Too much salt
Published June 29, 2014
Editorial by Jacksonville Daily News, June 26, 2014.
Americans eat too much salt.
In fact, we eat on average about a third more than the government recommends. We eat so much, in fact, that we are putting ourselves at risk of all sorts of health problems — high blood pressure and stroke, for instance.
Some might mistakenly believe that they are OK because they don’t add salt to their food. But that doesn’t matter for most of us because the foods we eat are already filled with salt.
Restaurants and food manufacturers use sodium for a number of purposes — especially as a preservative or a taste enhancer.
And use it they do, so much so that the Food and Drug Administration is considering asking companies to hold much of the salt for the good of the consumers.
This action would leave the decision up to the companies. Whether they follow through with the government’s request would be voluntary. But it clearly makes sense.
Americans have a great deal of health issues that are of their own doing.
Poor diet, lack of exercise and too much drinking and smoking take their toll on us. We suffer the effects of our decisions and habits.
In the case of salt, though, it is incredibly hard to avoid because of commonly accepted practices throughout the various food industries.
It is those practices the FDA is hoping to change so we can all enjoy diets that don’t needlessly risk our health.
This is vastly different from other government actions that have arguably infringed on the principle of personal choice.
Banning sweet drinks of certain sizes, for instance, is an overstep of governmental control.
Merely working with industry to change our foods for the better is a different matter entirely.
Individual consumers, of course, would still be free to pour on the salt if they so desired. But those who would rather avoid unhealthy levels of sodium would be much more able to do so.
“We believe we can make a big impact working with the industry to bring sodium levels down, because the current level of consumption really is higher than it should be for health,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
The FDA must walk a fine line between those who would prefer no action and those who favor action requiring industry changes. Working on a voluntary cutback seems to be the most sensible way to balance our freedoms with our health.
A version of this editorial first appeared in The Daily Comet of Thibodaux, La., a Halifax Media Group newspaper.
June 30, 2014 at 11:29 am
Norm Kelly says:
If libs and their 'ideas' weren't so scary, they'd actually be funny. Most of the time I don't find them funny at all.
Take, for example, 'Merely working with industry to change our foods for the better is a different matter entirely'.
Let's take this apart to see how it works.
'working with industry' - we have government employee regulating agencies that will come into a specific food manufacturing business with 'suggestions' on how to reduce salt use. Mind you, these are government employees, with the full force of the central planners behind them 'making suggestions' on how to change your recipe. How do 'central planner suggestions' work when you have the full force of the federal government behind you? Take the occupier's wife as a perfect example. She had a problem, as most lib pols seem to, with WalMart and the food they were selling. She apparently talked with high-level management people at WallyWorld ASKING POLITELY that they consider changing the food they sell to get more 'healthy' choices and more organic choices. How did Wally respond? The ONLY WAY they could, of course. This was not a 'request' from a mother concerned about her kids' health. This was the wife of the occupier, someone who has shown complete disregard for the law; someone who has shown that he is not opposed to using government agencies to go outside the law to persecute Americans and businesses. So Wally changed their ways, knowing full well her 'suggestion' was only a prelude to the central planners prosecuting Wally executives. So, how exactly does the central planner regulating regime 'work with' industry to 'suggest' changes. When was the last time FDA made a 'suggestion'? When was the last time an FDA (or any other) regulator was ignored by industry that the 'suggestion' didn't become a demand with the full force of the central planners behind the new regulations & law?
'change our foods for the better' - according to a group that wants government intervention in every area of day-to-day life? This regulation is a different 'matter entirely'. Of course you see it this way because it's what YOU want. Every time some person or group suggests 'there oughta be a law', that small group sees it as 'another matter entirely'. This is only 1 small step; it's not like it's government overreach, in this case. Regulating the size of my soda pop MIGHT be overreach and attempting to regulate everyday life for normal citizens/taxpayers, but limiting salt isn't the same thing. Really? In who's mixed up, permanently set, 'there oughta be a law' more regulation mind? Concrete anyone? Next thing you know, some advocate will decide that my eating TV dinners once a week is too often, the portion sizes are too big, and there's too much gluten in them, so either the content needs to change, or my purchases at the grocery store need to be limited to 1 TV dinner per month or so. Think this sounds ridiculous? Really? Why? What area of life hasn't some advocacy group or socialist politician NOT wanted to regulate within the past decade or so? And when socialized medicine is fully implemented, socialists and advocacy groups will have ANOTHER reason to force changes in diet. Eventually 'bad eating habits' will be seen as a national defense, or national deficit, issue and REQUIRE regulation in order to 'fix' the economy. And then it won't be central planner regulators 'suggesting' or 'working with' to attempt change, it will become law! And if it's not law, the occupier will simply dictate it, as he's gotten used to doing in the second term.
'Working on a voluntary cutback' - this sounds perfectly logical and simple, doesn't it. This is a duck of a different color. Because it's only a suggestion? Because it's a real hazard? Because there's no way that after industry is cowed into making recipe changes, those same advocates for healthy living WON'T then demand that salt containers for sale in the store should be made smaller so people can't get as much. Then the number of salt containers being purchased at the store will be regulated, just like some allergy medications are regulated, even though it's an over-the-counter drug. (i shouldn't have to show ID when i want to vote but i MUST show ID in order to purchase allergy medication at the pharmacy? does ANY lib see the idiocy of these conflicting, opposing ideas? and i use the word 'ideas' quite loosely, as i always do when mentioning lib schemes!)
Remember when some of us were kids and we were allowed to ride our bicycles without a helmet? If you are young, you have no idea what I'm talking about. Because some advocacy group got together to protect kids and made it LAW that my kid can't be on a bike without a helmet or I will get a citation from my local police. Because YOUR kid had a challenge with keeping the bike upright and got a head injury, your 'suggestion' is that my kid MUST be forced to wear a helmet. But it was only a suggestion. Remember? It was a group of advocates working with government regulators who wanted to impress upon the uninformed what a critical situation this was and that we simply needed to understand. But then it became LAW. Not the kind of law that someone like the occupier gets to change or ignore, but the kind of law that could actually cause a parent to spend time in jail for child neglect. Kinda like regulating, by suggestion, the amount of salt I am allowed to take into MY body. But it's only a suggestion.
'The FDA must walk a fine line between those who would prefer no action and those who favor action requiring industry changes'. There definitely is a fine line between those who 'prefer' no action and those who 'require' industry changes. See, there's that word, 'require'. Is this suggestion, working with, or is this regulating and demanding and forcing? It starts out as a suggestion but quickly becomes 'requiring'. Not my words, but the words of the salt advocate. Not my way to conclude this post about suggestions, but the words used by someone who believes this isn't government overreach into MY personal life. This is such a serious issue that it 'requires' changes in the food industry. This is not (yet) the same as preventing me from having a salt shaker on my dining table, it's a suggestion 'requiring action' that someone else make a change. Suggesting with power to intimidate. But we promise the central planners won't use intimidation. This time. The wife used intimidation, but that was different entirely. We promise. For now.
Some regulation make sense. Preventing the TV dinner industry from using dog or cat and labeling it 'chicken' makes sense. Regulating MY portion sizes because you can't control how much you consume actually IS overreach. Regulating MY intake of gluten products IS overreach. It's not a suggestion when you FORCE the change on me or anyone else. It's time for confused, mixed up, concrete minds to start leaving the rest of us alone. It's time freedom loving people, who actually are capable of taking care of ourselves, to stand up to the schemes of the 'ought be a law' types. It's time individuals stand up to the groups and force them to leave us alone.
