It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. plans drive to limit salt in foods

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   

U.S. plans drive to limit salt in foods


www.reuters.com

The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits, the article said.

The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com
www.washingtonpost.com




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
So now they are going to limit the amount of salt in foods? What are they going to replace it with if anything? When I saw this on the news this morning they said it would be a plan that would take the next 10 years. That seems like a long time or is that how stuff like this usually works? I know excessive salt is bad for you but what about the polluted air I breathe daily?

Ok to me this is just a little much. People of the world, not just the US, need to learn SELF CONTROL when it comes to what they put in their body.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
salty snack foods are targeted...

good thing i sold my Lance Inc. stocks last year
and bought an electric car instead



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

Ok to me this is just a little much. People of the world, not just the US, need to learn SELF CONTROL when it comes to what they put in their body.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


yeah because that has worked wonders in the US... there are hardly any fat/unhealthy people.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I think this is a good thing, western people have shown themselves on a whole to be unable to self-regulate what they put into their bodies. And who can really blame them, MSG and advertising is addictive.

Although this wouldn't have anything to do with slowing down health-care expenditure would it.


I personally think that calorie-rich/nutrient-lacking food should be illegal to sell - if you wanna eat twinkies - learn how to make them.

Much more effort should be put into organic/bio-dynamic fruit, veg and agriculture. And organic free-range animal products.

Too much bread, too much sugar, too much salt and too much secret (numbered) ingredients. No wonder we're all fat idiots and the planet is #ed.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
When will people learn. Yes sodium is unhealthy but why let government control it? Apparently snack food companies don't have the right to make what they choose. When will it stop?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I really think that this is only done to save the government money on the universal insurance plan. I also think this is a really good thing to start regulating. I just hope that fast foods are next to be regulated.

You may think too much regulation is bad because the government is telling you what to do. You must realize that your taxes are paying for the health-care. Is it fair to have an overweight person in the hospital every day because they love McDonald's, or Burger King?

People need to learn self restraint, and if someone is not holding their hand to show them how they won't do it.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
I think this is a good thing, western people have shown themselves on a whole to be unable to self-regulate what they put into their bodies. And who can really blame them, MSG and advertising is addictive.


I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that if people can't show some self-restraint when it comes to eating habits that the government should step in and regulate what they can have? Kinda like how as a mom I know my kids would eat nothing but candy all day if I let them, so I step in and tell them they can't have that candy bar because they don't need all that sugar and give them fruit instead?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 

Yes I'm saying that.

But what decisions being made on the populous' behalf is the important thing.

Sodium levels in fast-food - I'd go genocidal on that.

Privatizing genes in poisoned/watered down GM foods for profit - not cool.



ETA: I'm outtie till tomz ~peace!!


[edit on 20/4/10 by ghostsoldier]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Or maybe it's a way of exposing people to more levels of radiation... Since salt protects from that... You know, depleted uranium ( the dust it produces gets airborne and travels the world... ) Plus the Earth magnetic field that seems to go ba-oing, probably letting more cosmic rad in our atmosphere... And what about dirty bombs?...
Because we know governments take these decisions only for the greater good...
Aresh



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


I am sitting here looking at a bag of Dorito's that my husband bought yesterday because he is a junk food junkie. Because he insists on eating these kinds of snacks, and then dumps more salt on every meal, I think this is a good idea.

According to the package I am reading, a serving of these Dorito's contains 8% of your daily allowance of salt. The serving portion is 11 chips. Now, let me ask you how many people who eat Dorito's sit and count out every 11 chips to figure out their salt intake, or stop at 11 chips?
Then add to it, any other processed sort of food, from cheese, to ham...etc. People really do overdue salt, even if not intentionally.

I am one of those people that read a label on just about everything I eat, or purchase at the store.

I am also one of those people who puts a substitute for salt in the salt shaker at home because my husband doesn't care how much salt he eats, as long as the food tastes just right to him.

He's not a healthy person to begin with, having MS, kidney problems, and high blood pressure which salt only intensifies.

I guess my point is, that some people do need regulating because they won't do it for themselves.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
If you cannot control your eating habits, Darwin has a theory about what will happen to you. I feel no sympathy and no sense of remorse for people who continue their poor dieting and no exercise habits and continue to expect healthy results. I feel no sense of obligation to help that person and I do not support in any way, shape, or form legislation of this sort. If fatty down the block cannot stop eating doritos and mcdonalds every meal of every day, I say good riddance. Do not infringe upon my right to consume what I choose because of the lack of self control and gluttonous actions of my evolutionary inferior neighbors.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Except that the governments are the "children" who support the corporations now, and are bringing us the codex which will effectively see even organic food irradiated, will attack the health food industry to eliminate 80% of food supplements which won't afford testing criteria, and opens the door for deadly PoPs to show up in our food unannounced.

On the OP, remember the health value of iodine, not that it needs to be had from salt. It seems that moves to "regulate" something through government are also subtle or not-so-subtle pushes for something less officially newsworthy.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 


I was afraid that's what you were saying... How exactly is a nanny state a good thing? Are you not capable of making your own choices? They won't just be dictating what everyone else eats, it'll affect you too. What happens when they say we can't drink milk anymore because it can cause cancer?

Turning this country into a nanny state with the government telling us what we can eat and what we can't isn't going to fix anything. It will only lead to a country full of people who lack any sense of personal responsibility and is a slippery slope into slavery for us all. And yes, not being able to do anything unless the government says we can is a form of slavery. If we can't be trusted to make our own food choices, what's next? What job we can have? Who or if we can marry? Maybe someday we can decide who can have kids by whether or not they have good genes too.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
So....where are all the people from the thread about taxing sugary drinks?? You know the ones that said we were overreacting for merely pointing out that these taxes are just the start to what the government begins trying to control....

I hope people realize that there is no way to eliminate salt from our diets, nor is it even healthy to eliminate salt altogether. Rather, this is going to be yet another control mechanism that will increase costs for consumers.

First tobacco, then alcohol, then sugar, and now salt......

Seems to me that covers pretty much all of the major crops and money-makers for the government....

People need to wake-up! We are being penalized for the people of the world that have NO self-control. If people are stupid enough to pour tons of salt on their food -- so what. It is NOT my problem nor should I have to pay to fix THEIR problem.

Anybody that can't see the writing on the wall is blind. Companies are going to pay a "penalty" for "too much salt" and that cost will be directly passed onto to us -- with the addition of a little more profit of course. That's the way it works and that's why companies do not fight these measures.

The government says in essence, we are going to penalize you $1.00 for every product you sell that contains above our recommended level of salt. [Notice how the same organization -- the government -- determines both the threshold AND the penalty]

Now, the company says: Dear consumers, due to the increase in costs for production due to new government regulations concerning salt, we are forced to increase the cost of our products by $2.00. We apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your patronage.

It's a win-win for corporations and the government, and a lose-lose for the American people.

What a shock.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


But you see, as I pointed out, not everyone even takes the time to look at the bag before they have already consumed half a bag of chips.

Ever know anybody who eats a bag of chips with a soda during a quick lunch break at work, because they don't have time to eat something healthy?

It isn't just a matter of gluttony. A soda and a bag of chips might put a person at over 50% of their sodium intake for the day.

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks of sticking an apple or a banana in their pocket before heading out the door. What they have in their pocket is probably enough change to eat crap out of a vending machine.

Get real, not all thin people make the best descisions when it comes to their food choices either. Being thin, does not equate a healthy diet either.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


I am sitting here looking at a bag of Dorito's that my husband bought yesterday because he is a junk food junkie. Because he insists on eating these kinds of snacks, and then dumps more salt on every meal, I think this is a good idea.

According to the package I am reading, a serving of these Dorito's contains 8% of your daily allowance of salt. The serving portion is 11 chips. Now, let me ask you how many people who eat Dorito's sit and count out every 11 chips to figure out their salt intake, or stop at 11 chips?
Then add to it, any other processed sort of food, from cheese, to ham...etc. People really do overdue salt, even if not intentionally.


If people can not read, and people have zero self-control -- that is their problem. If they want these additives so badly, they will buy them anyway -- regardless of the cost or how clearly the ingredients are listed.

The information is on the back of the package. We have the FDA to tell us, in plain language, what they feel to be healthy and unhealthy or even unsafe for consumption. We have a Surgeon General that posts warnings on everything. These cautionary warnings are already paid by us.

Enough is enough.

Perhaps you should simply throw away the Doritos instead of eating them. Do you really need the government to come in and remove them for you? People need to retake responsibility for their own actions and stop looking for someone to blame first, then secondly, someone to come in and fix it for them.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
This sounds like something that really needs to be done. Even when people try and eat a little healthier, when the labels are read it can be disheartening. For example, I have in my hand a can of brand name broccoli cheese soup that is labeled at 98% fat free. The label states there are 2.5 servings per 10 3/4oz can. Anyway, the per serving amount of sodium is 790mg. How many people will open a can of soup and split it 2.5 ways? Most people I think will heat and eat the entire contents of a can of soup and by so doing will ingest 1,975mg of sodium.

A 7.75oz can of beanee weenee's with a 1 can serving contains 990mg of sodium. A frozen bag of cheesy rice and broccoli contains 670mg of sodium per serving. A frozen bag of okra contains 620mg of sodium per serving.

There are many people who try to limit their intake of sodium, myself included. We cannot say they need all of this sodium added to the food to preserve it. They add preservatives separately.

So IMO someone really does need to regulate the amount of sodium manufacturers add to their products.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
If they really actually cared about your health and the costs on the healthcare system then why not ban cigarettes first??
Oh yeah too much money and revenue involved.
You would think smoking costs more on healthcare then salt.
Such hippocritical governments we have.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women. H. Simpson



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join