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: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


It is still their fault for not packing a lunch. No one is so busy that they do not have 5 minutes to spare before work to make a sandwich or put some carrots in a ziploc baggy to eat over their lunch break. If they cannot be bothered to take 5 minutes to eat healthy, then they are irresponsible and have no real desire for a healthy meal.




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Put the topic of salt aside and you will see now that this is one of the "unintended" (on our side anyways) consequences of gov't-run healthcare. I wasn't very convinced they would be able to implement the Codex, but thanks to momma gov't and it's supporters I am sure of it now. Now they will regulate EVERYTHING and claim it is to keep healthcare costs down.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
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.


What is so bad about limiting foods that give you heart problems? You should understand that now every taxpayer is paying for the unhealthy people. By YOU saying it isn't YOUR problem, you clearly don't understand how your new health system will work.

The premiums go up if America becomes unhealthier, and the premium goes down if America is healthy. So in the end, it effects every American who pays taxes.



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

Originally posted by lpowell0627


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.


Are you sure about that? How many people actually want this sort of thing? Those additives are just there. Convenient, low cost foods of all sorts have high amounts of sodium. What if those types of foods are all a person can afford to eat? It's not always a matter of self control.


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.


Could you please supply and example of a food product, readily available to all consumers that has a warning label from the Surgeon General? I sure as heck don't see one on the bag of Dorito's on the table in front of me.


Enough is enough.


I agree, but I don't think enough is being done!


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.


This is not about the government removing Dorito's from my home. This is about the amount of sodium in foods being regulated. Personally, I don't eat Dorito's, but my husband does. I regulate them in my household. The damn bag better last him a week!

edit to fix quote

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Blanca Rose]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
All I am getting from these posts is:

This is good because people can't read ingredients and daily recommendations properly.

How much more hand-holding do we need in this country? There is an "800" number on the back of every package should you not be able to understand what's written. The government has numerous emails and phone numbers -- all of which even speak different languages -- should you have any questions. Pick up the phone if you don't understand what you are eating or what you should be eating.

If this is the direction of future generations, we are all in trouble.

Take responsibility for yourself! I can guarantee you you will find very little salt in the produce section of the supermarket. Why do you need someone to say -- here, buy this....buy this....

Do you not know that salt is a preservative and buying fresh items will greatly reduce your salt intake....

Someone please explain to me how we have become a society incapable, despite the numerous COSTLY measures taken to inform us, of reading and comprehending the most basic of mathematical equations.

If there are 5 servings in a package, and each serving is 25% of your daily recommended limit, and you eat the whole damn bag -- guess what? You're now over the limit by 25%.

Can't we handle this on our own????



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I don't think its the salt that makes you fat. I think its all the other processed GM junk that they add to it. Corn Syrup, Fructose, and Glucose are all made from starches mostly corn which is high empty calories. 1 cup is 606 calories. www.nutritiondata.com...
Theres also High fructose corn syrup made from .....corn ^.


In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

www.sciencedaily.com...
HFCS also inhibits leptin secretion so you never get the message that your full.
www.lewrockwell.com...
Check out this list of ingredients in processed foods, what they do and how fat they make you.....a little salt doesn't sound so bad.www.living-a-healthy-lifestyle.com...
Also about 70% of our food in the grocery stores is has GM ingredients such as ......CORN. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Although too much salt is a bad thing, its something that our bodies still NEED. www.rsc.org...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
Are you sure about that? How many people actually want this sort of thing? Those additives are just there. Convenient, low cost foods of all sorts have high amounts of sodium. What if those types of foods are all a person can afford to eat? It's not always a matter of self control.


I am sure that an individual bag of baby carrots is $2.99 at the supermarket. A bag of Lays potato chips is $3.29. One has tons of salt and is unhealthy, the other very healthy.


Could you please supply and example of a food product, readily available to all consumers that has a warning label from the Surgeon General? I sure as heck don't see one on the bag of Dorito's on the table in front of me.


Research the Surgeon General yourself and see whether or not you think we already pay to have someone in charge of telling us what is and is not healthy:


The Office of the Surgeon General, under the direction of the Surgeon General, oversees the operations of the 6,500-member Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and provides support for the Surgeon General in the accomplishment of her other duties. The Office is part of the Office of Public Health and Science in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Surgeon General serves as America's Doctor by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury. Dr. Regina M. Benjamin is the Surgeon General.


Source: www.surgeongeneral.gov...

The information is already there and available, but people have to actually take the initiative. That may require dropping the bag of chips first.



This is not about the government removing Dorito's from my home. This is about the amount of sodium in foods being regulated. Personally, I don't eat Dorito's, but my husband does. I regulate them in my household. The damn bag better last him a week!


So, why do we need more regulations if, as you've stated, you already have your household under control? If everybody took care of themselves, we wouldn't need this damn nanny state that costs us mega bucks in babysitting fees.



[edit on 20-4-2010 by lpowell0627]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
What is so bad about limiting foods that give you heart problems?


It's not the governments job to tell me I can't eat something because I may or may not develop heart problems from it. It's my job to decide whether I really should eat that bag of chips knowing that it's not going to do anything positive aside from make my stomach feel full.


The premiums go up if America becomes unhealthier, and the premium goes down if America is healthy. So in the end, it effects every American who pays taxes.


And people wondered why a lot of us were against the health care reform bill they rammed through as fast as they could and brokered deals behind closed doors to pass. It's my job to keep myself healthy, and if I don't then I should have to pay for the consequences. Me, not Bob down the road or Suzie on the other side of the country. It's not the governments job to make sure Bob and Suzie stay healthy or my job to pay for their doctor bills. Or at least it wasn't. Then Bob and Suzie decided that taking care of their own problems was too hard and they wanted the government to make their decisions for them, and now thanks to Bob and Suzie I have to pay for their trips to the ER for an ear infection.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99

What is so bad about limiting foods that give you heart problems? You should understand that now every taxpayer is paying for the unhealthy people.

I wondered how long it would take before I saw this come up.

Now that we have a government mandated health care program, that will cost me more and provide me and my family less coverage in the end, I get to hear this...
The government needs to limit foods that give you heart problems.

The same government that taxes and sells liquor in this state that I live in?
The same government that allows tobacco to be sold, and fills it's coffers with the taxes?

Keep on thinking that your nanny state you love so dearly gives a crap about you, it is about one thing............$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

YES, LET US TRUST THEM!


[edit on 20-4-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by concerned190
I don't think its the salt that makes you fat. I think its all the other processed GM junk that they add to it. Corn Syrup, Fructose, and Glucose are all made from starches mostly corn which is high empty calories. 1 cup is 606 calories. www.nutritiondata.com...
Theres also High fructose corn syrup made from .....corn ^.


Exactly the point! EVERYTHING -- including vitamins -- is unhealthy in excess.

There is no end to the amount of products that the government can now claim to have to "better control". You know what that amounts to?

Larger government and increased costs to consumers. Period. The larger the government, the more We the People have to pay to keep them running. We get hit from the government AND the corporations. Every change made costs us twice -- more people to monitor it (we pay government's salaries) and higher costs to produce the same products (cost of products increases).

And what happens when they get it wrong? Remember the whole butter / margarine debacle? When would they have done then, simply taxed us for purchasing one, and then switch it to the other, and then back again.....until they figure it out "for sure"?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

I am sure that an individual bag of baby carrots is $2.99 at the supermarket. A bag of Lays potato chips is $3.29. One has tons of salt and is unhealthy, the other very healthy.


Actually a bag of baby carrots costs less than that where I live. I don't eat them because they contain way too many carbohydrates for me, but thanks. I purchase those for my husband as well, and he will eat them when we are out of chips, along with the dip he can't do without.


Research the Surgeon General yourself and see whether or not you think we already pay to have someone in charge of telling us what is and is not healthy:


This is not my job, to cover your butt for a statement you made, saying there are warnings from the Surgeon General on food products. Pony up your proof, please.


The Office of the Surgeon General, under the direction of the Surgeon General, oversees the operations of the 6,500-member Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and provides support for the Surgeon General in the accomplishment of her other duties. The Office is part of the Office of Public Health and Science in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Surgeon General serves as America's Doctor by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury. Dr. Regina M. Benjamin is the Surgeon General.

Source: www.surgeongeneral.gov...

The information is already there and available, but people have to actually take the initiative. That may require dropping the bag of chips first.


Thanks for this information. It is needed in the thread, but not what you were asked to provide, given your statement.


So, why do we need more regulations if, as you've stated, you already have your household under control? If everybody took care of themselves, we wouldn't need this damn nanny state that costs us mega bucks in babysitting fees.


Your perfectly right here. We should not be responsible for the fees. The producers of foods that put outrageous, over the top, not needed amounts of sodium in foods should have to pay for this!

edit to fix quote





[edit on 20-4-2010 by Blanca Rose]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
By YOU saying it isn't YOUR problem, you clearly don't understand how your new health system will work.

The premiums go up if America becomes unhealthier, and the premium goes down if America is healthy. So in the end, it effects every American who pays taxes.


If you read posts of mine from other threads, you will see I understand our "new and improved" health system just fine. You don't by any chance think passing that had something to do with the government now reigning in all things "unhealthy" do you?

However, I will end this argument here since my intention is not to derail the thread.

But to me, the two issues are inextricably linked and one would not have happened if not for the other.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna


It's not the governments job to tell me I can't eat something because I may or may not develop heart problems from it. It's my job to decide whether I really should eat that bag of chips knowing that it's not going to do anything positive aside from make my stomach feel full.


Well many people can't make that decision. Well, they could but they don't feel like it. Those are the people that are going to make the healthcare premiums sky rocket for most Americans.



And people wondered why a lot of us were against the health care reform bill they rammed through as fast as they could and brokered deals behind closed doors to pass. It's my job to keep myself healthy, and if I don't then I should have to pay for the consequences. Me, not Bob down the road or Suzie on the other side of the country. It's not the governments job to make sure Bob and Suzie stay healthy or my job to pay for their doctor bills. Or at least it wasn't. Then Bob and Suzie decided that taking care of their own problems was too hard and they wanted the government to make their decisions for them, and now thanks to Bob and Suzie I have to pay for their trips to the ER for an ear infection.


I am as much against the health-care reform as your are but it already passed. You have no choice but to provide health-care for people who are afraid to get a little salad on their plate of salt.

We are in an era where people want everything handed to them on a silver platter. Good work ethics is dead and the world of lazies is emerging the victor. If people can't regulate themselves then the community should step in to regulate it for them. And since the people in the community don't care about each other, you have governments trying to take that role. It should be the community helping fight this war, but the communities are too busy.

So the government feels it is their job to do it. If you want that job, than help educate people around you.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Equinox99]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemonkey

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.


I am sorry but the US isnt the only place where people are not using self control with what goes in their body. The US yes is probably number 1, but there are other places.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Maybe our nanny state should put a government worker in every one of our kitchens to make sure that we wash our healthy fruits and vegetables properly, and cook our meats well enough.
A lot of people die because of food-borne contamination.

OMG! There I go giving them ideas.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I agree with this, the info is out there..on the packets, yet people still insist on not reading them and having too much salt in their diet. I actually think this should be broadened to more than salt if im being honest, the majority of people have shown they cannot be responsible for their own health(or simply don't care). I can absolutely see why people would be against this, more power to the government is never a good thing these days, but drastic circumstances call for drastic measures. If you think this infringes on your rights simply increase your daily intake of salt, be a "rebel", die from your own inability to be responsible for what you shove down your or your childrens throats.


[edit on 20-4-2010 by Solomons]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Think about this:

If the government was REALLY interested in making people healthy, why wouldn't they create incentives specifically for that? Give tax breaks to people that regularly go to the gym, give people that maintain a 120/80 blood pressure reduced costs, have people with a healthy level of cholesterol receive reduced costs.......pay people to maintain a healthy BMI.

Why not? Because that doesn't make them any more money. The government is not interested in making people healthy. The more unhealthy our society is, the more money the government can charge "fixing the problem".

And like everything else, the money the government receives from the American people, can not be fully tracked and millions more gets tossed from bucket to bucket, only to be lost in the various government waste schemes popping up more and more each day.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Someone please explain to me how we have become a society incapable, despite the numerous COSTLY measures taken to inform us, of reading and comprehending the most basic of mathematical equations.


Half the problem is the costly measures taken on by the governments for awareness, money that could and most likely should be used to generate healthier food directives, etc. It builds an over-awareness of their poster-child issues, and while the media plugs away at them, we are less likely to see the governments as culpable for allowing msg in chips which relatively uneducated children have access to in schools. For an example.

It does not need to take ten years, and a costly ad campaign, to make a positive change in the industries! That's only the pace they choose to draw matters out to, and which industry lobbyists protect. At the annual industry meetings, new government legislations could be addressed, then it would be up to the industries to conform to health standards.

If you look at the non-smoking "awareness issues", you see an industry which has taxed cigarettes for decades, which literally cost no more than 40 cents a 25-pack even now. It has been a cash cow for years; now the cow includes sueing the cigarette companies - retroactively for all those years - raising cigarettes to $10 a pack, and instead of using the money responsibly, placing FDA smoking cessation aids at outrageous prices as well. Taxes and lawsuit gains all the way, win, win, win for the government. A Yahoo article today was headlines, a thinktank that often criticizes government spending places Canadian household taxes at 41.7%
How medieval!

The other problem with awareness campaigns is to have a reverse psycology effect on people who will in turn, buy more product. This does work in the case of young smokers, an inclination to not listen to "big brother" if they are too in-their-faces about something they want - and the government isn't as stupid as they sometimes like to pretend. They know how it will work in practice.

Lastly, there is the social divisioning, which will continue to target overweight people, smokers, and any other 'fringe" element currently not in fashion. This, in itself, is guaranteed to create social stigma which can't be healthy for the people involved. New government trends for the future are probably developed from populus, herd-mentalities who are "hating on" a particular aspect of life, and so long as it's a negative that keeps people from agreeing, and hating others, it stands to be raised to an "awareness" level.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Northwarden]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99

So the government feels it is their job to do it. If you want that job, than help educate people around you.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Equinox99]


The problem with "educating people around you" is it requires me simply to read to them. This is not a situation where the information is not already there. It is.

And if you are going to make the argument that people are "too busy to read", I think we have bigger problems in society than salt.

It has nothing to do with being busy, and everything to do with being lazy.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:43 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.

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.


Lol I would love to learn how to make twinkies.

I like to eat organic or all natural but it's too expensive and I don't live in an environment where I can grow my own. My mother has her own garden and when I get to see her I bring home all kinds of good things


Bread is my downfall
but I have control over how much I eat. People aren't educated on what goes in their body. If people were educated on what they put in their body I think more would be more cautious about what they eat. I know the more I really find out what is in foods, that is a food I cross off my list.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join