• 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
The cigarette example is distinct, and I'm surprised that you don't realise how.

A ban on cigarettes affects individual freedom by demarcating activities that individuals cannot participate in. The regulations concerning salt do no such thing and they are a far cry from 'banning junk food.' Essentially, all it would mean is that your Big Mac would now be required to contain a lower level of salt.

Does individual choice suffer? No. The same range of food will be available, but it will just contain less salt overall. Furthermore, I assume people are still perfectly capable of adding more salt to their foods by themselves if they really want to.

Ergo, no loss of freedom, only salt.

I guess this is the difference between someone who is a citizen vs someone who is a subject.

whenever THIS government acts beyond the scope of its legitimate powers it diminishes the freedom of all americans. its a difficult concept for most foreigners and many americans to comprehend but when OUR government acts beyond the scope of its proper powers, it insults the constitution and the foundation of freedom upon which it is based.
 
I guess this is the difference between someone who is a citizen vs someone who is a subject.

whenever THIS government acts beyond the scope of its legitimate powers it diminishes the freedom of all americans. its a difficult concept for most foreigners and many americans to comprehend but when OUR government acts beyond the scope of its proper powers, it insults the constitution and the foundation of freedom upon which it is based.

That statement is a non sequitur as I have already shown. It does not follow that (assuming this to be true) by acting beyond the scope of a legal document that enshrines individual freedom (which it seems they are not, anyway) the government is therefore limiting individual freedom.

This is because there clearly exists a 'third way', i.e. that government can regulate and still leave personal freedom undiminished, which is patently what will occur in the present case.

Justify your position in response to this or I am done.
 
Last edited:
That statement is false as I have already shown. It does not follow that (assuming this to be true) by acting beyond the scope of a legal document that enshrines individual freedom (to a large extent) the government is therefore limiting individual freedom.

This is proved by the fact that there clearly exists a third way, i.e. that government can regulate and still leave personal freedom undiminished, which is patently what will occur in the present case.

Justify your position in response to this or I am done.

YOu were right when you conceded you really don't understand the constitution of the USA

best to stay with that position. It is far easier to defend
 
Americans are more likely to die from complications high blood pressure, as a cause of high sodium intake, than terrorism.

Food corporations know what they are putting in their product, and they know the health risks involved. Is it the role of the Government to disallow such foods to hit the market? Or is it just ethic-neglect?
 
Americans are more likely to die from complications high blood pressure, as a cause of high sodium intake, than terrorism.

Food corporations know what they are putting in their product, and they know the health risks involved. Is it the role of the Government to disallow such foods to hit the market? Or is it just ethic-neglect?

Any idiot should know what they're putting into their body
 
Any idiot should know what they're putting into their body

One of the schemes of the left is to take away the responsibility of individuals to take care of themselves. Of course along with enabling people to outsource personal responsibility, the same government takes away rights

Those who hate being personally responsible for their own choices and their own mistakes love the nanny government that is trillions of dollars in debt

me, I'd rather pay far less taxes and be forced to take care of my self (and get to see the nanny state cravers croaking left and right from eating 400 twinkies a day because big brother wasn't able to tell them not to:mrgreen:)
 
YOu were right when you conceded you really don't understand the constitution of the USA

best to stay with that position. It is far easier to defend

Still, his point remains: The only thing you personally are losing in this is the 'freedom' to buy products with excessive pre-added salt. With all the things conservatives have considered to be fair game for regulating, I am surprised that people are getting up in arms about this type of regulation.

I am on the fence on this: I could care less about the freedom to buy products with excessive amounts of pre-added salt. The thing I am concerned about is the mechanism and cost of regulation.

On the other hand, it could help control medical costs, which could help insurance premiums level off. The net effect might be that we would save more in premiums than we lose in higher taxes regulating the food industry for salt.

I was trying to think of a market based mechanism to get people to quit being unhealthy - or at least pay their own way for being such. Maybe insurance carriers should be able to request that people take a physical with an insurance company doctor. This doctor could qualify patients for a significantly reduced premium if they can prove they are following healthful practices.
 
A public awareness campaign would be worthless. If you don't know by now that excess sodium is bad for you, you're not going to learn no matter how big the campaign is.
 
A public awareness campaign would be worthless. If you don't know by now that excess sodium is bad for you, you're not going to learn no matter how big the campaign is.


I believe in Darwin:mrgreen:
 
The older I get, the more I'm getting there. My conservative dad warned me this would happen. :lol:

one's BS detector tends to get more accurate with age
 
I hardly ever use salt and when I do? It is seasalt. Do I want the gov. being all up in food choices and salt content? No. Stay Out My Biz

I predicted this when they came after the smokers. They coming after everybody.
 
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.
 
Most of us can decide what is good for us
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?
 
One of the schemes of the left is to take away the responsibility of individuals to take care of themselves. Of course along with enabling people to outsource personal responsibility, the same government takes away rights

Those who hate being personally responsible for their own choices and their own mistakes love the nanny government that is trillions of dollars in debt

me, I'd rather pay far less taxes and be forced to take care of my self (and get to see the nanny state cravers croaking left and right from eating 400 twinkies a day because big brother wasn't able to tell them not to:mrgreen:)

How much salt did you eat yesterday?

You don't know? I thought you were all about taking care of yourself.
 
I agree, but the best way to make health care cheaper is for people to be more healthy. This is why I voted "public awareness campaigns"... I wouldn't force companies to put warning labels on their foods.

This is a more acceptable option than what they're doing imo. I could even live with warning labels. At least the choice would still be mine to make, as it should be.


It's cheaper than covering your health care when you get diseases from too much salt.

The government is not my parent and has no place dictating how much salt I can have "for my own good".

 
This is a more acceptable option than what they're doing imo. I could even live with warning labels. At least the choice would still be mine to make, as it should be.
If the salt content is lowered, you have the choice to add salt of your own.
 
If the salt content is lowered, you have the choice to add salt of your own.

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.

 
Last edited:
The government is not my parent and has no place dictating how much salt I can have "for my own good".


Nobody's dictating anything. You can eat an entire salt-shaker full of salt if you want to.
 
This has been covered. What's the point of lowering it in the first place then?

Because, as your mother always said, you can always add more but you can't take it out.
 
If the companies are selling their products in multiple States, then yes, it is within the Federal government's list of responsibilities to regulate said commerce, if it is only traded within a single State, though, it is not a federal responsibility.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom