Should Governments regulate salt content?

[Jenni]

Smoking in the workplace or in restaurants?

This is a separate issue. You can choose to smoke and that's your choice, but when you smoke in a public place then other people are forced to smoke with you.

Education is the way to go, but who's going to do that? Who's responsibility is that?.........

Quite frankly, people need to some responsibility for themselves.

[abooja]

How do you feel about soda machines in schools?

How do you feel about snack machines in schools?

Hydrogenated fats?

Smoking in the workplace or in restaurants?

Fruit flavoured cigars and tobacco products aimed at children?

"Herbal" remedies from countries that have very lax/non-existant food laws?

Meat and produce from countries that have lax food laws?

Education is the way to go, but who's going to do that? Who's responsibility is that?.........

With the exception of an outright ban on hydrogenated fats, all of these things fall under "protect its citizenry". No, we should not feed poison to public school children, nor attempt to lure them into a lifetime of nicotine addiction, but adults are another matter. If I choose to pay for a salt encrusted lard pie, or consume one that I've prepared myself, that is my right. At least, currently. Not for long, I'm afraid.

Edited November 5, 2010 by abooja (log)

[JAZ]

How do you feel about soda machines in schools?

How do you feel about snack machines in schools?

Hydrogenated fats?

Smoking in the workplace or in restaurants?

Fruit flavoured cigars and tobacco products aimed at children?

"Herbal" remedies from countries that have very lax/non-existant food laws?

Meat and produce from countries that have lax food laws?

I'm having a very hard time understanding how any of these examples is parallel to the case of salt. From everything I've read on the subject, which is quite a bit, the only proven link between sodium consumption and health is that some people (about a third) who already suffer from high blood pressure are salt-sensitive. That's a far cry from saying that sodium is "bad" for everyone, even from saying that excess sodium "causes" hypertension.

Would you say that since some people are lactose-intolerant, the government should regulate our dairy intake?

Since some people are allergic to nuts, shellfish, etc., the government should ban those foods?

Since some people have celiac disease, the government should regulate gluten consumption for all?

[Jaymes]

Not to mention that the taxpayers would have to pay for the costs incurred in the setting of these regulations, testing, inspections, enforcement, etc. Of course I know that some folks think the taxpayer funds are limitless and it's only right and proper that they be used for every incredibly arrogant "I'm-going-to-save-you-from-yourself-because-I-know-better-than-you-do-what's-best-for-you," lame-brained, do-gooder, crusader "cause" that somebody comes up with, but I'm not one of them.

And just to let you know... I'm 65 and am on a low-salt diet. I was the cook, bottle-washer and caregiver for my very (past 90-yrs-old) elderly parents, both of whom also had been placed on low-salt diets.

I had absolutely no problem AT ALL reading labels, and finding low-salt options.

Anybody that thinks or reads or cares or is willing to make any effort in that direction whatsoever can do the same.

Without government interference.

Ludicrous.

____________________

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jaymes (log)

[xxchef]

In honor of this thread and it's premise I have added a new candy to our seasonal line-up this year... Sea Salt Toffee!

Get some while it's still legal!

Edited November 5, 2010 by xxchef (log)

[ruthcooks]

I have read that excess salt does not cause high blood pressure in everybody - certain people are susceptible to it.

I read once that this number is 17% only!

Governments should pave roads, help with natural (and man-made) disasters, and protect its citizenry, collecting as few taxes along the way as is absolutely necessary to accomplish these things.

The true role of government is the protection of it's citizens (police and armies and courts), and that means from each other and from foreign powers.

The only road the government paves is the road to hell, currently underway.

Quite frankly, people need to some responsibility for themselves.

Amen.

[

[Florida]

Governments should pave roads, help with natural (and man-made) disasters, and protect its citizenry, collecting as few taxes along the way as is absolutely necessary to accomplish these things.

The true role of government is the protection of it's citizens (police and armies and courts), and that means from each other and from foreign powers.

The only road the government paves is the road to hell, currently underway.

Um, I don't live in Galt's Gulch.

[Edward J]

Salt alone is not responsible for obesity, but salt combined with a diet high in fats and sugar and very little exercise does contribute to obesity.

Why do you say this? In what way does eating salt lead to obesity? Can you cite studies?

There are no medical studies to suggest salt is responsible for obesity, or at least that I know of.

But I hold true to what I said, salt combined with a diet high in fats and sugars, and very litle exercise does contribute to obesity.

How?

Ask any bartender why they put out bowls of salty snacks on the bar counter...

An excess of salt will make you thirsty, salt is a flavour enhanceer and it does stimulate the appetite. How many people sit infront of the TV with a bowl of salty snacks? How many school children have chips or salty snacks in their lunch boxes? What do they drink afterwards? Water? Earl grey Tea? What do they eat afterwards?

Look, any well informed adult should make her/his own choices about what they eat. I'm more concerened about the next generation, and I know what school kids eat and the percentage of overwieght kids in the classroom keeps on growing.

Four years ago I was contracted to supply hot lunches for a local school. My first delivery consisted of home made chicken vegetable soup and home made foccaia buns. Several of the teachers wanted to Knight me, the Gr. 4 teacher had her kids identify the vegetables in the soup, most of the kids have never seen leeks or turnips before. But I got nothing but flak from the parents:

"You're charging $2.50 for some soup?"

"Give 'em something they like, like hotdogs or Pizza.

"We need something healthy, can you get those apple slices with the caramel sauce?"

Some of these parents were high income earners, some were housewives, some College or University educated. I know, I spoke to alot of them. What kind of choices are they making for their children?

How many people actually know that the majority of poultry and pork in the supermarket is pumped with a salt/soya liquid? Beef burger patties? Peanut butter?

Sure it's caveat emporium. People should educate themselves and look after themselves.

Should.

Like the Financial and banking institutions should regulate themselves, like the oil and gas companies should regulate themselves, like the auto mnfctrs should regulate themselves--or do you think they'd actually willingly make cars with seatbelts and run on unleaded gasoline?

Like I said in my second post, I don't see this as a pesonal choice issue, I see it as a public health issue. The choices people are currently making reflect on the growing percentage of overwight citizens--adults AND children.

[Porthos]

From everything I've read on the subject, which is quite a bit, the only proven link between sodium consumption and health is that some people (about a third) who already suffer from high blood pressure are salt-sensitive. That's a far cry from saying that sodium is "bad" for everyone, even from saying that excess sodium "causes" hypertension. (emphasis mine)

Would you say that since some people are lactose-intolerant, the government should regulate our dairy intake?

Since some people are allergic to nuts, shellfish, etc., the government should ban those foods?

Since some people have celiac disease, the government should regulate gluten consumption for all?

Well said.

[nolnacs]

Look, any well informed adult should make her/his own choices about what they eat. I'm more concerened about the next generation, and I know what school kids eat and the percentage of overwieght kids in the classroom keeps on growing.

Now this is something else entirely. If the question is whether the government should regulate the salt content in the lunches provided at public schools, then I have no problem saying yes. Even the most strident libertarian (guilty as charged) can't see much of a problem with that (although there would probably be questions about what level of government should be doing the regulating and whether there should be school lunches at all... but I digress).

However, the idea of going beyond that is just horrifying. If you can justify regulating salt levels on the basis of obesity levels, why can't we have mandated exercise regimes? Monthly weigh ins? Admittedly, those suggestions would be somewhat more difficult for the government to implement, but are based on the same principle.

Personally, I find the concept of public health to be somewhat baffling. It's clear enough in terms of contagious diseases, but to include obesity which is the result of individual choices (whether the child's or the parents') makes it so broad to include everything that could negatively impact health. Driving too fast results in deaths from car accidents- public health issue; adultery leads to great personal turmoil and stress thereby negatively impacting health - public health issue; negative review at work leads to suicide - public health issue. I am being a bit facetious about all this, but I just have a hard time grasping public health as a coherent concept. P

[Jaymes]

Look, any well informed adult should make her/his own choices about what they eat. I'm more concerened about the next generation, and I know what school kids eat and the percentage of overwieght kids in the classroom keeps on growing.

Now this is something else entirely. If the question is whether the government should regulate the salt content in the lunches provided at public schools, then I have no problem saying yes. Even the most strident libertarian (guilty as charged) can't see much of a problem with that (although there would probably be questions about what level of government should be doing the regulating and whether there should be school lunches at all... but I digress).

However, the idea of going beyond that is just horrifying.

I think that various state and local governments already regulate what can be in school lunches. It likely would be relatively easy to add salt content to the list. And probably a good idea.

But "horrifying" is a perfect word to describe further government intrusion into our pantries.

That is indeed the stuff of which futuristic horror movies are made.

___________________________________

Edited November 6, 2010 by Jaymes (log)

[Kajikit]

They don't need to regulate the use of salt - they need to make clear and consistent labelling laws so that we can decide for ourselves what we want to eat!

[Edward J]

They don't need to regulate the use of salt - they need to make clear and consistent labelling laws so that we can decide for ourselves what we want to eat!

Thank you for that, you've made my point very clear.

"THEY"'ve been putting salt content on packaging for some time now. Salt is not given in actual weights, but expressed in a % of your daily requirment. Just look at the packaging.

Like I said, I believe every adult should make choices about thier diet, but I'm more concerned about the children....

Two things upset me to no end:

The first is adults smoking in a car with children in the backseat.

The second is standing in line at the supermarket watching overwieght parents with overweight children unload cases of 2 l pop, salty snacks, and all manner of highly processed foods on the conveyor belt. Not a vegetable or a jug of milk to be seen...

[Kajikit]

They don't need to regulate the use of salt - they need to make clear and consistent labelling laws so that we can decide for ourselves what we want to eat!

Thank you for that, you've made my point very clear.

"THEY"'ve been putting salt content on packaging for some time now. Salt is not given in actual weights, but expressed in a % of your daily requirment. Just look at the packaging.

Like I said, I believe every adult should make choices about thier diet, but I'm more concerned about the children....

Two things upset me to no end:

The first is adults smoking in a car with children in the backseat.

The second is standing in line at the supermarket watching overwieght parents with overweight children unload cases of 2 l pop, salty snacks, and all manner of highly processed foods on the conveyor belt. Not a vegetable or a jug of milk to be seen...

I'm not sure if you're backing me up here or trying to step on me... the fact is that food labelling is such a mess that there is virtually NO WAY to compare products with each other. I do read labels very carefully but a lot of the time the information is deliberately rendered meaningless by the manufacturer. Sure, it says 'one serving contains 600mg sodium' but when you look at the fine print, that 'one serving' is only 1/4 cup! Or else you don't notice the 500g of added potassium to make it taste even saltier.

As for your comment on what people buy, you can't control what somebody else chooses to buy at the grocery store. And there is no way for you to know whether that overweight family made a stop at the vegetable market yesterday and bought a week's supply of fresh fruit already. They may have stocked up on milk and eggs last week and just not need any now. They may only buy soda once a month and drink water the rest of the time.

[Edward J]

I don't know what the US has on it's packaging.

Here in Canada every processed product has a "Nutritional Facts" label

Basically it has the suggested serving size, say 100 grams or a little over 2 oz

Next are two columns, the first is: Calories, fat, saturated fat, +trans fat, Cholesteral, Fibre, Sodium, Sugars, Protein, various vitamins and/or minerals (listed individually)and directly beside these are their weights in milligrams. The next column is expressed with each item given in the percentage of the daily value.

In fresh eggs, for example sodium is given in 140 mg or 6% of your daily value, based on a 100 gram serving.

This, I feel is pretty darn clear and gives you an indication of the actuall amounts of sodium, or Vit. c or Iron you consume, as well as the percentage of what your body would require on a dialy basis. Of course, all of this is based on the serving size, and untill the pointy heads come up with standard serving sizes for soup, cheese, luncheon meats, peanut butter, pancake syrup, etc. etc., the individual mnfctrs will decide on what a "normal serving size" is.

Reminds me of Campbell's soup in the 80's, when they changed their labels to read "Now 1/3 sodium reduced!" What did they do? They based thier serving size on 8 oz instead of 12 oz....

[TheFuzzy]

All,

First of all, I'll echo what others have said: there is NO scientific evidence that a high-salt diet is bad for most people whatsoever. There is weak evidence that a high-salt diet is bad for some people who are already suffering from hypertension (but not even everyone who's hypertensive). But that's it.

So, we're talking about regulating a nutrient and preservative which has dominated human cusine for the past 10,000 years because 5% of the population has a problem with it. Think about that. What's next, bringing back Prohibition?

One thing which aggravates me about this kind of discussion is this particular idea:

No one wants to, or can, put a price tag on health care. But health care is a finite resource. The less strain we put on it for care that could be avoided, the better it will work for us when we really need it--like natural disasters, epidemics, etc.

You know what? I pay my health insurance company $500/month, and that amount goes up every year. They can darn well cover whatever health problems I develop, and quit blaming me for them. All of these "the government should protect our health" fads are deliberate social engineering by the health insurance corporations who are trying to lower their costs while they raise our premiums. You don't think it's a coincidence that the USA started banning smoking when the Aetna candidate was in the White House, do you?

You are being brainwashed.

[Florida]

You know what? I pay my health insurance company $500/month, and that amount goes up every year. They can darn well cover whatever health problems I develop, and quit blaming me for them. All of these "the government should protect our health" fads are deliberate social engineering by the health insurance corporations who are trying to lower their costs while they raise our premiums. You don't think it's a coincidence that the USA started banning smoking when the Aetna candidate was in the White House, do you?

Why should healthy people be forced to subsidize the lifestyles of unhealthy people? If someone chooses to engage in an unhealthy behavior than they should be held responsible for the results of their own actions.

edited for spelling

Edited November 17, 2010 by Florida (log)

[Edward J]

Ah, Fuzzy.

Like I said in my previous posts, there is no link to salt and hypertension or obesity.

But..........

Can you tell me why bar tenders put out bowls of salty snacks on the counter?

Can you argue that salt is NOT addictive, is not an appetite stimulant, or a beverage stimulant?

Can you show me a society or nation since the begining of time that had such copious amounts of salt in all manner of foods? Not just salted meats and vegetables as a prservative, but in every food group, and not for the sake of preservation. Can you show me a society or nation since the beginning of time that had such a high ratio of overweight and obese adults AND children?

Can you argue that health care is NOT a finite resource? It's not a question of who pays how much, it's a question of available manpower and facilities.

When I move into the left lane, I look in my mirrors and shoulder check. What I do may affect all those behind me. I don't know any of those behind me, may or may not even like them, but I do respect them..........

[xxchef]

...Why should healthy people be forced to subsidize the lifestyles of unhealthy people? ...

Ummm, I hate to break it to you but, that's exactly how our health insurance system works. That's what "pool" or "group" insurance is all about: spreading the risks and benefits around. The problem lies in who decides which lifestyles are underwritten and which penalized.

I'm a man. I'm never going to get pregnant (and neither is my wife, for that matter) but you can bet I'm subsidizing pre-natal care through birth of every baby born. I'm not in any kind of risk group for HIV/Aids but a good chunk of my health insurance dollars goes to cover the medical expenses for people who get them. We all subsidize illegal immigrants' and obese peoples' health insurance every month because we, as a society, have decided that we all need to share the risks with these groups, or are at least unwilling/unable to designate them as a group to penalize.

Are evil salt-eaters so worrisome as to deserve special sanctions?

[TheFuzzy]

Edward,

Actually, health care is not a finite resource. The USA and Canada both are easily capable of supplying more health care than their citizens are capable of consuming. The reason the USA does not is because here healh care consists of 90% corporate profits. I've done the books of insurance corporations.

I might be willing to accept changes to my lifestyle if it would substantially lower my premiums. But instead, insurance companies will try to outlaw unhealthy behaviors, while raising my premiums, so that they can make higher profits. I see no reason to play ball with that.

As for the rest of your arguments ... name once that legislating healthful behavior has ever worked.

[Edward J]

Having two teenage kids I can honestly say that "legislating" anything will NOT have the desired effect......

Then again, you have to admit that there's not as many smokers as there were 30 and 40 years ago.....

And yet, yet you have to agree that our current N.American society has the highest ratio of overweight adults and children. While salt isn't the biggest evil--I'm of the opinion lack of exercise is--I truly believe that it does contribute to an overweight population.

Many countries--including Canada, have universal healthcare. My Mother, for example was treated for a broken hip, caught pneumonia in the hospital and stayed there for weeks. We paid nothing. Or did we? Money has to come from somewhere, no Gov't has a printing press to run off more money, so the costs get fobbed on the tax payer. It always does.

If you look at Europe and countries like Canada, the federal Gov'ts have a vested interest healthcare. This responsibility is not passed on to private corporations. It's not only about keeping healthcare costs down, but to keep the country's productivity steady and maintaining a respectable level of public health.

It's a interesting arguement.

In the meantime, I wonder what it will take to get N. America's weight down.

[Florida]

...Why should healthy people be forced to subsidize the lifestyles of unhealthy people? ...

Ummm, I hate to break it to you but, that's exactly how our health insurance system works. That's what "pool" or "group" insurance is all about: spreading the risks and benefits around. The problem lies in who decides which lifestyles are underwritten and which penalized.

I'm a man. I'm never going to get pregnant (and neither is my wife, for that matter) but you can bet I'm subsidizing pre-natal care through birth of every baby born. I'm not in any kind of risk group for HIV/Aids but a good chunk of my health insurance dollars goes to cover the medical expenses for people who get them. We all subsidize illegal immigrants' and obese peoples' health insurance every month because we, as a society, have decided that we all need to share the risks with these groups, or are at least unwilling/unable to designate them as a group to penalize.

Are evil salt-eaters so worrisome as to deserve special sanctions?

Well yes and no. As a non-smoker, my premiums are less than a smoker's. Insurance companies understand that smoker's will likely have more health problems and are charged a higher premium for their lifestyle choices. While I would agree the goal or "pool" coverage is to spread the risk around, I would argue that risk is not necessarily spread equally.

Now considering a health insurance policy is a private contract between the insured and the insurer, should the insurer indicate that high blood pressure, BMI, or, theoretically, sodium consumption, increased their risk and decided to charge a higher premium for that risk, than such would be their right to do so. If the person seeking insurance balked at the higher premium, they would be free to refuse to enter into such a contract.

[Jaymes]

Like I said in my second post, I don't see this as a personal choice issue...

As far as I'm concerned, this is your argument in a nutshell, and I, for one, vehemently disagree.

Nobody is going to argue that a lot of salt is good for you. And, to me anyway, whether or not it is good for you is not the issue at all, so your arguments to that effect are completely and totally irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is your statement that you don't "see this as a personal choice issue."

And I do.

I'll take it one step further:

You stay out of my pantry, and don't decide what I do and do not need. And I won't come to your pantry and tell you what I think you do and do not need.

If that's a deal, then you better not have any sodas in your pantry. At least salt is an element that humans need. Cokes and 7-up and sodas are nothing but crap. And if you have any, when I get to your pantry, it's all going into the trash.

___________________________

Edited November 18, 2010 by Jaymes (log)

[xxchef]

Having two teenage kids I can honestly say that "legislating" anything will NOT have the desired effect......

Then again, you have to admit that there's not as many smokers as there were 30 and 40 years ago.....

True, but that was education, not legislation that accomplished that (with a little help from taxation, I suspect).

[Paul Kierstead]

From the article (people did read it, right?):

The study, published on Tuesday in Heart, a British Medical Journal publication, showed that when food firms controlled salt content, rates of heart disease and strokes fell by about 1 per cent, but when governments imposed rules, those rates fell by 18 per cent.

Regardless of whether salt directly causes heart disease, it would seem that regulating it has the outcome of reducing it. This may or may not mean the government should regulate it (that is politics), but I fail to see how we can deny the effectiveness of it unless someone can step up and refute the study.