• 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
No - to warning labels in general, we have far too much of this waste.
Yes - to good comprehensive education, change will take time.
 
No - to warning labels in general, we have far too much of this waste.
Yes - to good comprehensive education, change will take time.

There's not one mentally competent adult in the entire United States that isn't already aware salt is bad in excess.
 
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?

Sure. Where the deaths caused are minor compared to the cost. As RightInNYC posted in January, salt related diseases kill more people then being uninsured. When it gets that large, there's a problem. IMO, things like regulating cribs and baby carriers is total crap considering a handful of kids die in those. Small number of deaths is not a reason for government to come in and regulate.
 
How much salt did you eat yesterday?

You don't know? I thought you were all about taking care of yourself.

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?
 
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



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.

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?

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.

All you've done is prove yet again why I should continue to have little faith in govt regulation.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Nobody's dictating anything. You can eat an entire salt-shaker full of salt if you want to.
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. :2wave:


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
So how much sodium did you consume yesterday? Was it higher or lower than the recommended daily allowance for you?

She answered that already:


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?
 
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.

It's the principle! And the fact that the government does not need to open that door any wider.

Oops, sorry, missed that.

My point was how many people actually know, and keep track like she does?

That is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that every single person CAN. With ease. It's not anyone elses job but THEIRS to monitor and regulate their sodium intake
 
No... but I'd love it if companies would willingly lower the salt levels, giving the customer the option to put their desired amount of salt on the food they eat.

I would love to have less salt in the food I eat, mostly for health reasons. I don't always have time to make my own meals, and typically the on-the-go and pre-made foods I buy have a lot of salt in them.

Yup, and if we do our job, and read up on things enough we can put the demand in place for this to be true. I don't think that the government should be limiting the salt either, if people want to eat too much salt then so be it. But a bit of information out there would be fine, and then we could handle the rest.
 
That is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that every single person CAN. With ease. It's not anyone elses job but THEIRS to monitor and regulate their sodium intake

Yet most don't.

(I think I know your response, and I don't necessarily disagree, I just want to explore this).
 
That is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that every single person CAN. With ease.

Easy? It is a pain in the butt and is time consuming.

It's not anyone elses job but THEIRS to monitor and regulate their sodium intake

I pretty much agree but I also think food manufactures have a responsibility as well like drug manufactures do.
 
Yet most don't.

(I think I know your response, and I don't necessarily disagree, I just want to explore this).
LOL

Their problem. Not mine, and not the government's. Every adult knows that too much sodium, salt, fat, etc is bad for them. Every adult knows that labels list the amounts of these things in the packaged foods they eat. Every adult knows how to add. And if they don't, there are calculators. There is no excuse for any adult, or teenager, not to be able to find, calculate, and monitor their nutrition. If they CHOOSE not to, that is their choice. Their body. Their health. I personally do not care how many people are obese, and it's not the government's job to care either.

If people WANT to be healthier, they can be. It's all up to them.
 
LOL

Their problem. Not mine, and not the government's. Every adult knows that too much sodium, salt, fat, etc is bad for them. Every adult knows that labels list the amounts of these things in the packaged foods they eat. Every adult knows how to add. And if they don't, there are calculators. There is no excuse for any adult, or teenager, not to be able to find, calculate, and monitor their nutrition. If they CHOOSE not to, that is their choice. Their body. Their health. I personally do not care how many people are obese, and it's not the government's job to care either.

If people WANT to be healthier, they can be. It's all up to them.

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?

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?

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.
 
LOL

Their problem. Not mine, and not the government's.

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

It ends up being your problem anyway.
 
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.

...

This includes salt.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom