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."
This just in! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Insightful)
All politicians are idiots! More at 11.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
What am I, the fucking internet meme police or something?
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe you should take a second to breathe.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
Greetings.
Slashdot has suspended your Slashdot Posting License for the remainder of the day (GMT) for the following reason:
Serial Douchebaggery.
Thanks for stopping by. See you tomorrow!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow this guy needs to get off his high horse. This post doesn't make you intelligent either. It makes you look like a pedantic douchebag. This must be an attention grab?
There. Fixed... Oh that was a joke wasn't it?
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
Keep in mind that you also have to take occasional yes/no quizzes, but don’t worry, there’s no right or wrong answer. Oh, and if you don’t want to answer the question, you can always get full credit for simply being there. Of course, attendance isn’t really even required anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
Most dysfunctional legislature... ever!
I beg to differ. I live in California.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION n
where n is an integer
Re:This just in! (Score:4, Funny)
Illinois. How many of your governors have been indicted or served jail time?
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
Not enough.
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
Most dysfunctional legislature... ever!
I beg to differ. I live in California.
Regardless of where you live, I believe that all politicians should serve two terms: one in office ... the other in prison.
Note: Illinois already does this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing you don't work with many engineers.
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.
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: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: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.
Re:Some people are idiots (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I think you're confusing salt levels and sodium levels here (i.e. quoting sodium levels but labelling the figures as salt levels). This is a pretty important disctinction. To quote from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Recommended_intake [wikipedia.org]
"In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration itself does not make a recommendation,[64] but refers readers to Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. These suggest that US citizens should consume less than 2,300 mg of sodium (= 2.3 g sodium = 5.8 g salt) per day.[65]"
(emphasis added)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>salting after cooking is as good as or better than salt during cooking
This is wrong. Changing salting time can cause grossly non-linear effects depending on what is being cooked. food and salt are not independent variables.
Consider the humble legume. I soak it for x minutes with and without salt. Seriously, you think for any given x, the beans have the same amount of water absorption? Do you think it will cook the same at the same temperature? Of course not. Madness.
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?
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Funny)
BRAWNDO! Its what plants crave!
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Funny)
Salt has electrolytes.
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, 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: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".
Re: (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: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:4, Funny)
In the words of Representative Ortiz, let them bake cake.
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:Go go Nanny State... (Score:4, Informative)
You're obviously not a chef, or a Pastry Chef.
You should buy fresh chicken, and not Swanson chicken. Very little chicken is injected with brine. Frozen chicken you get in the big packs is inject with brine, but you can look on the label and you'll see that the ingredients list includes salt and water. They do have to label that stuff.
Restaurants don't sneak in salt without telling you. Most good restaurants take away tablesalt.. because they want you to experience the right amount of salt.
If you need a low salt diet, you tell your server and they can tell the chefs to hold the salt on many things. But removing salt from bread is /stupid/ Salt builds flavor and brings out the flavor while cooking. Too much salt is disgusting, but no salt is equally bland. Learn to talk to your wait staff, if you're going to eat out so often that the salt from restaurants is going to be a major issue.
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: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.
Yes, Ban Dihydrogen monoxide... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Stay out of my bedroom, welcome to my kitchen?
Some of us eat in the bedroom or fuck in the kitchen you know! Sometimes we do both in the same room and/or both at the same time.....mmmmm whipped cream.
Re: (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.
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: (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
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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, d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Limiting salt levels in foods, rather than an outright ban, might make sense
Instead of having the info available to diners who are concerned about their salt intake and letting them make their own decisions? Yeah, better that the government employees tell us what to do. I know they know best; they've told me so!
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the words are darn near the only thing that matters with legislation.
AntiSemitic? (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't it a requirement of Kosher meats that they be Salted as a part of the preparation? No Salt, no Kosher.
So, this idiot is saying that Jewish people can't have their religious and culturally required diet? Yeah, like THAT's gonna fly in NYC.
(Not Jewish myself, but I love gefilte fish, and lox is my favorite bagel topping. I would be seriously pissed if I couldn't get them anymore.)
Re:eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, no, this propsal included forcing horrible bread. When questioned, the idiaot admitted he had done no research into the importance of salt in food chemistry. His reasoning was precisely as follows:
My father ate a lot of salt.
My father died of a heart atttack.
Therefore, no one should ever eat salt.
Yes, folks, this is what passes for reason in a politician.
Black Market Salt Cartel (Score:5, Funny)
I am going to have fun setting up my black market salt dispenseries.
YAY!!!
Gandhi (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone should dress up like Gandhi and march down to the bay to make salt.
but (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but if there's no salt for your hash, doesn't that make your clients and servers less secure?
Only if your server hasn't washed his hands before a handshake.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Yah, it would take him 2 minutes to find that reducing salt only affects blood pressure in 1/3 of people.
I was recently diagnosed with hypertension and the first thing we did was to reduce sodium in my diet, then a drug to remove it. Didn't change my BP at all, although the stress of having high blood pressure might've countered whatever effect it had:)
Thank god (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:Fail (Score:5, Informative)
Which, if you actually read the bill is an outright lie by Ortiz:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=+A10129%09%09&Summary=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y [state.ny.us]
3 S 399-BBB. PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR
4 OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARA-
5 TION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT,
6 INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAU-
7 RANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.
Fail troll is fail.
Re: (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.
Nails are dangerous too... (Score:5, Funny)
I stepped on a nail once when I was a kid... It hurt.
They should pass a law that makes it illegal for carpenters to use nails so this never happens to another innocent child.
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?
Re:ummmmm..... (Score:5, Funny)
Come November? Crow.
Racist. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Bad ideas last forever (Score:5, Informative)
Trans fats have been removed from your favorite foods for a few years now. Can you honestly say you can tell?
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: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.
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.
Too much salt? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Too much salt? (Score:5, Informative)
Really... so sodium chloride plus 2% random crap out of the ocean is inherently better for you than sodium chloride + 2% safe non-clumping agent and iodine? Because that's pretty much what you're comparing. They're 98% the exact same chemical.
Don't take my word for it, ask the May clinic:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sea-salt/AN01142 [mayoclinic.com]
But hell, enjoy your goiters.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I actually did hit up about ten links, I just hit the mayo clinic one because it was from an reputable medical source.
You could argue that those trace minerals have some benefits, but the only real difference in the actual salt is the size of the crystals, which has jack all effect as the salt immediately dissolves when you eat it.
Salary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Thank god for this bill.
When I was a yound boy I started doing salt. I figured yea its just salt right? Afterwards I moved on to cracked pepper and eventually later in life started experimenting with parsley, basil and oregeno. Before I knew it I was hooked on Thyme and garlic and I lost everything. My wife, my job, my kids, all gone. Even the dog ran away. No you will find me lurking on the school grounds giving away free herbs, knowing that once hooked they will never be the same. So please think of the children and avoid my culinary fate.
They should involve the NRA (Score:5, Funny)
Because - wait for it - the next thing you know, they are going to try and ban a salt weapon too.
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.
An alternative: (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we just make it a Federal crime to elect a fucking moron?
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.
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!
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
Because what was bad for his father is obviously bad for everyone. Though I'm sure some people won't mind this bill, particularly the ones who require extremely low sodium diets to cope with various medical conditions.
Re: (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 eithe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL...No. His father killed his father. (Just in case you weren't being sarcastic)
Re:Question (Score:5, Funny)
"My name is Felix Oritz. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
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?
Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Funny)
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: (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.