the whole meal.

snooty chef in a huff, what would THAT look like?:2razz:
 
I would say a system is broken when people no longer make rational choices. Given the number of people who are overweight, but don't want to be, I'd say we passed rationality years ago.

Those choices are THEIR choices. And should always remain their choices. No one elses business.

I'm considered by doctors charts to be obese myself. (hell, at my ideal weight, I'm still considered overweight by their charts) Do I seem irrational to you? Am I overweight because I'm irrational? No. Not by any means. And even if that were the reason, it's still MY doing, MY choice, MY body. And, Whose fault do you think it is that I'm overweight anyway? Whose job is it to fix it?

Answer: It's my fault. And it's my job to fix it. If I want to.
 
Back
Top Bottom