• 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

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's the story:

U.S. Plans Drive to Limit Salt in Foods - Fitness - FOXNews.com

U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper
reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits.

The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources.

U.S. researchers said in a recent study that working with the food industry to cut salt intake by nearly 10 percent could prevent hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and strokes over several decades and save the U.S. government $32 billion in healthcare costs.

Eating too much salt is a major cause of high blood pressure, which the Institute of Medicine, one of the National Academies of Sciences, last week declared a "neglected disease" that costs the U.S. health system $73 billion a year.

Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?
 
If the salt content in foods is demonstrably high as such to pose a health risk even with very sparing consumption, then I think yes.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely not.
 
I think the government can find better things to do than monitor our sodium intake for us. :roll:

 
I think the government can find better things to do than monitor our sodium intake for us. :roll:


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.
 
Yes, I think it's an issue that needs looked at. Almost EVERYTHING has much higher levels of sodium than it needs to anymore.
 
I don't think that when people bite into a BigMac, they mistakenly identified it as vitamins. People know what they want, and how they want it. I'd like people to be given the details on sodium content but to prevent it completely? Sillyness.
 
I think the government can find better things to do than monitor our sodium intake for us. :roll:


It's cheaper than covering your health care when you get diseases from too much salt.
 
I don't think that when people bite into a BigMac, they mistakenly identified it as vitamins. People know what they want, and how they want it. I'd like people to be given the details on sodium content but to prevent it completely? Sillyness.

Regulators don't want to prevent it completely, they want to lower it.

The argument that people know what they want is weakened if you consider the different types of 'wants', i.e. first- and second-order. The easiest way to define these is to say that first-order wants are impulsive and second-order wants are considered.

Using this method we can see that the two 'wants' in this situation fall into different camps. The want to eat a fatty, salty, tasty Big Mac is a first order want. The want to be free of disease and bodily harm that can result from excessive salt intake is second order because it requires reflection on one's immediate actions. Taking regulatory action to lower salt content of foods therefore continues to recognise 'wants', merely a different kind of them.

Lastly, I should still be able to enjoy tasty fast food without such a stratospheric salt content.
 
right now, processed food has anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent of the daily value of sodium(per serving), it makes me shudder, I'd be happy if it were lowered to 10 percent or under.
 
right now, processed food has anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent of the daily value of sodium(per serving), it makes me shudder, I'd be happy if it were lowered to 10 percent or under.

do you think the federal government should do everything possible to protect you from yourself

like imposing a waiting period on buying Ding Dongs or Ho-Hos? maybe a limit of one mountain dew a day?

Most of us can decide what is good for us and we don't need the government spending another 40 billion to protect us from too many McDonald's too salty french fries
 
My parents regulating what I ate when I was younger was annoying enough. Uncle Sam has no place here.
 
do you think the federal government should do everything possible to protect you from yourself

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
 
do you think the federal government should do everything possible to protect you from yourself

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.

Most of us can decide what is good for us

Overgeneralisation. If that is the case, why are salt related health problems such an issue?

40 billion

Hyperbole.
 
In this case, the government is helping you help yourself.

Importantly, regulation in this case 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.



Overgeneralisation. If that is the case, why are salt related health problems such an issue?



Hyperbole.



psychobabbling nanny state enabling
 
I think the government should encourage companies to use less salt or give them some sort of tax break if they lower the salt content in food. However, the government shouldn't force the companies to use less salt or force people to eat less. It's a lifestyle choice that people consciously make. I think encouraging less salt in food, raising awareness, and giving tax breaks to companies that use less salt is sufficient enough. It's not up to the government to force you to make healthy choices, being in a free country means you have the right to chose to live unhealthily if you want to.
 
You dismiss the argument, you miss the point.

The proposed regulation does not diminish individual freedom.

sure it does


anytime the federal government acts in a way that uses our tax dollars for a purpose not within its delegated powers, my freedom is diminished.
 
sure it does


anytime the federal government acts in a way that uses our tax dollars for a purpose not within its delegated powers, my freedom is diminished.


Non sequitur. Your statement does not account for unconstitutional activities that would arguably increase individual freedom. Like, say, if a bill that banned income tax was passed (not that I'm saying this would ever happen).

A reduction in individual choice is a reduction in freedom. In the present case, no such reduction will occur.
 
Last edited:
Non sequitur. Your statement does not account for unconstitutional activities that would arguably increase individual freedom. Like, say, if a bill that banned income tax was passed (not that I'm saying this would ever happen).

A reduction in individual choice is a reduction in freedom. In the present case, no such reduction will occur.

that wouldn't be unconstitutional. I don't think an australian is really in a position to argue what our constitution means. And I disagree with you

what sort of unconstitutional activity increases freedom

I am all ears.
 
that wouldn't be unconstitutional. I don't think an australian is really in a position to argue what our constitution means. And I disagree with you

I think in all fairness it is true that my knowledge of the Constitution is probably not that great compared to many on this forum. But nevertheless. The 16th Amendment, which is the section I was relying on for that argument, does not stipulate the income taxes MUST be collected by the government, though it does imply that to not collect them would be abnormal procedure.

Anyway, I do not wish to be drawn into a complex debate over these issues. The point is that your previous statement that any regulatory initiative impairs personal freedom does not follow if more objective qualifications regarding freedom (i.e. the level of personal choice) remain unviolated.

The regulation being discussed in this thread does not hinder personal choice of individual citizens and hence, regardless of whether or not it is constitutional (which I am not interested in debating) it does not diminish personal freedom.
 
I think in all fairness it is true that my knowledge of the Constitution is probably not that great compared to many on this forum. But nevertheless. The 16th Amendment, which is the section I was relying on for that argument, does not stipulate the income taxes MUST be collected by the government, though it does imply that to not collect them would be abnormal procedure.

Anyway, I do not wish to be drawn into a complex debate over these issues. The point is that your previous statement that any regulatory initiative impairs personal freedom does not follow if more objective qualifications regarding freedom (i.e. the level of personal choice) remain unviolated.

The regulation being discussed in this thread does not hinder personal choice of individual citizens and hence, regardless of whether or not it is constitutional (which I am not interested in debating) it does not diminish personal freedom.


a ban on cigarettes might increase public health but it also diminishes personal freedom. I have never smoked and don't need a government ban to save me from myself. A ban on junk food might keep the weak minded from becoming as obese as they are now but it diminishes my right to eat what I want.
 
a ban on cigarettes might increase public health but it also diminishes personal freedom. I have never smoked and don't need a government ban to save me from myself. A ban on junk food might keep the weak minded from becoming as obese as they are now but it diminishes my right to eat what I want.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom