Impeach the FDA (Page 4)

merlin2375 - 2010-04-21 3:44 PM First since you asked: I am calling you crazy!

Second, as far as the studies you posted, I have bolded and enlarged the parts that are relevant. I'm not sitting here munching on salt cubes as a snack as I type this post and I don't think anyone here is really saying that one can eat as much salt as they ever wanted without any ill  health affect. That would be a ludicrous comment to make. The bottom line is people need to start looking in the mirror to find the person responsible for their salt intake (fat intake, caloric intake, exercise output, drinking/smoking choices, etc, etc, etc). As has been alluded to for most  people salt intake just isn't a problem because they're either naturally ok, physically fit, or because they've already taken steps to lower their salt intake. Tell me where the FDA fits in. If salt were really an issue people would be demanding it from the market and companies would comply to stay competitive.

As far as individual liberty. As a consumer you are artificially taking away my choice eroding my ability to make any decision. You are eroding my responsiblity by trying to further the notion that "I don't have to look, someone else is". Last, you're eroding the ability of private individuals to form businesses in the private sector that sell products that people want and are willing to pay for. If you make a product no one wants, believe me, you'll know.

gearboy - 2010-04-21 4:06 PM Since the citations here didn't say how much is too much, you guys are arguing about non-existant numbers (not that they don't exist at all, but neither of you is able to say whether the typical american diet is high or low relative to what the studies refer to.

But again with the exalted "free market". I just read in the paper that somebody got fined for selling moldy tomatoes to manufacturers like Heinz.  The fines were imposed by the government.  Personally, I hate ketchup, so all you ketchup eaters can have moldy tomatoes for all I care.  But I doubt if you would knowingly eat bad food.  So as the consumer without any levels of protection, you wouldn't get a say in the presence/absence of mold.  If we say the "consumer" is Heinz, well, if the "free market" worked as you imply, they wouldn't have needed the government to punish the supplier - they would just have stopped buying if moldy food was a problem; or kept it up if they got it cheaply and it didn't affect sales.

So, to address your points that I bolded: If you choose to have excess salt/mold/rat feces in your food, go ahead and buy some and add it.  If you think others would also enjoy it, then feel free to sell your "additives".  If you don't  think people should be interdependent on one another, I feel sorry for you.  I would not want to have to make my pharaceuticals because I couldn't believe that they were being appropriately monitored in the manufacturing process to have the appropriate amounts of medicine that was being listed.  I personally DO expect "someone" (i.e. someone answerable to the people, not the foxes guarding the henhouse) to make sure things are "OK". And as for making products people want - well, I can secretly add cocaine and heroin to my products, and make SURE that people buy them.  But I won't think that would really be what the "free market" is about.  You am now answerable to your addiction. 

(It reminds me of an old Harvard Lampoon story about Che Guevara becoming addicted to coca cola, because of the cocaine in it, and ending up the way he did because he could no longer do anything but scheme of ways to get more coca cola). No regulation means I can make my "Gearboy's Energy Muffins - guaranteed to improve your energy!" and not list the ingredients, or lie on the package, because I am giving the people what they think they want.  "It's all natural, made from the finest imported ingredients, with love and care.  No machines used in the manufacturing! Proceeds help indigenous peoples maintain the lifestyles that have existed for millennia!"  Believe me - you won't be able to stop buying them.  And if you find you are having trouble winding down, I can sell you my "Gearboy's sleepy-time cookies".  "All natural ingredients, guaranteed to help you feel calm and relaxed." Again, you won't want to quit them either.

merlin2375 - 2010-04-21 4:15 PM

You would have a point about people not knowingly eating tainted food but for the fact that food manufacturers print right on the back of every product exactly what's in it and specific to this thread exactly how much salt is in the product. It's right there. You make it sound like it's obfuscated or hard to figure out. Heck, you don't even have to fill out any forms or call anyone. Just turn the box or bag over and READ it.

I think there's some mix up about the issue being addressed in this thread. The salt isn't tainted, it isn't negligently being messed with, the manufacturers aren't saying a product has X amount of salt but in reality it is 10 times as much salt. They make a product, write what it is, and sell it. If you buy it, assume the responsibility for your purchase. The companies are beholden to the market.

If this thread were about knowingly or negligently selling bad or tainted foods, we could talk. Or if this thread were about simplifying food packaging so that rather than just showing milligrams and % DV, the packaging showed 1 number like "1" or "2". And then someone could add those up and end up with a simple number at the end of the day perhaps there would be something to talk about (though again, I think adding milligrams is simple, basic math).

gearboy - 2010-04-21 4:27 PM So you are OK with the government inspecting food for being contaminated, or that the labels are in fact accurate? Or that there have to be labels at all?  If so, then we are not really arguing about some Libertarian ideal of government leaving the "free market" alone.  We are really arguing the details.  And that is my point in most of these sorts of threads.  The issue isn't "get the government out of the way".  It is how much oversight is reasonable tradeoffs.

I believe it is reasonable to limit the amount of salt in the food.  You do not.  We disagree about the degree of interfence, but not the principle, if the answers to the first 2 question is "yes". I think it is reasonable because I think no one person can know everything they need to know. If an individual knows that sodium may be harmful, and chooses to add more of it to their diet, that is clearly the system working at its best. I don't have to work to avoid harm, I do have to work to increase my exposure to it.

crusevegas - 2010-04-21 3:02 PM

Now you are talking! Just think how many children would benefit from this.

scoobysdad - 2010-04-21 2:00 PM   Really, we might as well just start setting up dormitories for the kids to completely remove parental responsibility .

Fastyellow - 2010-04-21 3:12 PM

If parents were responsible, we wouldn't even be having these discussions.

merlin2375 - 2010-04-21 4:41 PM
It's about classic liberalism. Here's how it was defined recently in the Journal:

"Classical liberals, whose modern counterparts are libertarians and small-government conservatives, believed that the state's duties should be limited (1) to provide for the national defense; (2) to protect persons and property against force and fraud; and (3) to provide public goods that markets cannot"

Selling tainted or negligent food falls squarely into number 2. It's a fraud to sell food as good food knowing its tainted (if they want to print on it that it's tainted then sure they can sell it, find me someone that will buy it). Salt does not, there is no force (you don't have to buy it) and there is no fraud (it tells you what's in it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

bradword - 2010-04-21 2:14 PM

Your point?  Some people aren't responsible with credit, maybe we should take all of your credit cards and not ever give you a mortgage.  Some aren't responsible with alcohol, I guess you are ok taking that away.  Sex, some people spread disease and get preg. too young, lets stop sex.  This is the slippery slope people keep trying to talk to you about. 

trinnas - 2010-04-21 3:22 PM  Then again there seem to be many people on the board who believe they should have a say, through the government, in many of the private decisions in other peoples lives.

Fastyellow - 2010-04-21 6:41 PM

To be honest, I haven't seen one person say that. No one in this thread has said anything about how much salt you can eat. Not one person. You can have spoon fulls on all your food...knock yourself out. This is the misconception and where the argument stalls.

You can eat whatever you want...This has nothing to do with what individuals want to eat. No one is going to ban salt or sodium...ie their slippery slope bs.

Regulating industry is not the same as dictating what you can and can't eat. There is no personal freedom issue here..

trinnas - 2010-04-21 3:51 PM

No you just want to regulate business that provide food in order to keep people from eating too much salt.  And you don't want to just make sure they are selling food that is not tainted you want to regulate how they make their food, never mind that salt is often used in these foods as a preservative.  Note the more "convenient" the food the higher the salt content.  Should I not have the right to choose to eat convenient food at times and balance my own salt intake?

trinnas - 2010-04-21 6:51 PM

No you just want to regulate business that provide food in order to keep people from eating too much salt.  And you don't want to just make sure they are selling food that is not tainted you want to regulate how they make their food, never mind that salt is often used in these foods as a preservative.  Note the more "convenient" the food the higher the salt content.  Should I not have the right to choose to eat convenient food at times and balance my own salt intake?

gearboy - 2010-04-21 7:27 PM

Well, that is exactly the counter-argument.  If "they" (the industry) could make the same foods with less salt, don't I have the same right to the same convenient foods?  If you like them saltier, get out your shaker and add it.  But I can't remove salt from the food.

As others have said, no one is banning salt overall.  If you want it, add it.

So Fresh So Clean - 2010-04-21 9:49 AM

Hypertensive here. I love this idea, and this is why:

I try to reduce my sodium intake. But if I don't have enough time to BAKE MY OWN BREAD for the week, I have to eat store-bought bread. Two slices contain 17% of my daily recommended salt intake. And some times, if I don't have a left over chicken breast to place on that store-bought bread, and I have to eat salami, that is ~40% of my intake... for one sandwich.

Honestly guys, when you eat less salt, you don't notice it. Then when you try salty foods again, they taste awful.

trinnas - 2010-04-21 7:34 PM
You do. You can either accept their sodium content and balance it else where.  or.. Buy the food with the salt content that you desire...or..  If there is no such food come up with your own, market it, get rich if others like it...or..  Shoot get together with friends and lobby the food company to reduce their sodium content.  You are not helpless without the government, and may be just may be you will have to find food that you like without messing with the food I like.

Btw I eat very little processed food because it is too salty for my taste, it has yet to cause me serious issues.  I do not feel it is the job of the food companies to pander to my taste instead of pandering to the tastes of the largest proportion of consumers.

gearboy - 2010-04-23 9:32 AM



I also eat little processed food, in part for the same reason, and in part because I have borderline hypertension, and a bad family history for heart disease.  Which, along with my weight concerns, realistically makes me a typical consumer. The food companies essentially trained the american palate to the high salt tastes, as well as the convenience of having processed foods.  I would very much like to have that choice of eating processed foods and spending more time doing things besides cooking. 

In addition, there is very strong evidence that the foods that we are exposed to as children have long term, even life long implications.  If children, who are not really going to be having a lot of choices about cooking, who often will have prepared foods (e.g. the kid who has a Hot Pocket to eat when he comes home from school without anyone home to make a meal), and who realistically are NOT going to be counting salt mg, are now going to be saddled with a lifelong battle in terms of diet, I see this issue as one where, having failed to make the changes voluntarily, the industry faces regulation and appropriately so.

But I have my opinion, you clearly have yours.  I doubt either of us are going to change our minds.

gearboy - 2010-04-23 10:32 AM I also eat little processed food, in part for the same reason, and in part because I have borderline hypertension, and a bad family history for heart disease.  Which, along with my weight concerns, realistically makes me a typical consumer. The food companies essentially trained the american palate to the high salt tastes, as well as the convenience of having processed foods.  I would very much like to have that choice of eating processed foods and spending more time doing things besides cooking.

gearboy - 2010-04-23 10:32 AM In addition, there is very strong evidence that the foods that we are exposed to as children have long term, even life long implications.  If children, who are not really going to be having a lot of choices about cooking, who often will have prepared foods (e.g. the kid who has a Hot Pocket to eat when he comes home from school without anyone home to make a meal), and who realistically are NOT going to be counting salt mg, are now going to be saddled with a lifelong battle in terms of diet, I see this issue as one where, having failed to make the changes voluntarily, the industry faces regulation and appropriately so.

But I have my opinion, you clearly have yours.  I doubt either of us are going to change our minds.The issue here isn't about salt. To look a this and only see salt as the issue then I think it is to miss the main point.

JBrashear - 2010-04-23 11:14 AM As long as they let me keep my salt lick in my cubicle, I don't care what they do.

merlin2375 - 2010-04-23 11:12 AM

Now you're venturing into the realm of "well, I know how to better raise your kid than you do". If you're of the mind that parents can't take responsibility for feeding their kids hotpockets or teaching their kids what to eat and what not to eat (at an appropriate age, when below that age to only keep health things in the house as desired) then you may as well abdicate all child-rearing responsibilities to the Government.

...

gearboy - 2010-04-23 12:45 PM Well, you've taken my point and turned it 180 degrees, and then added some paranoia as well. 

Do you have a problem with the government regulating the amount of advertising directed at children as well? Do you consider that "abdicating child rearing responsibilities"?  If you do, then we clearly have such different ideas about the role of regulation, especially with regards to how parents, that there is no point in further debate on this point.