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."
Salt really isn't all that bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Too much salt" is one of those dietary memes that just won't seem to die. However, the reality is that (a) only a fraction of individuals (even individuals with high blood pressure) seem to be salt sensitive and (b) there are much more effective ways of reducing high blood pressure than reducing salt consumption. I was on blood pressure medication, a low salt diet, etc. prior to reducing my carbohydrate intake dramatically last summer, and all it got me was drug side effects and blood pressure that was just barely normal (average 136/88). Since I've stopped eating most concentrated carbohydrates, my blood pressure has reduced dramatically (I don't bother to monitor any more, but at my last doctor's appointment it was 122/72). On top of that, my blood sugars have improved dramatically (from average BG of 138 to average BG of 91) and my lipid profile has improved dramatically (total cholestorol 233 then vs. 135 at last doctor's appt., triglycerides 700+ vs. 85 at last doctor's appointment.) All this even as I lost almost 100 lbs.
What was the change? I *stopped* eating sugar and other refined carbohydrates, and I *started* eating salt again. Oh yeah, and I *love* fat and protein, because they make me feel full.
The bottom line is that I have no confidence in the ability of the "main stream" medical community to define a single nutritional standard that will work for everyone. And I have even less confidence in the ability of bureaucrats and legislators to correctly parse through the research to find the truth. So leave my food alone. If you really feel like you've got to do something, please start requiring restaurants to label their foods (on the menu) so that it's easier for diabetics like me to find menu items that aren't loaded with sugars that will make our blood sugars spike. Or if you really want to interfere, require restaurants to offer low-fat, low-carb, and low-salt entrees. But don't impose your notion of good nutrition on me, because I tried to do it your way and it damn near killed me.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bill is hopelessly vague about what "salt" is. If it just applies to "table salt" (sodium chloride), restaurants would simply switch to salt substitutes like potassium chloride. Also, the bill is vague on things that *contain* salt, whether they're allowed. There are all sorts of salty ingredients out there -- some artificially salty, some naturally salty -- that could be added to dishes to add the salt indirectly. If it were to ban anything that contains any measurable amount of salt, it would ban almost every food on Earth.
Anyway, this is just a guy who knows nothing about cooking and probably not much about chemistry. Don't think it malicious. My uncle was in congress for a term (he didn't run again because of health problems). I remember playing trivial pursuit with him. He'd miss out on what seemed the most basic, obvious questions to me in most categories -- but boy oh boy, if a legal question came up, you can bet he knew the answer! Going into public office takes a great deal of your time; these people usually aren't generalists. As of the late '90s or early '00s, the last time my uncle had watched a movie in a theater was the original Star Wars, back in the '70s. That's how much being involved in the high levels of politics can consume your time.
Now, even most people who are highly specialized in one particular field will know of salt's role in cooking. But there are enough elected people out there that at least some won't. But trust me -- he will soon ;) This bill will disappear in short order.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, I am a libertarian, so I wholeheartedly agree about the government having anything to do with marriage. As in, the government shouldn't allow gay marriage, nor should it allow straight marriage... The government shouldn't give a rats ass who you screw, just who you choose to live with.
Second, the problem with your second premise is: Where does your body end, and mine begin? I'm assuming you're talking about drugs, which as long as you don't hurt anyone else, I have no problem with. However, democrats also like to apply that logic to abortion. I'm sorry, but there are two lives we are talking about, not one. If I'm having sex with a woman, does my penis become part of her body just because it's inside her? Can she go all Bobbit on my ass and cut it off? After all, it can't survive on its own! Babies (fetuses are babies) are people too, citizens of these United States, and the government has a responsibility to protect their rights, the same as you and me.
What would Gandhi do? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the British Raj had try to ban the use of salt outright, however, I suspect Gandhi - being a devout vegetarian - would have handed out cricket bats to every available man, woman, and child and led a march straight to New Delhi.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even more important,sodium regulates nerve signals, but put that aside for the moment.
I read the New England Journal of Medicine article that was promoting a lot of this, and it made me worry http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/362/7/590 [nejm.org]
The dietary limits for salt are about 5 grams a day, and you only need 2 or 3 grams a day. American men eat an average of 10 grams a day. We're eating way more salt than we used to 50 years ago. Forget about the hunter-gatherer days.
The evidence isn't irrefutable yet -- nobody has taken a large population and randomly divided them into a high-salt and low-salt group for 15 years, and they probably never will. Excess salt is probably safe for young, healthy people. But nobody stays young and healthy forever.
A huge number of people are getting high blood pressure and strokes, and people on high-salt diets seem to get more strokes. I know people who got strokes. I'd rather be dead than have to live for the last 3 or 4 years of my life ranting at my caretakers without my cognitive facilities, or with the left half my body paralyzed.
Unfortunately for the free-market personal choice crowd, you can't simply reduce salt in your diet by avoiding the salt shaker.
Most salt comes from processed food and restaurant food, and not just potato chips.
I thought I was OK because I was eating chicken, but I read in the NEJM that chicken is injected with salt and water (so that I can buy water at the price of chicken). Nothing on the label about that. Thanks, FDA.
So the only way to reduce salt in your diet is to get to the source -- the manufacturers (and the restaurants) who put salt in your food without telling you. Actually some of the food manufacturers, like Kraft, are cooperating. They say that once people get used to lower-salt food, it tastes fine (like it used to 50 years ago). The European countries did this and it worked well.
Sure, excessive salt can be dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as not enough
Americans suffering from nutritional deficiency because they don't get enough salt? Ridiculous.
Re:Bad ideas last forever (Score:5, Interesting)
Foodies are douches, be a gourmand instead :-P
Trans fats do occur naturally in milk and beef (the most prominent examples). Admittedly at smaller levels than from hydrogenated oils, but it's still there.
Secondly, my understanding is that even the 0g trans fats per seving Crisco formulations (etc) still have what add up to substantial amounts of trans fats. Are any of the vegetable shortenings REALLY trans fat free? Unless people go back to using lard, we're still going to be eating trans fats, just thankfully less than we did just 5 years ago.
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but from what I understand the with the cost of living in NYC...$100K/yr will barely keep you on the poverty level.
You understand wrong. When I lived there I "only" made $45k. I managed to live a comfortable lifestyle. You can get by without a car in the city -- that's a huge chunk of saved money right there. Your biggest expense is rent. Energy costs are above the national norm (I think I was paying $0.18/kWh when I lived there) but that's not a real big deal when you live in an apartment. Groceries were comparable to what I pay now in Upstate. Maybe a tad bit more expensive but it really wasn't enough of a difference that it hurt my bottom line.
The biggest money pit in NYC is the culture. Museums, shows, arts, etc. aren't cheap and there's a lot of ways to blow money on those items in NYC. But that's all discretionary spending.
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help but be completely and utterly appalled at how anyone could consider what you describe as acceptable for an elected official at that level.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure your perception is quite valid - I just can't accept that we should shrug off ignorance so easily, especially when it has the potential to affect so many.
It may be unreasonable to expect one person know everything about every subject, but it is reasonable to expect someone to not push forward in an area where they have knowledge. It's the sit down and STFU and listen if you don't know what you are talking about rule.
If I'm feeling generous I might be able to forgive an ignorant legislator that votes for such an absurd bill - but for one to introduce such a thing there should be no forgiveness. Wait. I take that back. I couldn't even forgive the yes-voter. There is no place in a sane government for a legislator to approve a measure they don't have a reasonable understanding of. Ever.
That it is commonplace (I'm guessing the majority of legislation, spurred on by legislators who trust the lobyists as experts in field) leaves me with a feeling of disgust and hopelessness.
I think Douglas Adams had the right idea - no person who wants to be in power/politician should ever actually be allowed to be (liberally paraphrased).
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, my problem is if I went into politics, I'd ring up people at universities or that otherwise actually do the work instead of K Street...
Re:So what else is new (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:4, Interesting)
The major problem is that not only isn't the evidence irrefutable, it's also conflicting; a lot of studies show that decreasing salt intake increases mortality rates.
See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06alderman.html?_r=3&emc=eta1 [nytimes.com]
For most people, wide swings in dietary sodium consumption don’t affect blood pressure, and for some, blood pressure actually rises when they lower their salt intake.
But what really matters is whether reducing salt will ultimately prevent heart attacks and strokes and thus improve or extend life...Nine such studies, looking at a total of more than 100,000 participants who consume as much sodium as New Yorkers do, have had mixed results. In four of them, reduced dietary salt was associated with an increased incidence of death and disability from heart attacks and strokes. In one that focused on obese people, more salt was associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. And in the remaining four, no association between salt and health was seen.
There's more in the article, including some study results that tend to indicate the opposite, but the overall takeaway is that there's a lot more we need to learn before we rush to change things.
Re:Some people are idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
>>Why is banning the solution to everything? I don't get it. People love to ban anything with legislation, it's completely illogical.
It's not. It's heavy handed, but not illogical. The food industry has proven to be completely unable to control salt levels in food, with levels skyrocketing in recent years.
I actually found out that for all my eating (relatively) healthy and exercise, I've been developing hypertension. So I tried to go on a low-salt diet. Guess what? Unless you eat nothing but fresh food (yeah, yeah, I know), you will exceed the recommended daily salt level by probably about 3x or so. Every day. For your entire life. Most items you order from fast food restaurants exceed your entire daily recommended maximum, with just one item. And you are getting the burrito with a taco, right?
The way that blood pressure works, you have a certain amount of damage resistance against the temporary hypertension caused by eating a lot of salt. However, if you keep spiking your blood pressure, over time your basal blood pressure will increase and you'll develop permanent pre-hypertension and then hypertension. Which is bad, for a variety of reasons.
Just to humor yourself, the next time you go to a restaurant, ask for the nutritional menu. The recommended level of salt intake is 1000 to 1500mg (1g to 1.5g), though the USDA recommended amount is around 2400 or so. So we'll use 1500mg as a baseline. You're eating three meals a day? Divide 1500 / 3 = 500mg. Now look at the nutritional menu and see what you can order that will add up to 500mg of sodium or less. Have fun with that.
Cornflakes - that's healthy, right? 1100mg in one 30g serving.
Bacon - ok, we know that's not good. But cheese is worse!
We think fries are bad, but a large order only has 330mg! That "healthy" grilled chicken sandwich, though, has 1690mg of sodium in it!
What has more salt, hash browns or a cinnamon roll from McDonalds? (The cinnamon roll has 3x the sodium of a side of hash browns!)
Go to a grocery store, pull any box of cereal, or nearly anything at all edible and not fresh, and you'll see that it's nearly impossible to eat 500mg or less per meal.
I don't agree that banning it outright is the solution (for various reasons), but this IS a public health issue, and one that has gone completely unreported until now. If nothing else, the pressure from this will encourage places to reduce their sodium intake. In the UK, they managed to drop sodium levels to 1/3rd of their previous values - and the food tasted the same.