Dr. Thomas Frieden Wants To Be Your Mommy
Kim Severson writes in the IHT about the latest loonytunes attempt by Frieden to control what New Yorkers put in their mouths:
Frieden, the commissioner of New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is waging a new campaign: to lower the amount of sodium America eats.But don't go hiding your saltshakers. The city isn't going after the seasoning people add at the table or in the kitchen. That makes up only about 11 percent of the salt people eat, Frieden says.
His targets are packaged foods and mass-produced restaurant meals, which contribute 80 percent of the sodium in the average American diet.
When the food company executives had finished lunch, Frieden made his pitch: Over the next five years, identify the foods that are contributing the most sodium to people's diets and cut the level of salt by 25 percent. In a decade, cut it by another 25 percent. And do it in unison with your competitors.
If they refuse?
"If there's not progress in a few years, we'll have to consider other options, like legislation," he said in an interview last week.
...This war, however, is likely to be more difficult for Frieden, both practically and politically, than were his efforts to get restaurant chains to post calorie counts on menus and stop cooking with trans fat.
First, salt is harder to scrub from the food supply, and its connection to cardiovascular disease is less understood. Besides, the food industry says it's already dealing with sodium levels. And then there is the scope of Frieden's plan. He wants to get most of the major food and restaurant companies to do the same thing at the same time.
Lowering salt consumption, along with stopping smoking, are two areas in which a broad public health effort can have the most impact on the most people, Frieden said.
Of course, there's also pointing a gun at a person and tell him to jog or die.
Personally, I see salt as a vegetable. Love the stuff. I have a big shaker of sea salt that I throw liberally on everything but dessert.
But, before you start praying that I'll make it through the week, you should take a peek at a 1998 piece about salt that investigative science journalist Gary Taubes wrote for Science, republished over at junkscience.com:
After decades of intensive research, the apparent benefits of avoiding salt have only diminished. This suggests either that the true benefit has now been revealed and is indeed small, or that it is nonexistent, and researchers believing they have detected such benefits have been deluded by the confounding influences of other variables. (These might include genetic variability; socioeconomic status; obesity; level of physical exercise; intake of alcohol, fruits and vegetables, or dairy products; or any number of other factors.)The controversy itself remains potent because even a small benefit--one clinically meaningless to any single patient--might have a major public health impact. This is a principal tenet of public health: Small effects can have important consequences over entire populations. If by eating less salt, the world's population reduced its average blood pressure by a single millimeter of mercury, says Oxford University epidemiologist Richard Peto, that would prevent several hundred thousand deaths a year: "It would do more for worldwide deaths than the abolition of breast cancer." But even that presupposes the 1-millimeter drop can be achieved by avoiding salt. "We have to be sure that 1- or 2-millimeter effect is real," says John Swales, former director of research and development for Britain's National Health Service and a clinician at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. "And we have to be sure we won't have equal and opposite harmful effects."
And a bit more on that piece, and how it led to his meticulously researched and revolutionary book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, debunking widely held dietary myths, in this interview here, by Seth Roberts. (There's more updated research and thinking on salt in the book -- which suggests that refined carbohydrates could be the real culprit behind hypertension.)
Public health used to mean keeping literal poisons out of public sources of consumption, i.e. water & food supplies...now it seems to mean making mommy tell us what is nutritious & acceptable.
Beyond keeping the strychnine out of the water supply, the government has really very little business or hope of handling dietary habits of the general public.
It falls to grown men & women to decide their exercise & dietary routines, private enterprise to decide how they will prepare their meals (within obvious regulations regarding spoilage & disease).
Nothing I dislike more than excessive government interference. Unfortunately institutions such as the aforementioned Friedman's must take on crusade after crusade...or risk being seen as irrelevant and worthy of budget cuts or even elimination.
Long & the short of it is, if Friedman succeeds in ensuring his continued employment via inserting his institution into our lives in this way...it won't stop, there will be further concerns...be it about salt, or sugar, or the ever present crusade against smoking...if its not one damn thing its another, until the institution is stripped of its authority and reduced in personnel & scope of concern.
The same goes for any public concern held by a governmental segment.
Robert at January 29, 2009 6:49 AM
It would be real interesting if the food companies ignored this idiot. As soon as the stores ran out of approved food (Manhattan isn't farm country), people might start paying attention.
MarkD at January 29, 2009 6:53 AM
Offtopic - via Dutton's A&LD
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 29, 2009 7:44 AM
Do this is another "... and then we all gonna DIE !!" issue? Where is the real threat behind that moral panic? Is there an incoming hecatomb of tax payers due to salt? Even better, why that aggressive stance against salt and trans-fat while tobacco, a known carcinogen source, is still sold freely?
I know only one reason:
Taxes.
I am ready to bet an old 5$ bill that if these government ghouls could cash-in 20$ in taxes on every pound of salt sold, Mr. Frieden would be quite silent. Can we use the term "morally bankrupt" here safely?
Toubrouk at January 29, 2009 8:27 AM
All they should be doing, is making the summary of their information & the background research on these subjects easily available to the public at large. How to do that? Release it in a downloadable or online readable format via the internet.
Then let consumers and the market decide how to take it. There will be some who immediately jump on any hint of the "salt is evil" bandwagon, and a network of producers ready and willing to sell to those who despise their taste buds...leave it at that. It is not the government's job to nitpick our daily diets.
If they're really going to concern themselves with our health, they should focus on incentives, not enforcement costly legislation.
What kind of incentives:
Tax cuts on "raw" materials for cooking...so people have a financial incentive to prepare what will probably be healthier meals.
Tax increases on items or meal combos which have a caloric intake roughly equal to the entire recommended daily intake by the AMA.
Something along those lines. Fast food & unhealthy food is cheap and plentiful, legislation on content is difficult to enforce and easy to evade...and frankly is to intrusive into our customary freedoms to eat and live as we wish.
However just as the government encourages charity by making charitable donations deductable, the government could encourage a healthy lifestyle by offering tax breaks to the providers of healthy lifestyle components. A tax break on a bicycle, but a tax hike on those BK burgers that have some 900 calories by themselves.
If healthy food is cheaper and more common than fast food, then the wallet watching majority will go that way, if we try to regulate everything, we'll soon not be able to do anything.
Robert at January 29, 2009 9:23 AM
I agree robert it pisses me off to no end that you can get 4 to 6 liters of soda pop for the price of 2 quarts of unsweetened fruit jucie.
And another thing why is sweetened fruit juice CHEAPER than unsweetened?
lujlp at January 29, 2009 10:02 AM
If you aren't salting your desserts you're missing out. Pink Himalayan salt on chocolate is delicious.
Elle at January 29, 2009 10:17 AM
I'm not up on the science of salt consumption, but if it suddenly was decided that salt wasn't a serious threat, I'd be very happy. I'm 46 years old and I have always loved salt. Thus far so does my blood pressure, which at last check was 109/58.
Lynne at January 29, 2009 10:47 AM
I"m not a salt fan. I seem to be a food "purist", ie buy a quality item that needs no help from outside sources. Good meat needs no A1, good salad needs little to no dressing. But, sometimes I just want a big, greasy, salty double quarter pounder with fries. And I have it. That's my right. The givernment needs to stay the hell out of it.
Of course, if you let the givernment give you healthcare, they are going to tell you how to eat and live.
momof3 at January 29, 2009 10:49 AM
Anybody else find it a bit disturbing that New York has a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene?
What exactly does a government bureaucracy charged with monitoring and protecting the public's mental hygiene do?
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2009 11:18 AM
I'm not up on the science of salt consumption, but if it suddenly was decided that salt wasn't a serious threat, I'd be very happy.
It isn't a serious threat for the vast majority. This is in the same group of health myths as 8 glasses of water; and that 98.6 is the standard temperature.
Those with a predisposition to high blood pressure and other groups may be effected by the amount of salt in the diet, but study after study can't causally link ### mg of salt/sodium will raise your blood pressure x number of points across large groups. It depends on your genetics, health, fitness, age and so on.
Google "sodium blood pressure" and you will find a large range of answers -- some peer reviewed -- that don't link salt and blood pressure.
Blaming dietary sodium for high blood pressure is too simplistic
Jim P. at January 29, 2009 11:25 AM
"Anybody else find it a bit disturbing that New York has a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene?" Conan the Grammarian
THX-1138, get back in line, take your happy pills and eat your Soylant Green. It is, after all, completely balanced nutrition...
SwissArmyD at January 29, 2009 11:34 AM
...eat your Soylant Green.
Can I get it with extra salt?
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2009 11:39 AM
Two random thoughts:
(1) In a free society the job of government is to protect me from others; it has no business protecting me from myself.
(2) When did personal responsibility become extinct?
Jay at January 29, 2009 11:56 AM
When you became able to sue somebody else for your personal mistakes and win millions of dollars in profit. Remember the kids who tried to sue McCrap because they were fat due to their junk food?
Yup, the game is called "Being stupid for fun and profit".
Toubrouk at January 29, 2009 12:36 PM
I love the fancy salt too. The pink stuff looks nice on my food. I've always been a salt-nut, even when I was a kid. I'd ask my mom to buy me anchovy paste at the deli. My blood pressure is very low too. I highly doubt that there is any relationship between high salt intake and high blood pressure.
Chrissy at January 29, 2009 1:07 PM
Chrissy, for folks who have high blood pressure, a high sodium intake may exacerbate the problem (but not cause it). But if those same people 1) stop smoking; 2) go on blood pressure medication; and, 3) start walking 3-4X a week, their blood pressure will likely decrease to the point where moderate sodium intake won't be an issue. Also, genetics can play a big factor. My paternal grandfather's family is remarkably free of blood pressure or cholesterol issues, while they run rampant in my maternal grandmother's family (regardless of body type).
I'm not a big sodium fan myself. It is an acquired taste which I did not acquire (though my sister is an absolute salt fiend). I buy reduced-sodium products only because I don't enjoy the taste of very salty soups or crackers (yes, I even buy no-salt potato chips on the rare occasion that I eat them ). I also don't like the bloated feeling I get when I eat really salty foods. If manufacturers want to make more reduced-sodium products because there is a market for them? Swell. But make them produce more of such products through intimidation? Or legislation? Thanks, but I can mommy myself just fine.
Thought I will jump on the salty/sweet bandwagon. A caramel, dipped in dark chocolate and sprinkled with a little pink or black salt? Heavenly.
Ms. Gandhi at January 29, 2009 2:39 PM
I love salt, and have low blood pressure. I wonder if the low blood pressure makes me crave salt?
And Coke with sugar tastes better than that with corn syrup.
Kate at January 29, 2009 3:04 PM
I'm lucky that both sides of the family seem quite healthy and live to be in their 80s. I think the most important thing is eating real food (like what people in Europe eat). I never touch pop, juice, candies, but do enjoy Lindt chocolate, or better (Lindt is my minimum). The chips I eat are organic with sea salt made with olive oil, and maybe some black pepper.
I have no medical problems whatsoever and I'm turning 50 next week, so I guess I'm doing something right. My kitty gets the same organic high quality food, but in cat food format, and she just turned 21. She was having a few problems with her kidneys, but I got her a herbal tincture and she's fine again.
Chrissy at January 29, 2009 3:46 PM
Sweet/salty: Oatmeal with honey and salt. One of my favorite breakfasts.
I've heard that sea salt is better for you than mined salt. Does anyone happen to know if there's any truth to that?
kishke at January 29, 2009 8:53 PM
Salt on watermelon slices, I swear.
JulieA at January 29, 2009 9:39 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/29/dr_thomas_fried.html#comment-1624121">comment from JulieASalt on oatmeal, I love. Will have to try salt on watermelon. Sounds fab. Love salty-sweet. McDonald's French fries are made on that principle.
Amy Alkon at January 30, 2009 12:30 AM
I put salt on waermelon, usualyy on the pale flesh closer to the rind, its also good on carrots
lujlp at January 30, 2009 7:00 AM
French fries dipped in ice cream. Yum.
momof3 at January 30, 2009 7:06 AM
Chrissy, when you wrote "salt nut," I misread it as "salt slut," and I was thinkin' "YEAH!!! I'm a salt slut, too!!!!" :D
And remember, if they outlaw salt, only OUTLAWS will have sa-- yeah, I'll get my coat.
Melissa G at January 30, 2009 8:37 AM
From the post:
If by eating less salt, the world's population reduced its average blood pressure by a single millimeter of mercury, says Oxford University epidemiologist Richard Peto, that would prevent several hundred thousand deaths a year
Which means the death rate will decline from 1.0 to, ummm, 1.0.
Hey Skipper at January 30, 2009 12:50 PM
Said Momof3: "French fries dipped in ice cream. Yum."
When she was smaller, my oldest daughter would stuff french fries into her McDonald's ice cream. I'd never heard of anyone else who liked that particular combination, until now.
Said Amy Alkon: "Love salty-sweet. McDonald's French fries are made on that principle."
I'd read somewhere that in addition to improving the flavor, the sugar on McDonald's fries (and probably other chains' fries) was to give cooked fries their appetizing, golden color. The sugar carmelizes in the hot oil, apparently.
old rpm daddy at January 30, 2009 2:03 PM
Again.......
Nanny-State thinking applies here. Most studies, and models, that are presented for the sake of arguement are questionable to say the least. Basing a threat for a change in public policy (extortion is such a harsh term-you think?), upon studies that have not stood the scrutiny of multiple evaluations and peer review (this IS part of the Scientific Method ya know), is faulty, arrogant, and irresponsible. It is faulty becuase the data has not been verified via peer review. It is arrogant because because those who are using such questionable data believe that they can snooker their constituents with misdirection, partisan politics, and the threat of political/legislative blackmail. Finally, it is irresponsible, to say the least, because place a heavy, and an undue, burden upon those in the food industry (as well as those tangential to it), to meet legislation.
The threat of soci-health engineering through questionable legislation, just to appease several special interest groups takes away the concept and tools of free will from the very constintuents that chose to elect representatives into place to look out for our general well being -- our holistic general well being.
Do some people need to be concerned with their intake of sodium? Yes they do. They might have certain, specific medical conditions that would predicate that they be very attentive to how much sodium that they consume. However, why is it the responsibility of the STATE to dictate how much sodium is in the food that is free for one to choose?
If I go to a fast-food restaurant that has the new restrictions in place, but then choose to grab the salt cellar/shaker and inject the potential pitfalls of ingesting more sodium into my diet, isn't it then MY problem and not the problem of those producing and selling a food item that I can choose to eat -- or not.
Additionally, if the threatened legislation only targets some of the food indstry and not the entire food industry (as well as the complex nature of agriculture), then what is to prevent somebody from consuming their sodium from other, non-legislated sources?
Say I have come to the conclusion that I no longer like eating out at my favourite restaurants due to the fact that I no longer like the flavours because of the lack of layering in seasoning in the food. Oh....and it makes a rather large difference in many cuisines. Don't believe me, then ask a chef why you season and taste at different times when making certain stocks, sauces, and the final dishes. So, I don't like the way my food tastes now. I don't eat out much anymore. Instead, I make my own meals in house and use the same amount of salt that I have always enjoyed. Tell me know, how this legislation will work in reducing their preceived health benefits.
Also, will this legislation only deal with common types of salt? Or, will in also include other sources of sodium that are common in many other of the World's cuisines? Fish sauce, miso, soy sauce, oyster sauce are but a few. These seasoning condiments are made according to years and years of development and tradition. Are we going to completely change the way that they are made to accomodate some Nanny-State, PC-driven beauracrat?
Should we watch what we eat? Yes. Many of us forget the maxim to live Life in moderation. This includes how we choose to fuel our bodies. Have I ever eaten a whole container of Vanilla Bean ice cream? Yes. It was something that I wanted to do. But, I knew that I would have to skip the desserts for the rest of the week to counter that over-consumption of ice cream. However, it was my choice and I had to understand the consequences of my personal actions upon my life. For those of you new to this concept, this is called personal responsibility. It was my problem and I did NOT go out and sue somebody, or point the finger at the government for not protecting me from myself.
In some cultures, solutions to problems are discovered by this:
You don't point the finger of blame; but rather, you work to find the solution to the problem. It isn't "Who is responsible for the broken clock that made me late." It is "How do we make certain that we don't use broken clocks here that would allow people to be late. And....while we're at it, why don't we install an extra clock as a back up."
Nanny-state ideas don't work very often. Prohibition comes to mind.
meh at February 1, 2009 4:08 AM
I just got back from 2 and a weeks in Japan. I didn"t trust the expensive plans so I kept the iPhon e and iPad in airplane mode with wifi turn on.Luckily for Jimbo and the others who don"t like Stern, they don"t have to listen. I suspect most of the haters are the ones with bloody knuckles.Why would I ever want to press and hold the remote button for 3 seconds and say pause etc when I can just click the button once, twice or thrice?Luckily for Jimbo and the others who don"t like Stern, they don"t have to listen. I suspect most of the haters are the ones with bloody knuckles.Why would I ever want to press and hold the remote button for 3 seconds and say pause etc when I can just click the button once, twice or thrice?FWIW, I think the hat looks cute. Definitely a wonderful case for keeping an iPad protected while also keeping it stylish. Worthy of the 5 stars.
backup iPhone at March 16, 2011 2:35 PM
Leave a comment