Bill To Ban All Salt In Restaurant Cooking 794
lord_rotorooter writes "Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn, introduced a bill that would ruin restaurant food and baked goods as we know them. The measure (if passed) would ban the use of all forms of salt in the preparation and cooking of food for all restaurants or bakeries. While the use of too much salt can contribute to health problems, the complete banning of salt would have negative impacts on food chemistry. Not only does salt enhance flavor, it controls bacteria, slows yeast activity and strengthens dough by tightening gluten. Salt also inhibits the growth of microbes that spoil cheese."
Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really want the government telling you what you cannot eat?
Stay out of my bedroom, welcome to my kitchen?
eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Ortiz admits that prior to introducing the bill he did not research salt's role in food chemistry, its effect on flavor or his bill's ramifications for the restaurant industry. He tells me he was prompted to introduce the bill because his father used salt excessively for many years, developed high blood pressure and had a heart attack.
Reacting emotionally is how bad laws get written and passed.
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Insightful)
All politicians are idiots! More at 11.
There, fixed that for you.
ummmmm..... (Score:4, Insightful)
“I think salt should be banned in restaurants. I ask if a dish has salt in it, and if I does, I get something else that doesn’t have salt,”
Correct me if I'm wrong but a large number of the chemicals that make up food are salts of one type or another. What exactly does he eat?
Bad ideas last forever (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't this bill, which won't pass. The problem is that bad ideas like this, once introduced, have a life of their own. They keep getting reintroduced until they do pass. (good ideas, on the other hand, get shelved and are never heard from again).
They've already assaulted baked goods by banning trans-fats (certain baked goods need shortening for texture). Ruining everything else, even with a watered-down anti-salt bill, is now inevitable.
This is just what we need... (Score:2, Insightful)
a bill to make our food taste awful. Let us just take a look at how this can help. Just think of all the money people will save by not going out to eat because the food tastes like shite. Of course if people stop going out to eat then restaurants will have to lay off workers or even go out of business. Those people that are now out of jobs can save what little money they get on unemployment by not going out to eat - at least for a few months until their unemployment runs out and they lose their homes. More lost jobs because some shite for brains politician knows nothing and wants to get his name in the paper.
Instead of cutting salt out of their diets people could get healthier by getting more exercise - like kicking politicians in the ass when they have stupid ideas.
Re:What's going on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trans fats are an artificial substance that occur primarily due to anti-fat hysteria. In mindlessly fleeing from animal fats, we managed to create something 10 or 100 times worse.
In this respect, it's a little less absurd to try to ban it.
There should just be accurate labeling across the board.
This is how government works unfortunately (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a great example of the knee-jerk reaction process that the government employs.
Creating overreaching laws and rules for everyone is very rarely the solution to a problem.
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
So he's proposing the bill because his own bad personal experience, not because it would benefit his constituents, who probably don't want the bill either. So much for representative government.
Re:Bad ideas last forever (Score:5, Insightful)
Shortening != Trans Fat.
You can go back and have cake, just don't put certain margarines and other artificial oils in it.
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL...No. His father killed his father. (Just in case you weren't being sarcastic)
Re:eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe give us the option when ordering to say "low salt" and actually have that followed. I understand some things need salt to prepare properly, but a lot of things I get when eating out would be significantly improved by reducing the amount of salt put in by the cooks. I almost never feel the need to add yet more salt to anything I get at restaurants, especially fast food places.
Re:This is just grandstanding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The obviously ridiculous bills (e.g. DMCA, PATRIOT Act, NY State Budget) never get passed.
Re:Something has to be done... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, nothing needs to be done.
The government has no business whatsoever dictating what restaurants can and cannot have (never mind must have) on their menus. If you can't eat something, don't eat it ... if that means not going out to eat, well that's your issue. Restaurant owners are not responsible for your health, you are.
Christ, what the hell happened to personal responsibility?
Salary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fail (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd be more inclined to believe he simply wants more money to pass through his hands, and more power which he can leverage for his own benefit. In the business of government, the more money passing through your hands, the more you stand to benefit. It doesn't matter where the money goes -- as long as it passes through your hands, you win.
"Reacting emotinally" is exactly what he wants you to believe.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
Less Govt. Intervention, not more. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was having a similar discussion with my husband the other day when he was discussing how he wants some government regulation on those types of products that claim to provide male enhancement or are diet supplement pills that supposedly burn fat just because someone took the pill. He feels that people should be able to trust what companies advertise.
I pointed out to him, that right now our leaders feel any regulation should always go to the extreme. This is a prime example of going to the extreme. This is what this representative is proposing, the extreme.
Without some salt in foods, food will not stay preserved as long, and many other bad things will take place. This has the potential for increasing the cost of meals at restaurants because food will not last as long, which then means more deliveries or purchases will need to be made for a restaurant to keep up with the shortened lifetime of the food supply used to prepare the meals. This increases our carbon footprint for all of these service industries to meet the new regulation. And if this is only done in one area of the country or one state, now fast food places have to make separate batches of food for the consumers and if one batch is mistakenly sent to a No-Salt location, what are the ramifications then? Would people sue the restaurant because, OMG, I just ate salt...? Possibly, maybe even likely.
I completely agree, less salt is better, but an outright ban? Ridiculous! Regulations are in place by the FDA, correct? If companies are not following the regulations in place already go after them. Enforce existing rules and regulations first, and staff up to meet the needs of enforcement. If after regulation it is found that changes need to be made, tweak the regulations.
We need less govt. intervention. Govt. leave my food alone.
Inevitable. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is inevitable. Not only will we see more of this, but it's going to get a lot more invasive. Politicians have decided it's their responsibility to look out for our well-being.
What does everyone think the president and congress is talking about when they say we need to change how we live, that we need to practice preventative healthcare? They're going to cram this sort of thing down our throats.
Every so often someone mentions us sacrificing our freedoms for the sake of security. But inevitably it's always mentioned in relation to the war on terrorism. The real threat to our freedom isn't anything so overt. Wars are temporary and there are plenty of people fighting these overt threats. The real threats to freedom is legislation like this. They're far more subtle, more far-reaching and long-lasting and it's the sort of thing that is harder to defend against because it's pretty easy to argue it's for our own good.
Twenty years from now people might be able to repeal invasive surveillance policies because the terrorist threat has subsided if not outright disappeared. But how do you repeal these kinds of bans? You're repealing a ban on something unhealthy! You're going to raise the cost of healthcare! We can't have that!
The real tool here should be education. People need to understand what they're consuming and the effects it may have on their bodies. Then they make the decision. But they should also be held responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be realistic in this day and age either. Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that we can have a complete libertarian free-for-all where anything goes. But I'm talking about basic personal freedoms here. Pig out on unhealthy food all your want, but be prepared to deal with the health issues you're likely to encounter later in life.
People want the freedom, but they don't want to deal with the responsibilities and consequences of those freedoms. It creates the perfect atmosphere for the government to step in and make these decisions for us. That's really what it comes down to. Either we live safe, secure lives free of major responsibilities but have to give up many of our freedoms, or we have our freedom but we have to deal directly with the consequences of our actions. Unfortunately too many people nowadays seem to have the delusion that we can enjoy the best of both worlds.
Re:So what else is new (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if everyone stopped crying about elitism when people suggest that we elect smart people to run the country, we wouldn't be having this problem.
Sadly, stupidity seems to be bi-partisan.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
The government already tells me I cannot eat products made with cannabutter. I cannot eat psilocybin mushrooms. I cannot eat pieces of paper impregnated with LSD. The law in question here only affects restaurants that serve the public. Drug laws regulate my blood stream. There is no slippery slope here, we're already at the bottom.
Re:eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I almost never feel the need to add yet more salt to anything I get at restaurants, especially fast food places.
When I am eating fast food I am glad for the extra salt, because of its anti microbial properties.
Re:Fail (Score:1, Insightful)
If a politician is going to completely neglect any research or even thought into a bill they propose, they seriously need to be kicked out of office so hard they can't come back.
Re:This just in! (Score:1, Insightful)
Why is that funny?
It's funny to see fatties wailing about how duh gubmint is gonna take food away from them especially when bills like this never pass.
Is the suggestion here that being fat automatically disqualifies you from public comment?
Nope he can comment all he wants. I'll still find it funny when a guy who looks like he's pushing 300 lbs. is trying to lecture to me about nutrition.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the words are darn near the only thing that matters with legislation.
An alternative: (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we just make it a Federal crime to elect a fucking moron?
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can fully agree, and to an extend sympathize, with the point that we sometimes expect too much of our elected officials, in that we are dependent on them to craft bills ranging from water contamination to embezzlement to treaties and no one can be a master of all trades.
But while I don't expect them to know everything about anything, I DO expect them to know how to FIND people that know everything about anything. Even the most elementary background work on a bill like this would have shown Rep Ortiz Duh-Brooklyn the massive quagmire he was about to open up. I wouldn't expect a master's thesis before crafting a bill, but what I would have done, in his case, is go to a favorite higher-end restaurant and make arrangements to speak with the chef for a while, to get a grasp of the subject.
Otherwise we're just whizzing down tubes.
Re:So what else is new (Score:3, Insightful)
They're already working hard to push tax on "sugary" sodas and drinks in NY.
I love the loaded language. Sugary, like we're talking about a bottle full of sugar.
Um, really, it’s not far off... a 12-oz. Coke has 39 grams of sugar. A 12-oz. (355 ml) bottle of plain water would weigh 355 grams. That’s almost 10% sugar by weight.
I have Meniere's syndrome and think this is bogus! (Score:3, Insightful)
I have Meniere's syndrome and think this is bogus! I have to carefully limit my salt so I don't build up pressure in my inner ear, so I take care to do so.
If anyone else is concerned about limiting their salt intake, then they should limit their salt intake.
Our elected officials think we are too stupid and too lazy to take responsibility for ourselves. Make sure you let every one of them know how you feel about their opinion of us come election time!
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, I've found that to be the exact same thing most hypocritical about Democrats. You can scoop a fetus out because it's your body, but by god if you try to put salt on your food we'll throw you in the fucking slammer.
Actually, I don't think that's hypocritical at all. Democrats want big government. They want the federal government to intervene in all avenues of life, and to adhere to that position must accept the laws the fed makes whether good or bad overall. They also happen to want the federal government to make abortions specifically legal.
Republicans on the other hand, want the government completely out of their lives, which is why it is hypocritical to then want the federal government to interfere with issues they believe are morally correct. You can't have it both ways, it's all or nothing.
BTW, this is why I will never consider myself affiliated with ANY political party. Issues need to be dealt with logically, not ideologically.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that scene on "Escape from LA"?
Snake Plissken: Got a smoke?
Malloy: The United States is a non-smoking nation! No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women - unless you're married - no foul language, no red meat!
Snake Plissken: [sarcastic] Land of the free.
Don't ban salt (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no, no. Salt was only a symptom of the underlying problem. Don't you see? This person had a *heart attack*, a HEART ATTACK. Clearly we must ban hearts so as to prevent more attacks of this nature. Anyone with a heart must be kicked out of New York State!
Re:This just in! (Score:3, Insightful)
members of the New York state assembly seem to make something closer to $90-100,000)
Actually most make considerably more than that. Members of the NYS Legislature get extra pay for serving on committees, even though that's usually regarded as part of the job for legislators in other states/the Federal Government. That's one of the tools that the leadership wields to keep members in line -- if you vote against the leadership in the NYS Legislature they will take away your committee assignments and hit your bottom line to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year.
Our State Government sucks donkey balls. The only saving grace is we aren't as dysfunctional as California -- though in a few years I'm sure we'll be where they are today.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't abort an unborn baby, that's murder. But once he's out of the womb, then all bets are off.
Huh? What are you trying to say here? Is there some element of the GOP platform that I'm unaware of that supports murder or some such? Or does it just bother you that the GOP is generally opposed to cradle to grave welfare states that take away our liberty under the guise of protecting people?
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good luck baking a cake without salt. Ever hear of sodium bicabonate (baking soda, most of what's in baking powder)?
No salt, no baking. Trust me, I cook a lot, and I cook a lot of vegan stuff. (including some great cakes and cookies)
Re:Fail (Score:3, Insightful)
100% agree.
Misusing public time and money in a position such as that for such a glaringly obvious moronic purpose should frankly, get them removed from office and barred from working in any government-related position for life. They should also be fined and brought up on charges just shy of treason.
Some people are idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is banning the solution to everything? I don't get it. People love to ban anything with legislation, it's completely illogical.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for the free-market personal choice crowd, you can't simply reduce salt in your diet by avoiding the salt shaker."
From papers I've read in recent years, it seems to be the case that salt intake does not cause high blood pressure, etc. However, if you have dangerously high blood pressure, excess salt can exaccerbate the situation, and it should be avoided.
In the second statement...I think you found your answer right where you were complaining. One should not be cosuming processed foods or eating in restaurants as their primary sources of food and nutrition!! Highly processed foods are the problem we didn't have 50 years ago...and it is a problem that can be avoided these days. People need to learn how to cook a home cooked meal again from scratch using more primary, raw ingredients. Potato chips should be a rare treat, not a weekly staple. And dining at a restaurant should be a treat from time to time, where you go to enjoy some more fattening and rich foods. Don't waste your dining dollars weekly on crap at the fast food places. Cook at home, have family time, eat healthier....and maybe once or twice a month with the money you've saved....go treat yourself out to a real restaurant (preferrably NOT a chain) get a little service, some good food...maybe a bottle of wine.
Re:This just in! (Score:3, Insightful)
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION n
where n is an integer
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the selling of drugs should be regulated and taxed just like alcohol and cigarettes.
Why? Why should products that are bad for you be taxed at a higher rate than other products? Vice taxes annoy me, it's no fucking business of Washington or Albany how much fatty food I eat or how much pot I smoke.
Not only would this greatly reduce drug related crime
No it wouldn't. If you tax those products at an excessive rate then people turn to smuggling to get around the taxes. This is already happening with cigarettes in the higher taxed states.
but as far as the government is concerned unborn babies are not citizens of this country yet and therefore outside the governments purview. The mothers life takes precedence as she is an actual citizen of this country.
I'm pro-choice but that's a stupid argument you are making there. Laws against murder do not take citizenship into account. I can't murder a British national on American soil and expect to get away with it.
As far as I'm concerned the only pro-choice argument that makes sense is that the Government has no business telling us what we can do with our bodies. If you can force a mother to carry to term then can you also force me to submit to a bone marrow donation if I'm the only compatible donor for some poor bastard dying of cancer? All the other pro-choice talking points really piss me off -- the "it's not a human life" one in particular. Neither is a brain dead person being kept alive by machines but if I walk into their hospital room and blow them away I'm guilty of murder.
but unless my sperm are involved it's simply none of my damn business
One thing I've always thought of as fundamentally unfair is the fact that females can choose whether or not they want to become parents but males forfeit that right after they ejaculate. It doesn't matter if you wanted to become a father or not -- you partner could even have sabotaged the birth control (or just plain lied about being on it) and you are still on the hook for that child for the next 18 years.
A progressive society would give males the option of abandoning their rights and not being responsible for that child -- apparently the right to decide whether or not you want to be a parent only extends to the female though.
Re:Fail (Score:1, Insightful)
"[Ortiz] He tells me he was prompted to introduce the bill because his father used salt excessively for many years, developed high blood pressure and had a heart attack."
Um. What next? Someone who drinks too much water and developed hyponatremia, thus ban water in food?
I could see if he was talking about blowfish poison or something, but salt? It's ridiculous. We need salt in our diet.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, do you know the term for those advisors you mention, experts (or at least supposed experts) who try to influence politicians to make what they view as the best decisions on fields that the politicians may not know much about?
We call them "lobbyists".
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it would be better for all of us if his father had passed away before ejaculation during the sexual intercourse that generated Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn.
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing you don't work with many engineers.
Re:Some people are idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it looks like they're doing something. There has to be a name for what this is called, but it seems most people who are put in a position like this tend to make laws for the sake of doing something. If the world was 100% full of peace and happiness, you can bet those in charge would not sit there and keep it that way. They would feel useless, and thus, start making laws that, if anything, makes them look like they're being busy. It happens everywhere.
Re:Some people are idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because they know how you should lead your life. They know. And you're doing it wrong. Therefore, you need their help making choices. They're banning things to help you.
You should thank them. They are heroically protecting you by banning you from making incorrect choices. Why aren't you thanking them?
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever for? Those people don't make campaign contributions.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans on the other hand, want the government completely out of their lives
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..."
You seem to have "Republicans" confused with "Conservatives" and "Libertarians". Nowadays, the difference between "Republicans" and "Democrats" (at least among those actually in power) mostly tends to be in WHICH ways to expand Government.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184 [cato.org]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/ [washingtontimes.com]
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's stupid. You're taking taking a fundamental tenet of human rights - that an individual's rights in their natural state trump the government's power - and you're disposing of it to make it better fit your argument by pretending the individual's right to have an abortion comes about only because the government allows it. This is counter to the fundamental concept of Human Rights defined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They are based on the premise that human rights pre-exist in the absence of government - whether there is or isn't a government present (nor type of government) doesn't change these rights. When a government is formed, the formation involves defining which of those rights can be curtailed (e.g. the right to own and keep your own property is curtailed to allow the government to collect taxes).
So the government does not make abortions legal - their default status is that of being legal. The debate is on whether government should be allowed to make abortions illegal. So a stance which opposes government curtailment of abortion is inconsistent with wanting government involved in every aspect of your life. (I also disagree with that defining how Democrats think, but more on that later.)
You're redefining the parties to fit the conclusion you want. Republicans don't want government completely out of their lives. Both parties want some government. Where they disagree on is what parts of their lives government should and shouldn't be involved in. Republicans place a higher priority on morality, Democrats place a higher priority on equality.
Either can be excessive. This whole "one party is hypocritical" thing is just straw men set up by deliberately mis-stating the opposition's party's position to make it appear hypocritical. Republicans tend to be for banning abortions because they feel the fetus is equivalent to a human life, and so while they dislike excessive government, they feel protecting life is a legitimate moral responsibility of government. Democrats tend to be against banning abortions because they do not feel the fetus is equivalent to a human life, and so there is no moral justification for government to get involved, meaning the individual's right to choose to abort remains intact. Neither stance is hypocritical.
As it happens, legislating equality turns out to be more invasive than legislating morality. In the presence of an energy source, thermodynamics and the universe tends to want to make things unequal. OTOH, society for the most part does agree on a common subset of moral principles. So consequently legislating things important to Democrats tends to make bigger government than legislating the things Republicans want. But it has nothing to do with one party wanting a bigger government, while the other party wants lesser government. It's a side effect, not the direct intention.
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than mod you down for what is likely an innocent mistake, I will just point to his bio on http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org [jimmycarterlibrary.org], which doesn't mention nuclear engineering. I know he "trained for the position of engineering officer in submarine USS Seawolf, then under construction." and "Carter completed a non-credit introductory course in nuclear reactor power at Union College starting in March 1953" from reading his wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] but that isn't the same thing.
While he is familiar with some aspects of being a of nuclear engineer, he is far from actually being one. Thought you might want to know. And yes, while he is probably a nice guy, he was arguably the least effective president in the last 100 years, so he usually isn't a good example to hold up for any comparison.
Re:So what else is new (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't, for several reasons, but one being that I know I wouldn't be elected as I'm not exactly the most gregarious and outgoing person out there (which is why I'm a software engineer and prefer to sit in front of a computer all day).
Additionally, the fact that I'm an engineer means I have a personality type where I view things in black-and-white, and worse I have a bad habit of speaking my mind about things and not saying different things to different people to try to please them all. People hate that in politicians. (Of course, they also say they hate that politicians "speak out of both sides of their mouths", but then they go on to elect these politicians anyway.)
Finally, if I did have a chance to be President for one term without having to go through all the ridiculousness of the election campaign, I'd be happy to do it just to have a chance to try to fix things for the better. But I have no illusions at all that I could be elected for anything besides maybe a school board member (and probably not even that since I don't have kids).
Re:Some people are idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks. You are the personification of the attitude I described in my post. Your knowledge and your willingness to use it to deny us all the opportunity to make incorrect choices make you a hero to a benighted world.
Truly you are: The Bland Avenger.
If you buy food with salt in, you can't take it out - if you buy food with no salt, you can easily add some; where do you have the most choice?
At the store, when you're deciding what to buy. Or at the door to the restaurant, when you're deciding to enter.