Amy - what do you have against making Americans healthier. I mean MAKING THEM. Obviously looking at the obesity epidemic, Americans have failed being left to their own devices. We must nanny-state them into better health. Freedom is the least important thing to have!

But what does Gary Taubes say about salt?

I might be in the minority here but I am personally ok with the government encouraging healthy diet and other health positive behaviors. Further, I am ok with taxing detrimental behavior (and I am one of those remaining degenerate smokers). However, when it is mandated/legislated, wow, what a slippery slope this is. We are either free to choose what is good or bad for us, and pay the additional associated cost, or we are not free. The specific issue of mandating less salt in processed food is fairly insignificant government intrusion. Where does it end is the bigger and worrisome issue.

Ah, a topic I can sink my teeth into. In my lifetime I have seen many flip-flops regarding Good and Bad foods. Coffee, eggs, and red meat to name a few. Oh, and chocolate. And wine.

I don't mind advice, or encouragement. Advertisements don't bother me, until I've heard them so many times I start screaming. (On that note, I don't care what they say, I don't believe that CBS "cares".)

However, people trying to FORCE me to do something their way are cordially invited to blow it out their ass.

I can't help it. It's my lousy upbringing that led me to believe that when I was a grown-up I could make my own choices. Ohhh, how could my parents have misled me so?

How about we simply leave things as they are? The amount of sodium is on the food container when we buy it, and people can make up their own minds.

The alternative has us "Slouching Towards Orwell," where we issue food allowance cards to everyone. If you have hypertension, your card is coded as such, so when you go to the checkout at the grocery store, the cashier takes away the bag of potato chips and snaps, "Sorry, but you're not allowed to have this."

Leave things as they are?! My God, man, that's so crazy it just might work!

Of course, if we don't keep the FDA zombies busy they'll just be aimlessly wandering around, slowly bouncing off the walls until someone points them in a new direction.

> Ohhh, how could my parents have
> misled me so?

Point taken, but our broadest social policies have done damage to many of our most vulnerable members. Not everything that happens is a matter of personal responsibility. Sometimes these collective forces truly reach into people's lives and fuck them up.

Well, Crid I agree, at least generally speaking. Sometimes it seems like the most well-intentioned (or seemingly well-intentioned, anyway) ideas ultimately make us weaker and even more vulnerable.

I'm free-associating all over the place here. This is an idiotic time of day for me to try to be coherent. What I keep pinballing back to is a notion from the sixties that kids somehow intuitively know right from wrong, and will somehow make the right decisions if you leave them alone. They didn't need all that "uptight" structure that their parents were raised with, blah blah blah.

Anyway, it makes me wonder if the children of these children are the ones responsible for making sure we have instructions like "cook before eating" on our frozen food. I don't know where it will all end, but I do know that I'm going to bed. Ta ta.

I might be in the minority here but I am personally ok with the government encouraging healthy diet and other health positive behaviors

The evidence is not there for cutting back on salt consumption -- and the government has been advocating, for example, the food pyramid, which was created by an aide for George McGovern with no science experience.

I refer to Gary Taubes' work a lot -- and will pick up the link to his piece on salt from Science when we come back from breakfast -- because he is one of very few who actually bases what he says on evidence, and an exhaustive look at evidence at that. You should also look for your ideas about food to be based in evidence -- whether you have the capability to read all the studies and determine whether they're flawed, terribly flawed, or beyond ridiculous...and ALL studies are flawed.

I might be in the minority here but I am personally ok with the government encouraging healthy diet and other health positive behaviors. Further, I am ok with taxing detrimental behavior (and I am one of those remaining degenerate smokers).

I'm not ok with it at all. Why? For decades, the government encouraged bad eating habits with their stupid "food pyramid" that was designed by grain-industry lobbyists, not dietitians.

Give government power, and some lobbyist will use it to fuck people up.

Of course, if we don't keep the FDA zombies busy they'll just be aimlessly wandering around, slowly bouncing off the walls until someone points them in a new direction.

We could just get rid of the FDA. They supposedly evaluate drugs and declare them "safe and effective". When they turn out to be neither, the FDA is untouchable and the manufacturer of the drug takes it in the ass. What's the point?

We'd be better off if there was something like Consumer Reports or the UL for drugs than what we have now.

The Goddess writes: You can tear my salt shaker out of my cold, dead hands. And P.S. If I do die, it's not going to be from salting just about everything but coffee and desert, which I do.

And it is good to know that you don't put salt on your "desert" before you eat it. Tell us all, do you prefer dining on the sands of the Sahara or the Gobi? Perhaps you prefer domestic and Death Valley is your desert of choice.

Tell me, did you find the sand-eating recommendations from Taubes? Are there some health benefits from a high silicone diet?

(Sorry. I can't resist a good typo.)

"And P.S. If I do die, it's not going to be from salting just about everything but coffee and desert, which I do."

YOu've got to start salting dessert, Amy. Salt with sweet is soooooo yummy! Better than with savory, I think.

the amount of sodium (and fat, etc) is already on packaging. Let people make up their own minds. What are they going to do, outlaw salt shakers? Make salt a schedule 3 item?

See my related post Gulliver, Meet the Lilliputians

Maybe I missed something, but is some one threatening to take away containers of plain salt at the supermarket, so that you can't fill your own salt shaker? No. It's simply about reducing the amount of salt in PROCESSED foods. BIG difference.

Besides, let's not forget that 1/7 of American adults are functionally illiterate. So chances are they don't KNOW which processed foods have salt and which don't.

The best line I've heard on this topic of late came from Phelim McAleer, the creator of "Not Evil Just Wrong", which will premiere tomorrow.

He said [paraphrasing]:

"You know, I'm from Europe and everyone in Europe is a liberal. When I was thinking of coming to America I was told that the vast majority of Americans were obsessed with what goes on in the bedroom. Yet when I came over to America I found that everyone on the Left was obsessed with every single other room in the house ... and don't seem bothered with it at all.

P.S. "Crusader", your comment that freedom is the least important thing we have is beyond idiotic and clearly spoken by someone who has never had his freedom taken away from him. You're liked a selfish spoiled rich kid who has always been given everything you demanded from Mommy & Daddy.

I was hoping Crusader was just being a smartass, but it's hard for even another smartass to tell. Care to elaborate, Crusader?

The big problem is the added cost. We will be paying bureaucrats through taxes to administer the low-salt rules, and we will be paying companies to comply and prove compliance.

You say your product meets the rules? Give us the government certified lab tests to prove it, for each batch, on the approved forms, by next Thursday. This is separate from the nutritional label, of course.

You say your sales have fallen off for your lower-salt, tasteless food? Good, we don't like "processed" food, anyway. Our model is the comfy 1890's kitchen, where all food is lovingly prepared from natural ingredients grown within 250 miles.

"Canned food is unplanned food." (Except peaches.)

Disclaimer: I naturally go for low-salt food. Fortunately, there are enough low-salt versions of products that this isn't a problem. Actuall, not fortunately; it is a result of a relatively free market.

Many processed foods taste bad to me. But, I would never interfere with what people want to buy. A free market allows all tastes to be satisfied. Government control will lead to unintended consequences, like small, low-salt producers going out of business or raising prices to meet the higher costs of the low-salt rules. Ironic, eh?

"Sin taxes" and government mandates like this are examples of do-gooderism, which has killed more people than religion. I am beginning to believe that all government do-gooderism should be opposed because even though I might agree with individual cases of it, the long term cost is too high.

Private do-gooderism, on the other hand, should be left alone by the government. If your group wants to campaign for manufacturers to voluntarily lower salt in processed foods, be my guest.

How quickly the 'land of liberty' has fallen :/

Since I actually have low blood pressure and a low pulse (it's so low, they would turn me away from blood donation centers), shouldn't I be allowed to have all the salt I want?

Is there anything in this proposed law saying you can't use a saltshaker to sprinkle more salt on your food if you so desire?

This is one I'll have to disagree with.

Their have been studies that show certain parts of the brain light up on a PET scan when nicotine is used. Same with other drugs.

They have also found in cases of certain brain damage, the victim no longer has a desire to smoke.

Unfortunately, I don't have the references to the articles.

Who is John Galt?

Parts of my brain light up when I hear of nanny-state regulation.

Amy writes....

I am in agreement that the Government is prone to knee jerk reactions that can end up being unfounded (they make is so obvious). I disagree, however, that because they could be wrong we abandon efforts to spread the word about positive health benefits.

Brian writes....

Again, I agree with the premise that government is capable and even prone to fuck up. But again we do need, as a collective, to highlight health positive behavior (and add a cost to health negative behaviors). It's a matter of pragmatism. For every Amy and Brian out there, there is two sheep who, in the face of no constant messages, will act irresponsibly. WE will pay for their irresponsibility. So until the day comes around that taxes don't pay for someone with failing kidneys (or whatever failing health issue) because of obesity, pounding down sugar or meth, it is pragmatic to send constant messages that health negative behavior will hurt you (along with adding a cost to the negative behavior). And as I say that I, again, understand the blatantly imperfect nature of government messages and guidelines.

TW - the solution to your problem is to eliminate the public financing of health care entirely.

I am not my brother's keeper, and I ought not be forced by the heavy hand of Uncle Sam to be such.

If you are not capable of caring for yourself, you ought to live miserably and die.

If you can't figure out that eating 27 plates at the Chinese buffet is why you weight 500 pounds, then you're not the kind of person who's going to figure out that your taxes are higher because you're fat. Instead, you'll bitch and moan about how unfair it is that you are being taxed for being fat because it isn't your fault that they put all that food there.

TW writes: "But again we do need, as a collective, to highlight health positive behavior..."

However, that's assuming that we know what those behaviors are. Truth is, with a few exceptions, we haven't the slightest flippin' idea. I've always gotten a lot of flak from my family about my love for salty popcorn, so a while back I looked up the studies on it. The studies seem to be indicating, right now, that for a person with normal blood pressure, there are no health benefits to a salt-restricted diet. We don't know for sure, and opinion could change next year. Then again, it could swing the other way. It'd be like the coffee thing all over again.

I'll be blunt: the practice of nutrition, as it exists today, is a hocus-pocus, fairy-wand-waving pseudo-science, and the people practicing it are charlatans or worse. It's complete and utter junk. The food pyramid is garbage with no scientific validity. The government's BMI-based weight guidelines mis-classify millions of fit, trim people as obese. The FDA lets a whole "supplement" industry run wild with unsubstantiated claims and zero monitoring of ingredient purity.

The whole thing has been a mystery cult ever since they quit using the letter abbreviations for the vitamins (which everyone understood) and started using the chemical names instead (which no one can keep track of). The Center for Scamming the Public Ignorance makes millions a year off of keeping the marks stirred up and blackmailing whole industries. There is very, very little actual science being done, and the people who are trying to do it have a hard time getting grants because they aren't "proving" that everything causes cancer.

So eat the diet that works for you. If it doesn't work for you, change it. But accept that, beyond maintaining a generally good level of health and weight and avoiding a few specific problems (e.g., scurvy), your diet isn't going to make a whole lot of difference one way or the other. There is no magical diet that will let you live to 120 or make you fabulously wealthy or allow you to communicate with the spirit of Gaia or anything else.

Actually, Dave, I think the psilocybin diet will let you do that last one.

Since I actually have low blood pressure and a low pulse (it's so low, they would turn me away from blood donation centers), shouldn't I be allowed to have all the salt I want?

I have low blood pressure, and a nurse once told me to eat more salt. I'll be taking my salt from all the suckers who won't be eating it anymore.

I am ok with taxing detrimental behavior
And who decideds what is detrimental?