Here come the salt police!!!!

[saveliberty]

Government required seat belts in cars, air bags in cars, helmets on bikes, etc. to make us safer. Does this infringe on your freedom? You can ignore the advice at your peril, and object to government interference all you please. You are free to do so, but to suggest that a government ignore the health and well being of its citizens is absurd. Defending us from danger is one of governments roles is it not? Or is the war on terror a waste of time and resources too?

Yes, it does infringe on freedom, by requiring more cost which may prevent me from riding the bike. Defending us from dangers originating from others, not ourselves. When attempting to protect us from ourselves the government, by definition, will take some liberty from us.

 

[Skull Pilot]

funny how the fucking government cares soooo much about our health that evil salt is now in its cross hairs but real killers like cigarettes are still legal.

I guess if the idiots in Washington could figure out a way to tax salt there would be no call to reduce salt use.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Until now, the government has pushed the food industry to voluntarily reduce salt and tried to educate consumers about the dangers of excessive sodium. But in a study to be released Wednesday, an expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes that those measures have failed. The panel will recommend that the government take action, according to sources familiar with the findings.

But why let science spoil all of the nanny-state fun? Don’t let facts get in the way of a crisis model for government intervention. After all, it’s for your own good, which the elites in the federal bureaucracy obviously understand better than you do.

Hot Air Blog Archive Great news: FDA to regulate salt in processed foods

Should have seen this one coming.

They're lowering the salt content of processed food slowly. I don't see anything wrong in that.

Processed foods have so much other garbage added it doesn't really matter how much they lower the sodium content anyway, it still won't make it good for you to eat. You can still take a salt shaker and kill yourself with the stuff anyway.

Then what's the point? More nanny state B.S. We can't fix the things that really need fixing.. so we'll regulate what you eat, what you drink, what you smoke, what you say, where you get your healthcare, what you learn in school, etc., etc.

This is exactly what is fueling the teaparty movement.. this nonsense right here.

Yeah.. Pat Robertson's the real enemy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sorry, along with freedom comes the freedom to make bad choices and the responsibility for dealing with the consequences.

 

[martybegan]

The non-ignorant and non-ideological amongst us applaude efforts by the FDA to make our food safer and healthier. Common table salt is a necessary part of our diet, but in excess it is harmful. Unless of course the doctors of the world have all conspired to make us less healthy in order to increase their profits, and have lied to us all these years.
Adding lots of salt (check out the amount in your V-8 juice) and sugar in processed foods must make them cheaper and more profitable, and of course tastier. Simply one more example of why a government of the people watching out for its citizens lives up to the vision statement in the preamble to our constitution. Only fringers object to such matters.

To me its a waste of time and government reasources. People can choose to eat healthier if they want to.

I object and I am not a fringer or ignorant.

But you appear to be (by your response) ideological. Government required seat belts in cars, air bags in cars, helmets on bikes, etc. to make us safer. Does this infringe on your freedom? You can ignore the advice at your peril, and object to government interference all you please. You are free to do so, but to suggest that a government ignore the health and well being of its citizens is absurd. Defending us from danger is one of governments roles is it not? Or is the war on terror a waste of time and resources too?

Anyone who isnt at least partially ideological is either a vulcan or a robot. Thats why i left it out. (one less point for people to jump all over me on.)

As stated before it all comes down to where to draw the line. Your points on seatbelts, for example, making people use the safety item in question, I dont have a problem. It really doesnt affect how they want to live thier life. Bike helmets, again, short of cost it doesnt seem like a big deal. With those there is also the issue of public roads. You want to use public roads you follow public rules. Feel free to ride a bike without a helmet on your own property.

And while goverment does have some role in regulating what we do to prevent us from harming ourselves, they shouldnt have too much. People still need the right to be idiots.

Going to the war on terror is a debate outside the scope of this one. focus, people, focus.

 

[manifold]

Except you are infringing on the rights of those trying to sell food that fits that bill in a packaged product...

Are you honestly trying to make the case that government regulation of commerce is an unconstitutional infringment of individual rights????

You might not think it's a necessary regulation (and I would agree), but then again maybe you don't think banning lead in paint is necessary either. Afterall, the lead does make a paint job last a lot longer and I'm sure there are people out there who would still want to buy it.

Funny.. did not realize salt was a toxin as lead is or asbestos

If a company was putting lead into food or selling with asbestos packaging... I would agree with the action.. this is not the case... this is bullshit control in an area and to a degree that the government should not be stepping in to

I agree that it's unnecessary. But it is not unconstitutional.

 

[DiamondDave]

Are you honestly trying to make the case that government regulation of commerce is an unconstitutional infringment of individual rights????

You might not think it's a necessary regulation (and I would agree), but then again maybe you don't think banning lead in paint is necessary either. Afterall, the lead does make a paint job last a lot longer and I'm sure there are people out there who would still want to buy it.

Funny.. did not realize salt was a toxin as lead is or asbestos

If a company was putting lead into food or selling with asbestos packaging... I would agree with the action.. this is not the case... this is bullshit control in an area and to a degree that the government should not be stepping in to

I agree that it's unnecessary. But it is not unconstitutional.

I disagree... I fully stand by the belief that this is government overstepping it's powers granted by the constitution... as stated, government does not exist to protect you from yourself especially in some 'too much of a good thing' argument

 

[Ringel05]

Until now, the government has pushed the food industry to voluntarily reduce salt and tried to educate consumers about the dangers of excessive sodium. But in a study to be released Wednesday, an expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes that those measures have failed. The panel will recommend that the government take action, according to sources familiar with the findings.

According to the latest research, sodium intake isn’t really a health problem for normal adults. An Einstein University study in 2008 showed no connection between cardiovascular disease risk and higher-sodium diets:

But why let science spoil all of the nanny-state fun? Don’t let facts get in the way of a crisis model for government intervention. After all, it’s for your own good, which the elites in the federal bureaucracy obviously understand better than you do.

Hot Air Blog Archive Great news: FDA to regulate salt in processed foods

Should have seen this one coming.

Now if they would only do something about the massive sugar (and sugar products) contained in processed foods and snacks. Jeeze people, have a little danish with your sugar!

 

[manifold]

Funny.. did not realize salt was a toxin as lead is or asbestos

If a company was putting lead into food or selling with asbestos packaging... I would agree with the action.. this is not the case... this is bullshit control in an area and to a degree that the government should not be stepping in to

I agree that it's unnecessary. But it is not unconstitutional.

I disagree... I fully stand by the belief that this is government overstepping it's powers granted by the constitution... as stated, government does not exist to protect you from yourself especially in some 'too much of a good thing' argument

You can make that academic argument until you're blue in the face and I'm not particularly inclined to disagree. But it is still academic and largely moot. More than two hundred years of history and precedent clearly indicates that it is well within the power of the government to regulate commerce.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To me its a waste of time and government reasources. People can choose to eat healthier if they want to.

I object and I am not a fringer or ignorant.

But you appear to be (by your response) ideological. Government required seat belts in cars, air bags in cars, helmets on bikes, etc. to make us safer. Does this infringe on your freedom? You can ignore the advice at your peril, and object to government interference all you please. You are free to do so, but to suggest that a government ignore the health and well being of those its citizens is absurd. Defending us from danger is one of governments roles is it not? Or is the war on terror a waste of time and resources too?

Nobody is forcing you to wear that seat belt... you have the choice to ride without it, even if you constantly get ticketed.... if the government says to place a warning on foods about high salt content, that is all well and good as it does not infringe on the freedom to sell or purchase that product

The government is not responsible for my health or well being.. I AM

Defending someone from themselves is not the same as national defense or 'defending from danger'[/QU]

(I suspect you'll argue otherwise, but..) Local government has an interest in enforcing seat belt laws, for example, because those who are too irresponsible to do so, potentially, have a greater chance of serious injury in even minor accidents. When such an incident occurs, the government sends first responders to treat the injured, using costly medical devices, and transports the injured to a hospital. Generally, the hospital is a county funded one, though in cases where the injured is taken to the nearest hospital, once stabalized, the injured goes to a county (government funded) hospital for further care and treatment.
Likewise, the Federal Government has an interest for similar reasons to reduce less healthful foods to its citizens. If a health crisis can be averted, the costs of healthcare are reduced.
Of course this leads to the politcal question. Why does the FDA or the Congress not ban tobacco? Or, at least add nicotine to the list of Schedule I drugs? Or regulate the billion dollar homeopathic supplement industry?
There are plenty of reasons to question the what and why of government, but sometimes what government does makes sense.

 

[kwc57]

The non-ignorant and non-ideological amongst us applaude efforts by the FDA to make our food safer and healthier. Common table salt is a necessary part of our diet, but in excess it is harmful. Unless of course the doctors of the world have all conspired to make us less healthy in order to increase their profits, and have lied to us all these years.
Adding lots of salt (check out the amount in your V-8 juice) and sugar in processed foods must make them cheaper and more profitable, and of course tastier. Simply one more example of why a government of the people watching out for its citizens lives up to the vision statement in the preamble to our constitution. Only fringers object to such matters.

To me its a waste of time and government reasources. People can choose to eat healthier if they want to.

I object and I am not a fringer or ignorant.

But you appear to be (by your response) ideological. Government required seat belts in cars, air bags in cars, helmets on bikes, etc. to make us safer. Does this infringe on your freedom? You can ignore the advice at your peril, and object to government interference all you please. You are free to do so, but to suggest that a government ignore the health and well being of its citizens is absurd. Defending us from danger is one of governments roles is it not? Or is the war on terror a waste of time and resources too?

Did your parents not teach you to be responsible for yourself and your actions? Do you honestly think our government was formed with the purpose of caring for you and saving you from yourself?

 

[martybegan]

I agree that it's unnecessary. But it is not unconstitutional.

I disagree... I fully stand by the belief that this is government overstepping it's powers granted by the constitution... as stated, government does not exist to protect you from yourself especially in some 'too much of a good thing' argument

You can make that academic argument until you're blue in the face and I'm not particularly inclined to disagree. But it is still academic and largely moot. More than two hundred years of history and precedent clearly indicates that it is well within the power of the government to regulate commerce.

yes the commerce clause is a broad brush that covers alot of things. Which really makes this a case of "just because they can do it, doesnt mean they should do it"

 

[manifold]

I disagree... I fully stand by the belief that this is government overstepping it's powers granted by the constitution... as stated, government does not exist to protect you from yourself especially in some 'too much of a good thing' argument

You can make that academic argument until you're blue in the face and I'm not particularly inclined to disagree. But it is still academic and largely moot. More than two hundred years of history and precedent clearly indicates that it is well within the power of the government to regulate commerce.

yes the commerce clause is a broad brush that covers alot of things. Which really makes this a case of "just because they can do it, doesnt mean they should do it"

Yup

 

[G.T.]

Did your parents not teach you to be responsible for yourself and your actions? Do you honestly think our government was formed with the purpose of caring for you and saving you from yourself?

It's a good point, but not 100% accurate. Unhealthy people affect everyone, not just themselves.

 

[manifold]

Hey, maybe instead of restricting the sodium content in processed foods they should just add salt to the list of sins that get taxed. You want to sell food higher in sodium than recommended levels, go ahead... but we're gonna add an additional tax to help pay for the healthcare costs just like with tobacco and alcohol.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Did your parents not teach you to be responsible for yourself and your actions? Do you honestly think our government was formed with the purpose of caring for you and saving you from yourself?

It's a good point, but not 100% accurate. Unhealthy people affect everyone, not just themselves.

Wrong.

The fat guy down the street does not affect me in the least. the smoker in the next town does not affect me in the least.

The guy who puts 5 pounds of salt on his bacon and eggs every morning does not affect me in the least.

The insurance costs argument don't hold water either because high risk candidates pay more than I do. (Or at least they used to until government got involved)

 

[G.T.]

Did your parents not teach you to be responsible for yourself and your actions? Do you honestly think our government was formed with the purpose of caring for you and saving you from yourself?

It's a good point, but not 100% accurate. Unhealthy people affect everyone, not just themselves.

Wrong.

The fat guy down the street does not affect me in the least. the smoker in the next town does not affect me in the least.

The guy who puts 5 pounds of salt on his bacon and eggs every morning does not affect me in the least.

The insurance costs argument don't hold water either because high risk candidates pay more than I do. (Or at least they used to until government got involved)

It's not just insurance costs, it's actual Doctor/Hospital costs. And yeah, it does affect you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's a good point, but not 100% accurate. Unhealthy people affect everyone, not just themselves.

Wrong.

The fat guy down the street does not affect me in the least. the smoker in the next town does not affect me in the least.

The guy who puts 5 pounds of salt on his bacon and eggs every morning does not affect me in the least.

The insurance costs argument don't hold water either because high risk candidates pay more than I do. (Or at least they used to until government got involved)

It's not just insurance costs, it's actual Doctor/Hospital costs. And yeah, it does affect you.

Prove it.

I pay very low insurance premiums smokers i know pay higher premiums.

If I do not suffer and get treated for the illnesses related to high risk behavior, how exactly am i paying more for my annual check ups?

 

[martybegan]

Did your parents not teach you to be responsible for yourself and your actions? Do you honestly think our government was formed with the purpose of caring for you and saving you from yourself?

It's a good point, but not 100% accurate. Unhealthy people affect everyone, not just themselves.

That is a dangerous road to go down, and has to be done very carefully. Everything we do affects what happens to other people. I affect other people's commutes just by being on the road. Do we want to legislate what time I can leave my house so as to minimize this?

I know this is an absurb example, but it shows the dangers of thinking along the lines of how certain things affect others, if the effect isnt really severe or even noticeable.

 

[saveliberty]

It's a good point, but not 100% accurate. Unhealthy people affect everyone, not just themselves.

Wrong.

The fat guy down the street does not affect me in the least. the smoker in the next town does not affect me in the least.

The guy who puts 5 pounds of salt on his bacon and eggs every morning does not affect me in the least.

The insurance costs argument don't hold water either because high risk candidates pay more than I do. (Or at least they used to until government got involved)

It's not just insurance costs, it's actual Doctor/Hospital costs. And yeah, it does affect you.

It is all false concern on the government's part. As was mentioned earlier here, cigarettes and alcohol are far more dangerous, but as long as they can tax it, no problem. They are even making an effort to EXPAND the number of unhealthy drugs you can take legally.