Discussion on:

They came for my salt shaker and then my sugar bowl

We are all different, no matter how organizations keep saying all people are the same. Regualar blood tests can tell if you need to reduce salt and/or sugar. Or your level might be just right.

Just like cholesterol, an over weight person with little exercise and ok diet can have good cholesterol and a will fit person, lots of exercise, good diet can have heavy cholesterol.

I have seen both cases and believe it is common. I believe preventive doctor care is more important to determine one's health than someone you have never met.

The point of this regulation is to keep manufacturers from poisoning
you without your knowledge.

It's hard to follow a doctor's advice to reduce salt, for instance, if
you are regularly eating a cup of soup at your desk and find out later
it has over a gram of salt in it. Very tough.

And it doesnt really help.

Granted its a step in the right direction but education for the consumers is equally important.

We have enforced labelling of all additives, including salt on our packaging for over a year to my knowledge and probably longer. I'm not sure whether salt is mandatory but everything carries a little blue label or at least an RDA-based percentage in the nutritional information, which IS mandatory.

People still buy packaged and convenience goods knowing full well they contain too much sugar, and salt, but the policies on additives mean that consumers are buying them to avoid the REALLY nasty additives that most manufacturers still insist on using. Things like Aspartame, Acesulphame-K, Tartrazine and a whole slew of chemicals we are constantly warned to avoid.

What we really need is a decade-long campaign to educate people as to the best way to enjoy the process of fueling their bodies - it is after all a life process, and not an entertainment although to look at our culture you'd think otherwise.

Peace!

The plan of the IOM is to force reductions in the amount of salt in
packaged foods, by regulation. To do it gradually, year by year, until
you get down to the 1970 levels in 2020 and no one needs to know that
things have changed, because their taste buds have adjusted.

"Corporations aren?t telling you, they?re not giving you the choice"

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Read the mandatory nutrition label. The information is there so we do hav.

Being uneducated is what's unhealthy. That and being stressed out by too many taxes and price increases due to over-regulation. If people don't want products with salt in them, they don't have to buy them. It's called freedom of choice and that's what the government should be preserving, not making people conform to the "you're too stupid to understand so we'll make your decisions for you" way of thinking.

You're welcome to recommend your version of healthy choices to me, and provide educational information, but the decision is up to me. If you try to force it down my throat, don't be surprised if you get kicked someplace you don't want to be.

They'll only use more table salt on their tasteless tv dinners...

I see your point, we also have education in place now and its also ineffective. But perhaps Suncat also has a point, and the best option really is just to remove the choice entirely.

But quietly now...

Perhaps the solution is to not buy the pre-prepared foodstuffs and let the manufacturers know why. I stopped buying flavoured yoghurt 15 years ago when I realised one small pottle had FIVE teaspoons of sugar in it. It doesn't take long to mix some frozen berries into plain yoghurt and add a little bit of sugar to suit your own taste.

Cooking skills are very easy to come by, and need to be encouraged

Manufacturers are responsible for 80% of the salt you consume. You're
not buying that stuff because you prefer saltier stuff. You're buying
that stuff because that's what is on the shelf.

Change what is on the shelf and the choice becomes yours, not the
corporations.

We're also talking about a gradual, 10 year, phased in change,
according to the IOM report. And if you don't like what you get, then
it's your choice to use more salt.

But we didn't jump in salt intake to the degree we did because we all
suddenly decided we really liked salt. We did it because salt was
cheap and unregulated. And the manufacturers used that hole in the
regulations to feed us sea water.

@DanaBlankenhorn: Sea water contains 35,0000 milligrams of salt per liter. That's 9 to 10 times the amount of salt consumed per day by Americans. Calling our food "sea water" is a gross exaggeration meant to induce hysteria, especially since the increase in sodium intake since 1970 to today is about 50% and in no way could have gone from acceptable to "sea water".

You also didn't mention that the Institute of Medicine is part of the National Academy of Sciences (which is what Lincoln established in 1863) with an official mandate to advise the government on science. As such, it's a quasi-official branch of the government with much greater access than your typical non-profit. These guys exist to modify public policy.

"Liberty is an individual right, not a corporate right."

WHAT THE ...?!

how?

Hi, you missing a big point, the processed food industry is putting to much salt in, we only need 1500mg of salt per day. If you eat two pieces of a large pizza, you already got 2000mg. The AHA has stated that excessive salt is causing 30% more heart attacks a year due to high blood pressure brought on my too much salt intake. That much salt is not added for taste alone, its to preserve the food longer. By improving the packaging they can lower the salt and still preserve the food just as long, and make it healthier to eat. No one is regulating people's intake of salt, they are limiting processed food companies from adding too much. By the way sea salt is better for you, its the sodium content of food thats the problem, not just salt. Sea salt has less sodium chloride and other salts so it does not raise blood pressure as much for equal portions of it.

there is no truth that sugar causes diabetes, gum diease , or raised cholesterol levels, nor is there any study that has shown that salt in diets of those with a normal metabolism is harmful. both of them are urban myths spread by the unkowing to the uneducated.
both substances make food taste better, which is why they are put into food. if one wants to eat tasteless food, that is his choice. still most processed food is made to be bland because most people do not like strong tastes. those that do make their own.
maybe we should quit this crap over the evils of sugar and salt. obesity is caused by normal people eating too much food.

the idea that sea salt is better for one is also nonsense. all salt is sea salt, whether just gathered in an evaporstive pond or mined in the midwest. the difference is that the mined salt is probably purer because it was layed down eons ago when the oceans were not polluted by man, nor by any mammals.(maybe not by living things at all)
i have heard the story, made only to sell sea salt, that there is less sodium chloride in sea salt, but never have been given any evidence that the difference was significant. no one who advertises this ever gives data, just empty promises (called ******** by the knowledgeable)

Mr. Blankenhorn's illustration of a difference between regulation of corporations (who IMHO are not
individuals) and individuals regarding choice is "dead-on." This becomes more readily evident when
looking at poor communities where much less choice is available and protection of the general
welfare is a higher moral imperative if we are who we say we are. Unfortunately in these
communities it's cheaper, more corporately profitable and in most cases only affordable to procure
foods for your family that long term consumption of leads to metabolic syndrome {hypertension,
diabetes, obesity} and cardio-vascular issues resulting in higher health care costs in addition to
our society's moral malignant neglect.

The following link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) is a presentation by Robert Lustig,
MD a professor of Pediatrics at UCSF that clearly illustrates the economic, political and
biochemical relationships between salt, sugar and fat.

Thank-you for your timely article Mr. Blankenhorn.

I'm afraid you're just dead wrong on the facts. There are many studies
linking excessive sugar to diabetes, especially in the form of
fructose, the most common type here due to foreign policy concerns.

Look at the facts. We have dramatically increased our use of salt and
sugar and manufacturers have increased the amount they use, while we
have become more reliant on manufacturers for what we eat.

Consumer choice won't solve the problem. Only a gradual winnowing away
of manufacturers from salt and sugar additives will do that.

Which requires some regulation.

When you're getting 2,000 grams of sodium in one bowl of ramen noodles
I'm going to call it sea water. Hyperbole? Maybe. But in comparison to
what you got before, not really.

Think about it. 2,000 milligrams of salt in 1 cup of liquid.

Blankenhorn is right. I favor honest, free, competitive enterprise and consumer choice to regulation, but there isn't any rel competition or choice and something is drastically wrong when the amount of salt added in factories by large corporations that supply most groceries doubles since 1970 despite increased consciousness of excess salt during that recent generation. Very few foods are available "no salt added," and those that are available are unconscionably higher in price.
Not everything that increases the quarterly earnings of anything that calls itself a business enterprise to meet "expectations" and raise stock prices is either genuinely conservative or sound policy.
You can't tell how much salt or other additives are really in most canned or processed food. On one new label, I did see the other day that one common, cheap, meat product was 27% fat and a whopping 12% sodium, more like Great Salt Lake or the Dead Sea than even normal sea water. I forget the figures for sugar, [other] preservatives, and water. I like ham, which I am aware is salty, but am frustrated by labels that say "ham and water product" and don't tell us how much water is added at $4.00 a pound.

The issue should address the myriad complex additives that are classified as preservatives and sweeteners, even flavor enhancers. To their effects, many are salts and sugars but not as readily identifiable as the empirical chemical formula provided for the salt that is most familiar to all and the carbohydrate (simplistic for sure w/o regard to molecular structure or other matters). The debate needs to involve chemistry and nutrition experts.

The history of the FDA since 1906 is filled with controversies of the
type you describe. Generally we muddle through them, and
eventually come to reasonable decisions.

It's unfortunate that our politics has lately become The Argument
Clinic from Monty Python, but that's a phase. It will pass.We're
Americans. In the end we choose optimism.

Answering #19: yes, in the end we Americans have a
strong tendency to choose optimism, but it is not always
justified. And when it is not, we have a knack for making
others pay for the price of our bad decision, using that
same optimism as an excuse for not noticing what we
really did.

In the case of global warming, we have already lost the
chance to prevent severe damage due to the bad
decision, we are not rapidly losing even the chance to
mitigate the damage.

In the case of salt and sugar, corporations encourage
people to make the wrong decision, and then the
system transfers the blame to the victim when they pay
the high medical bills.

Answering #5: but being uneducated is an individual
right, one that far too many exercise, as illustrated by
the "Tea Party Movement", support for Sarah Palin, and a
large radio audience for Rush Limbaugh.

Unfortunately, the educated cannot force education on
such people, but we can and should act to contain the
damage they do: even regulating the destructive
marketing of excess salt and sugar to the gullible public
is a good example of containing the damage.

The problem with getting factories to remove Sodium Chloride from foods is that they will replace that with something else...like Potassium Chloride! Which is just as bad or worse! Don't believe me? Take a look at the Campbells Health Choice soup you are eating...They claim low salt, but they replaced the salt with Potassium! And it tastes NASTY! OMG! It feels like I'm eating gun powder!
I don't mind the sugar part...there are plenty of substitutes that perform a passable sweetening...but salt? That's a different beast!
Perhaps the reason that the 70s had lower sodium chloride is because most foods back then had MSG added to it...this flavor enhancer was the predominant ingredient in all foods! Anybody remember Accent! wow...my mom sprinkled that on everything! Now it's hard to find it in the stores!
Ed
web/gadget guru

I don't share your suspicion of corporations, which will surprise my
commenters at ZDNet Healthcare.

I think factories want to add flavor at minimum cost. It takes a lot
of enlightened policy to wean them in a different direction, aimed
not just at the corporations but at the public.

Much of that policy is not going to come from the government. It's
going to come from consumers -- foodies -- and from university
and other education settings. Some of it is going to come from
research, some from education.

But food habits are changing.

I had mentioned this in another blog but found it applies here too.
I've always had a healthy diet and studied nutrition as well as food labeling. As I'm perusing the aisles I noticed two juice selections; they were the same brand and similar flavors although one was labeled "diet" when the only ingredient missing was HFCS. It's a V8 blend of sorts and I believe there was no cost disparity. Inane food labeling don't you think?
People are returning to nutritional basics of subsistence and guess what? They are discovering taste along with many other healthy and social benefits. Recently in San Diego, the First Lady visited a community garden project. That is the type of food habit needing to be cultivated.

Those salt recommendations are recommended MAXIMUM daily amounts. Your body needs only minimal amounts of salt, which you would get from eating meat with no salt added. Many people misunderstand the guidelines and think they are the minimum required intake.

I am happy to see governments moving to regulate salt and sugar in processed foods. I would like to have an inexpensive, easy meal available to me that isn't full of salt and sugar. If I choose to add more salt, I can, but I can also choose to stick with the healthier, low-salt option.

... give practically everyone a 10% saline IV drip?

Thank you for the information your provide.
sesli chat
SesliSohbet
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliChat siteleri
sesli

dana
it is difficult to believe that fructose is the cause of diabetes. after all there are two normal sources of fructose in our diet and have been for eons. fructose is the sugar found in fruit, of which we have always eaten a lot. maybe you can blame eve and her apple for that. fructose is also half of the two sugars in gthe dimer sucrose, that old cane and beet variety. why then would we have to be leary of fructose, when even without high fructose corn syrup we would be getting plenty of it. it is also true that fructose intake is suggested for diabetics because it is metabolized more slowly probably because it is rearranged into glucose for the metabolism.
if you want to scare the bejesus out of people keep publishing crap(i won't use the term you so carefully removed from my post. are you afraid of the english language?) like that. i also noticed that you had little or nothing to say about the great salt debate, which itself is one of our most prevalent urban myths.

Gotta agree with those here who say it's not the manufacturers' fault we eat their swill. It's our own fault for being lazy and not preparing our own food. For that matter, you could buy better food at a organic food store. Take some personal responsibility, for Pete's sake.

While you're doing that, we can ask the manufacturers to reduce salt/sugar/chemicals or whatever is the villain du jour.

@Suncat2000: But clearly most people are
too stupid to understand and do need the
decisions made for them...