Big Mother is watching you

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

I should note, for the record, I generally have to stick to a low salt diet. But its my choice, or was. Big Mother is coming to insure this is not an issue.

Mayor Bloomberg Declares War On ... Salt
Hizzoner Calls On U.S. Manufacturers To Reduce Salt Content Until It Results In A 50 Percent Cut In 10 Years
Citizens Revolt, Claim NYC Is Turning Into Nanny State Reporting

Singer Jimmy Buffett will never find his "lost shaker of salt" in New York City or any other place in the country if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way. The mayor is waging a war on salt and he wants food manufacturers and restaurants to join his army … or else.

It's ironic that the war on salt began on the very day the city was spreading tons of it on the streets to fight a snow storm, but in Bloomberg's view there is good salt … and bad salt.

City officials said that people don't realize the salt content of the things they buy in the supermarket. For example, potato chips you would think are the saltiest thing in the store but they have only 180 milligrams per serving. Turkey meatballs, on the other hand, have 660 milligrams per serving. Marble cake has 300 per serving and chicken noodle soup has nearly 1,400 milligrams of salt per serving.

The city's plan is to get food manufacturers in the United States to agree to gradually start reducing salt content until it reaches a 50 percent cut in 10 years.

"Salt, when its high in the diet, increases the blood pressure and high blood pressure is a major factor for heart disease and stroke," said Dr. Sonia Angell of NYC's Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Program.

This is just Mayor Bloomberg's latest health initiative, following on the heels of a smoking ban, a ban on trans fats and forcing restaurants to post the calorie contents.

But many New Yorkers peppered the mayor with boos for his latest idea.

"I don't think they should do that," a woman in Manhattan named "Nora" told CBS 2 HD. "Because I like salt in my food."

"I don't think it's that big a deal to look on the label, check the packaging and make the decision for yourself rather than have Bloomberg or whoever mandate what it is people should or shouldn't eat," said Paul Hope of Upper West Side.

"Nanny state. We don't need any more nanny state people can take care of themselves. We don't need the government to take care of us," said Patrick Keenan of Hell's Kitchen.

The city says it doesn't want to eliminate salt in food, just go back to the levels found during the 1970s.

Thomas Frieden, the city's health commissioner, said he wants manufacturers and restaurants to join the war on salt voluntarily. If they don't, the city could pass legislation making it the law.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I applaud the move.

Ever since convenience food overtook homecooking as the staple diet of the West (well, the US and the UK at any rate) we have been developing Health problems, and not just Obesity, which threaten to attain epidemic proportions before long.

Customers have every right to know how much of what goes into the food they are eating. High levels of Sodium are proven to be detrimental to Health. Now, a happy medium here would be to force manufacturers to warn the customer about excess levels on the packaging. At this point, it becomes an informed decision, whether or not they customer chooses to read it. But right now, who knows what the hell you are eating?

Why is so much Salt used? Is it really necessary? I dunno. But reducing it is possible, because as the article says, he wants to go back to levels in the 70's. Sure, the fashion was crap, but the food was better for you.

**Frazzled**

So you're ok with the government telling you what you can and cannot eat? I'm not talking about information on the package about contents and amounts, but actually limiting what you can eat?

Isn't that one of the most basic of rights?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

But thats the thing. They aren't saying 'you're not allowed salt you're not' instead, they are asking manufacturers and Restaurants to limit how much salt *they* put into the food.

Me, I quite like salty food, but I prefer to know how much is already in it before I go adding some. Just inform the populace first.

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:So you're ok with the government telling you what you can and cannot eat? I'm not talking about information on the package about contents and amounts, but actually limiting what you can eat?

Isn't that one of the most basic of rights?

Do you have a problem with the Govt. enforcing things like food safety standards? God damn nanny state preventing you from being fed rotten rf contaminated meat, you've got a right to be poisoned .

Unless they're forcibly coming round your house and taking away your table salt I fail to see how this is anything other than a sensible idea with regards to public health.

**Frazzled**

There is a blinding huge gulf between spoiled meat and..salt.

Spoiled meat bad.
Salt good.

Again, do you want the governent telling you what to eat. I mean, after all government knows best and has never done anything wrong.

"You get two pats of butter per day Mr. Churchill, now stand up and do your exercises. You don't want to vist the rats again do you Mr. Churchill? "

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:So you're ok with the government telling you what you can and cannot eat? I'm not talking about information on the package about contents and amounts, but actually limiting what you can eat?

Isn't that one of the most basic of rights?

They're not talking about limiting what we can eat. They're talking about limiting the salt put into food during processing.

This already happens on a voluntary basis in the UK and I simply add salt to my taste when I eat it.

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:There is a blinding huge gulf between spoiled meat and..salt.

Spoiled meat bad.
Salt good.

Indeed. But too much salt bad. Your food currently has too much.

I see the gulf between claiming that the govt. forcing manufacturers to make their food less toxic and seeing this as "Nanny state" as being much wider than any your putting forward.

Lousy Govt. forcing the companies to stop putting phosphorous on matches-- my kids work for their money.

Again, do you want the government telling you what to eat. I mean, after all government knows best and has never done anything wrong.

Of course they do. They lock people up without a trial, and they instigate pointless wars-- shall we do this dance again.

t would appear that if they'd got Fox to announce it as THE WAR ON SALT, then everything would be fine ?

**Frazzled**

Nope.

Again, my food doesn't have too much salt. I use the required disclosures to insure that.

We've moved beyond something that is unhealthy to something that is unhealthy if you eat a lot of it. Where does it end? Please someone point out to me where the government has the duty to limit our salt in take in the US Constitution?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Well there you go then Frazz.

You have the good sense to have a shufty at the label to see whats in it (mostly this is only done by the unfortunates who have food allergies) and can then make an informed choice.

Companies do use excessive levels of Salt in their Ready Meals etc simply as a cheap flavour enhancer. The diner (if they are anything like me) then adds more.

And note that the Governor is asking Restaurants etc to join this plan voluntarily first. I'd imagine it's quite within his powers to enforce this without much in the way of consultation, so surely the fact he is looking for an opt in solution is a good thing?

Now, compared to a Smoking Ban (passive smoking is unpleasent for non-smokers, and I fully back that) and Trans Fats (which I understand are yet more man-made nasties utterly unrequired in our diets) sure, it seems a bit Nanny State, but they aren't saying you're not allowed Salt ever at all.

They are simply trying to make it as optional as possible. If you like lots of salt in your food, go for it. But when something can be damaging to health, I think the Government* is right to step in, and do what they can to reduce the impact of an illinformed choice on behalf of the consumer.

*Please remember however, in Britain we have the NHS, and by having the Government legislate additional food standards, we can reduce the burden on this two legged arthirtic Donkey we call a health service, so my opinion cannot help but be coloured by this!

**Frazzled**

1. Where does the government get the authority?
2. If the standard is "damaging to health" then pretty much everything except water is potentially damaging.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Dude, relax. He is trying to help people reduce their intake of something which in high doses can be lethal.

The Government has the authority, I presume, as it has a duty to protect it's electorate, and not just from nutcases with bombs. The Companies who oversalt their food to improve flavour are making a fast buck at the expense of the consumers health.

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:
We've moved beyond something that is unhealthy to something that is unhealthy if you eat a lot of it. Where does it end? Please someone point out to me where the government has the duty to limit our salt in take in the US Constitution?

Presumably next to the bit where they have the power to set alcohol limits with regards to driving, set speed limits etc etc.

Trying to phrase this as some slippery slope to totalitarianism is just ridiculous.

**oomiestompa**

Big Mother? If you're referencing 1984, it's Big Brother.

And anyway, the correct reference in this case would be to Demolition Man.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:1. Where does the government get the authority?
2. If the standard is "damaging to health" then pretty much everything except water is potentially damaging.

You can die of water if you drink too much. That's what killed Leah Betts.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Indeed it is.

And considering her Dad was a Rozzer, and her Mum a Nurse, I thought they had a bloody cheek complaining about Drugs at a party. I mean, if *they* can't spot it, who can?

**Polonius**

Frazzled wrote:1. Where does the government get the authority?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United State's Constitution, and Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Unless you were just being rhetorical....

2. If the standard is "damaging to health" then pretty much everything except water is potentially damaging.

Potentially indeed.

**Frazzled**

The fact people think this is ok makes me weep (ok not really but sounds good).

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Tell you what Frazzled, I can make a shonky comparisson to Passive Smoking for you, in an effort to explain where I am coming from on this, as it strikes me I might be muddling thoughts somewhat.

Now, Passive Smoking is semi-voluntary, in so far that you have a choice whether to visit a locale likely to be frequented by smokers. However, it is unfair of the smoker, whose choice of slowly killing ourselves is our own, to make that your decision. I can pop outside for 5 minutes to have a smoke. It is easier for me to give than you. Hence smoking ban.

With the Salt. Again, it is a semi-voluntary act to eat too much Salt. The decision to put high levels in lies with the manufacturer, and it is the consumers choice whether or not to eat said Ready Meals. But again, this isn't a choice the consumer should really have to make on a health basis. Ergo, the manufacturer should be the one to relent, thus allowing the consumer to add as much or little salt to their diet as they wish.

**Frazzled**

Your analogy is incorrect. You have complete choice in the intake of salt. Don't buy the products.

**LuciusAR**

I say a nice middle ground is the way forward. Make the law to put in strong visible lettering on the packaging, the salt content of all products. With next to that in just as visible lettering the Salt level recommendations as defined by the medical profession. The same could apply to fat.

That way everyone can know exactly if what they purchasing is high or low in salt. If the public vote with their wallets then the industry will start to regulate itself. Everyone wins, and all without "Big Mother!"

**Polonius**

I don't have any problem with it. I can always add more salt to anything that's not salty enough. It's almost impossible to buy prepared, canned, or frozen foods that aren't loaded with salt, and a lot of people can't eat that much of it. I know my roommate has to restrict pretty heavily what he eats. We know that they could lower the amount of salt used and not change the quality of the product, unlike the stupid sugar in cereal thing from a few years back. Alpha bits is now totally inedible.

I don't know if I'm really happy with this being law, but history has shown that laws can often create markets that don't arise naturally. Is this part of a nanny state? Maybe, but let's not forget who eats more salt than anybody else: the lower classes. They are, in turn, far more likely to be on governmental health benefits as the impact of their diet comes home. I know, I know, if you eliminate Medicare and Medicaid you can eliminate this, but that's not a serious option.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Frazzled wrote:Your analogy is incorrect. You have complete choice in the intake of salt. Don't buy the products.

You can always opt not to go out to avoid passive smoking. But again, it is the selfish choice of another focing you to make a choice, and a choice which impacts on your enjoyment of life.

People shouldn't have to check labels to see if something is going to kill them, just as going for a drink with some friends shouldn't have to involve you reeking of stale tobacco smoke.

**Frazzled**

And I can opt out of eating salty food. Whats the difference?

You need salt to live. Its not going to kill you.

**Vandez**

Weighing in for the middle ground, here. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Governments stepping in unless the products in question are immediately life-threatening: I am, however, in favour of legislation forcing manufacturers to label products with food contents with respect to the RDA of certain substances.

It's fair that people should know what they're eating, but at some point we all have to take responsibility for what we shove down our cake-holes.

**Polonius**

Frazzled wrote:And I can opt out of eating salty food. Whats the difference?

You need salt to live. Its not going to kill you.

do you have an actual problem with the law that you can articulate, or is this just "more government = worse government" rote material? I mean, I can see problems with the law, so I'm certainly not saying it's a good idea, but I can also see benefits. The way I see it, if the costs due to reducing salt, as borne by consumers of food in higher prices and taxes in enforcement are less than the costs associated with high salt diets, it's increased health premiums to health insurance consumers and increased taxes in governmental health care, it's probably worth looking into. I'd need to see a lot of numbers and a fair amount of evidence, but it's possible this is an idea that will not only make people healthier, but save everybody, particularly the working class taxpayer you champion, money in the end.

It's times like this it's important to remember that we already have socialized medicine, it's just not called that and not really run like it. Nobody goes untreated for emergency stuff for inability to pay. Somebody pays, just not the person without coverage. Either the government does (in which case it comes out of tax revenue) or the Health Care provider simply writes it off, and increases the rates of all paying patients accordingly (in which case it comes out of the pockets of the self insured and the pockets of businesses that insure their employees). Given all that, wouldn't governmental efforts to prevent expensive conditions that we all pay for be a good thing?

**BloodofOrks**

Frazzled wrote:Your analogy is incorrect. You have complete choice in the intake of salt. Don't buy the products.

Except the products with too much salt consist of the vast majority of foods. My mother has a degenerative Kidney disease and as a result, can eat almost no salt. Because she can eat no salt, she cannot buy prepackaged foods or go out to eat at most restaurants. She has to make her own meals entirely from scratch with fresh ingredients because prepackaged foods contain too much salt for her. The expense of food as a result of this is a strain on the family budget. You can always add more salt if you like. I fail to see why these companies would object anyway. By your reasoning, wouldn't the people who didn't buy their products before, because of the high salt content, now buy said products since they now have lower levels of salt?

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:And I can opt out of eating salty food. Whats the difference?

The fact that most of the food in America is ridiculously salty, and so off limits to anyone on a large selection of blood pressure medications, undergoing cardiovascular therapy, or suffering from kidney problems. You can always add more salt, you can't take it out once its in the food.

Frazzled wrote:
You need salt to live. Its not going to kill you.

I suppose that all the fuss about desalinization in places like Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, is completely unfounded then? I mean, salt isn't going to kill you, so why not drink brackish water all the time?

**Frazzled**

Dogma you're being a bit of a smart A**, with that last statement. By that logic the government should limit EVERYTHING. Everything in excess will kill you. Too much oxygen, too much water, will kill you.

By that standard the government has carte blanche to govern and cocntrol everything. After all, the internet and free speech could be harmful to you-have to stop that. Gay intercourse could kill you-have to regulate that.

Oh well. I'll shut up now and kowtow to the government and people who actually think this is a good idea. After all, if you can't beat'em join 'em. How do I get to join the Party?

**Belphegor**

Frazzled: Your analogy is incorrect. You have complete choice in the intake of salt. Don't buy the products.

That's only true if non-salted foods are readily available.
Think of it like politics or law, and the politicians and lawyers are the food products to purchase.
Even if they are labeled with their self-serving lies (or SSL by the FDA) content on their packaging.
You wouldn't be able to find SSL free or reduced products,
unless you shopped for them in high end socially conscious outlets.
Which isn't economically feasible for everyone looking to purchase a lawyer or politician.