• 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

jallman said:
Orange: (now this one is a chore) 1 minute prep time to peel

Every time I am hungry and eat an orange, I end up hungrier than I was before I ate the orange. Am I weird?
 
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?

I'm not about taking away their choice, just about making it easier to choose wisely.

Plus, this zimmer character is very entertaining. If I stop now, who else will get him all riled up?

For real though, howabout we get rid of subsidies for corn, wheat, and soy. Then we could both be happy. You'd have less government interference in the market and I'd have very expensive processed foods.
 
Last edited:
Every time I am hungry and eat an orange, I end up hungrier than I was before I ate the orange. Am I weird?

Yes. The orange thing is normal though.
 
Every time I am hungry and eat an orange, I end up hungrier than I was before I ate the orange. Am I weird?

I can see that happening. For some reason, citric acid increases metabolism in some people. It is entirely possible that a citrus fruit is never satisfying to you.
 
Well then get to work on that:roll:

That's not something I would support. I was just providing a helpful suggestion so those of you who think we need more government intervention in our food choices.
 
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

Those aren't meals. You still need X amount of calories per day. Cheap, industrial food is calorie rich and nutrient poor, which is why additives like sodium are put in in the first place, to make up for the lack of taste quality. Real food tastes good because it has essential nutrients.

Fruit is not calorie dense at all. If I eat one apple, in 30 minutes or less I'm starving.

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.

Are you a single parent? Do you have multiple children? Does your job pay you $7/hr or less? I'm guessing the answer is no because you can spend 10 hours a week at a gym.

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.

There is a lot of talk in this thread about government controlling your eating, who is talking about you not being allowed to eat a bag of oreoes? We're discussing limits on sodium additives in food. To my knowledge, the same foods would be available?

The government controlling your eating would look more like the government increasing taxes on salt itself so that even consumers could not buy it and add it to their food.

As was said earlier in the thread... it's impossible to take salt out of your food, but adding it is easy. This law gives people MORE choice, not LESS.

Dip your oreos in liquid sugar for all I care. It's your own body and your own damn choice.

It's about decisions. People need to learn to make the good ones others need to stop trying to curb the consequences for them.

Clearly the consumer choices angle is failing, and for multiple reasons. One is, as you said, people are ignorant; the other is that they don't care; the other is that, while they have choices, their choices are very limited.

I think it's easy to paint it so black and white, but the holistic solution is to continue educating people about nutrition while creating incentives for corporations to stop adding toxic levels of sodium to foods.

Why are you so against the multi-pronged approach?
 
I'm not about taking away their choice, just about making it easier to choose wisely.

Plus, this zimmer character is very entertaining. If I stop now, who else will get him all riled up?

For real though, howabout we get rid of subsidies for corn, wheat, and soy. Then we could both be happy. You'd have less government interference in the market and I'd have very expensive processed foods.

Obviously people lack the capacity, will or desire to make wise choices, so don't you think the government should step in and make those choices for all of us? After all, it will lower medical costs, right?

Subsidies is a discussion for another thread, and really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. If you'd like to start a thread on it, I'd be happy to discuss it there.
 
Obviously people lack the capacity, will or desire to make wise choices, so don't you think the government should step in and make those choices for all of us? After all, it will lower medical costs, right?

.

If the choice is not there or extremely limited in the first place WTF is a person to do?
 
Obviously people lack the capacity, will or desire to make wise choices, so don't you think the government should step in and make those choices for all of us? After all, it will lower medical costs, right?

Subsidies is a discussion for another thread, and really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. If you'd like to start a thread on it, I'd be happy to discuss it there.

The government shouldn't make the choice. However, they can help make the choice easier. If there is less salt in food to begin with, that means people have to add more if they want it. An active choice is going to attract a lot fewer people than a passive one.
 
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.

You miss the point, are obviously oblivious to the role of government in our country as intended by the framers. Damn public education system... rolling out ignorant drone after ignorant drone.

The ignorants are dangerous. When there's enough ignorants coupled with enough gullibles, like we had in the last election , we get the mess we have now.

Is government going to bail out food mfg.'s for their killing profitable food lines? Probably not...

Tell me... why is it government's business?

.
 
If the choice is not there or extremely limited in the first place WTF is a person to do?

My god, we have so many choices in this country when it comes to food, it's not even funny.
 
You miss the point, are obviously oblivious to the role of government in our country as intended by the framers. Damn public education system... rolling out ignorant drone after ignorant drone.

The ignorants are dangerous. When there's enough ignorants coupled with enough gullibles, like we had in the last election , we get the mess we have now.

Is government going to bail out food mfg.'s for their killing profitable food lines? Probably not...

Tell me... why is it government's business?

.

If you're going to call me ignorant and insult my education, you might want to work on your grammar first. Just a thought. :2wave:

Post something that makes sense. Then we'll talk.
 
Is government going to bail out food mfg.'s for their killing profitable food lines? Probably not...

Tell me... why is it government's business?

.

It is governments business because they are in cahoots with the table salt manufacturers and are long on the commodity market.:lol:
 
The government shouldn't make the choice. However, they can help make the choice easier. If there is less salt in food to begin with, that means people have to add more if they want it. An active choice is going to attract a lot fewer people than a passive one.

This isn't about choice:
The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease.

The government is doing this in an effort to control intake of salt as a means to reduce illness. That being the case, and since you support this move, why not have the government make food consumption choices for us?
 
This isn't about choice:


The government is doing this in an effort to control intake of salt as a means to reduce illness. That being the case, and since you support this move, why not have the government make food consumption choices for us?

Well of course it's not about choice. It's about sodium not being so present in everything that it's difficult to find something processed without it. This way, people have go out of their way to consume it. They still can. I imagine a lot less will though, because people are lazy. Hence, our obesity problem.
 
It sounds like you are a social darwinist, meaning no disrespect. ;)
Yes. :mrgreen: I see no reason whatsoever to save people from themselves.

Bad food is cheaper and so the lower classes will tend to eat it more. That's a socioeconomic issue.
No, it's not. It's actually more expensive. Just the other day I made a meal from scratch that cost me a total of maybe $9. It fed me for 5 meals. (i.e., 5 servings for $9) Try doing that with Chef Boyardee. Or KFC.

Oh, and it took about 15 minutes to prepare and 45 minutes to bake.


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 ;)
And you are incorrect. People take INFORMED risks on a daily basis. It's all a matter of what you are willing to risk. I don't think you could point to an adult in this country who doesn't know that too much salt is bad for them. Or too much fat is bad for them. Or too much sugar is bad for them. What they may not realize is how much they are consuming, but that information is readily available to them. At their fingertips. Every day.

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?
I can only hope, and do my best to make it so.
 
Those aren't meals. You still need X amount of calories per day. Cheap, industrial food is calorie rich and nutrient poor, which is why additives like sodium are put in in the first place, to make up for the lack of taste quality. Real food tastes good because it has essential nutrients.

Fruit is not calorie dense at all. If I eat one apple, in 30 minutes or less I'm starving.

I never claimed any of those things are meals, but you knew that already. A combination of three pieces of fruit and a handful of nuts makes a pretty decent lunch.

Are you a single parent?

No. What does that have to do with anything?

Do you have multiple children?

No. Again, what does that have to do with anything?

Does your job pay you $7/hr or less?

No. Good choices like staying in school and studying a marketable skill make a huge difference. But again, that has little to do with anything in relation to this thread.

I'm guessing the answer is no because you can spend 10 hours a week at a gym.

I'm not going to apologize for looking after my own health. In fact, I am advocating that everyone do the same.

There is a lot of talk in this thread about government controlling your eating, who is talking about you not being allowed to eat a bag of oreoes? We're discussing limits on sodium additives in food. To my knowledge, the same foods would be available?

No. The talk is about government involvement in issues it should not be involved in. The talk is about the government providing an unnatural advantage to the weak willed, the stupid, and the infirm by making decisions for them. The talk is about the government involving itself in business models of private corporations rather than letting the market decide what the model should be.

The government controlling your eating would look more like the government increasing taxes on salt itself so that even consumers could not buy it and add it to their food.

Not my argument.

As was said earlier in the thread... it's impossible to take salt out of your food, but adding it is easy. This law gives people MORE choice, not LESS.

And as I said: if the food's got too much salt in it for you, choose a different food.

Why are you so against the multi-pronged approach?

Because I think we are shallowing our gene pool by removing the consequences of personal irresponsible behavior.
 
If the choice is not there or extremely limited in the first place WTF is a person to do?

The choice is there and it's not that limited. There are about 50 different vegetables available in the produce section of your local grocery store. There are about 200 different fruits available in the US. Assortments of meat, fish, poultry. There are different milks and whole grains.

You have choices. Start making good ones.
 
The choice is there and it's not that limited. There are about 50 different vegetables available in the produce section of your local grocery store. There are about 200 different fruits available in the US. Assortments of meat, fish, poultry. There are different milks and whole grains.

You have choices. Start making good ones.

Milk has 125 mgs of sodium per serving. And what nuts are we talking about?
 
Milk has 125 mgs of sodium per serving. And what nuts are we talking about?

I am partial to toasted pine nuts and blanched almonds in my yogurt. :shrug:

But remember, too, that some sodium isn't going to come out of your foods because it's naturally there. How do you propose sodium be taken out of milk?

Almond Dream milk contains about 100mgs of sodium, btw.
 
But remember, too, that some sodium isn't going to come out of your foods because it's naturally there. How do you propose sodium be taken out of milk?

Obviously we need to regulate cows now too.
 
Obviously we need to regulate cows now too.

Well you know if they are part of the evil corporate food empire that is hell bent on dominating the world through passing on the diabeetus in salt, they should be regulated.
 
I am partial to toasted pine nuts and blanched almonds in my yogurt. :shrug:



Almond Dream milk contains about 100mgs of sodium, btw.

Almond milk...BLEEEECH.

But remember, too, that some sodium isn't going to come out of your foods because it's naturally there. How do you propose sodium be taken out of milk?

I don't I'm for food manufactures not adding excessive amounts of sodium.
 
Back
Top Bottom