It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:33 PM

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Good! I hope Campbell's Soup is forced to stop advertising their soups as good, nurturing food. It is so full of sodium it borders on Toxic. Even the "low sodium" brands contain too much.

You are correct... their "Heart Healthy" line is a complete joke... No one who is on a heart health conscious diet should eat that stuff... One serving is 25% of a low sodium diet (2,000 mg)

Things like ketchup, mustard, luncheon meat, and canned goods. They already contain so much salt it senseless to ever touch the salt shaker.

Mustard isn't as bad as ketchup, but any kind of "encased meat" is going to be way over the top. Canned goods with a few exceptions tend to be prohibitively high as well. Cheese is also high in sodium... basically anything meant to preserve a food type (sausage, cheese or canning) is going to be high in sodium.

Salt is not something that you miss, once you eliminate it. Well, maybe for a week or two. But after that, you really don't want it any more. It's tastes so harsh. Now, if something is overly salted, all I can taste is salt. Yuck.

It takes some time and discipline to change any diet... But it's even harder when the alternatives aren't available at any price.

Start noticing the amounts contained in foods you purchase. It's a primary contender in the enemies of hypertension, and of course fluid retention. It also is very hard on the kidneys.

Quite correct... A slice of bread (about 110mg a slice) might not seem like much, but take two slices, and start throwing meat, cheese and condiments on there and it adds up quickly.

I'm dead set against government regulations, but Americans need to change their diet PRONTO!

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by Mirthful Me
Americans need to adjust their diet?

Need to? Yes, a lot of them do.

Should we be limited in our selections of food by the government?


[edit on 20-4-2010 by butcherguy]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:44 PM
This is about control and nothing else. The government does not give a damn if you are healthy or not. They never have cared.

They are slowly picking away at our freedoms, including freedom to choose for ourselves what we eat. They do it in tiny increments, slowly over generations. Each generation grows up with less and less freedoms. Soon we will cross the line to complete Nanny State.

They use peoples own desire to control others against us. Some are natural control freaks and you are who they use to justify their actions. I have news for you also. They don't give a damn about you either. You are all being used like good little puppets.

What good is it to live a couple of years extra if you give up your freedom and quality of life to do so?

Use your heads and look at the evidence. Look at the lies they use to justify their incremental take over of every aspect of our lives. Look at he way their methods divide us and keep us at each others throats. This is more about keeping us arguing amongst ourselves than any phony idea that the government loves us and wants to help us.

Salt is even more interesting in fact. Those who know history, know that at one time the British Empire used salt to control populations by making themselves the only source of it. You don't get salt, you die. It's that simple. Had I said 50 years ago that one day the government would control our salt intake and legislate what we may or may not eat, I'd have been hauled off to the loony bin.

Have you ever taken a moment to look at just how controlled we are? By the time you combine local, state and federal controls on our lives, we have very few freedoms.

If you are a health fanatic they use you against your neighbor to control what we eat. They don't care if we are healthy or not. It's all about keeping us fighting each other and our minds off what they are doing to us.

If you are afraid of guns, they use you to try and take away our right to defend ourselves against criminals and them. Your fear enables them to be able to stomp all over any rights we have left without fear we might one day fight back.

If you are a non-smoker they use you to justify the insane taxes that are mostly paid by poor people. They don't want smokers to quit. Smokers pay so much in extra taxes that they would have to raise taxes in the open in the light of day to replace the income if everyone quit. They in fact want everyone to smoke and smoke more.

If you are a non-drinker, they use you again to justify the huge taxes that mostly hurt poor people. Same as the cigarettes. It's all about the taxes. They don't give a damn if you drink yourself to death or not.

If you are a nosey neighbor, they use you to help them control how high the fence in your front yard can be so they can observe us anytime they wish. They use your desire to spy on your neighbor so they can spy on them. Want to put up a fence to control the road noise, think again. 3 foot high fences don't make good noise barriers. It also stops you from having a dog to protect the front entrance to your home.

Think people think. You are being used. Some of you seem to enjoy being used. They count on you in fact. You are the weak link so to speak.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Nice post! I wish I could give you more than one star.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:09 PM
Oh sweet Lord would the entire GD government stop telling individuals how to live their lives and focus on real issues for a change? I get it that Uncle Sam has run up such a massive debt that he sees the need in the future for every tax payer to live as long a productive life as is possible, but get off our asses already!

To every person who supports this under the rationale of "what should be done when the individual has demonstrated an unwillingness to self regulate" my answer is this: NOTHING. Let the people who want to commit slow suicide by trans fat, salt, smoking, whatever do it.

There are labels on foods that tell the consumer how much sodium is in it. Leave the decision to the consumer. Christ, we allow individuals to make the most important choices that effect everyone like voting for representatives, voting for the president, the manner in which they drive their cars, etc but they can't be trusted to decide on issues that only affect themselves like choosing between buying a damned bag of salad greens or a bag of Salty McSalterson's Super Salty Salt Chips (now with extra salt!)? Somewhere the mule has managed to slip out of his harness here and the cart is no longer progressing down the freedom trail.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
[...] Apparently snack food companies don't have the right to make what they choose. When will it stop?


well when the salty snak food producers hire enough lobbyists to spread packages of covert payola or send the representatives off to a snack food conference in ...say a tropical island setting..

just following the examples of defense, pharaceuticals, finance/banking

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:22 PM
I think they are too late. I got some fast food french fries last weekend and there wasn't a grain of salt on them at all. Good thing I had taken them home.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:20 PM
People eating what they want is sometimes helpful. A highly fluoride exposed individual needs a high salt diet, clean water, and sweaty exercise to improve fluoride clearance. This is unfair to those who need extra salt to prevent fluoride accumulation. And no mention of toxic fluoridated salts hidden in American store shelves unlabelled.

That's the only thing about salt which should be regulated. Keep poison out of the salt, don't force people to change their recipes. Ban MSG, fluoride, poor quality iron added to food. Those have no real purpose, only harming the health...but plain salt, sorry that's tyrrany again.

It will happen naturally with market forces as the knowledge becomes widespread.

The fed needs to stop looking to Demolition Man for inspiration. Instead of designing every law for the obese unhealthy man, they should think about unrestricted commerce balanced with Poison Control. Sodium is no poison. Fluoride is. Deal with the most potent widespread chemical poisons first, or you do not have my trust, regarding food safety/quality/health decisions.

Obesity protects against toxicity of several agents. That's why people are obese. Lower fluoride and MSG and obesity will take care of itself. Shiitake is a much more flavorful and safer natural glutamate.

Anyone choosing to regulate clean salt is putting a stranglehold on our toxin surrounded metabolisms. People can't all afford whole-house fluoride filters. They are fluoride exposed whether they want to be or not. They have to shower to go to work. They eat cheap fluoridated cereal for breakfast. They want now to enhance fluoride accumulation without telling the water suppliers to increase fluoride in the water, and this is how they are doing it. People's diets who remain otherwise the same, with less salt, will have higher fluoride accumulation.

As things heat up, the fed is ostensibly trying to find ways to make your pineal less and less functional so you will be less likely to think for yourself when information is coming from all sides tearing apart with knowledge the legitimacy of coordinated fed pharmacotyranny.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
Sorry, but you are assuming that everyone who needs help on these issues is a fat, lazy, glutton, which is not the case. My husband is not overweight, being 160 lbs on a 5'10 frame. He does not sit and just eat a bag of chips. He does have, as I said earlier, MS, hypertension, and kidney problems. There is no Surgeon General warning on a bag of chips for people who already suffer from some of these diseases.

Ha! You fell for it...thank you.

I feel just the opposite than this which is why I am opposed to this ridiculousness. See, I work out 7 days per week and love chips. I REALLY love ice cream. Which is why I workout so much. And I happen to be in excellent physical shape. I get yearly physicals, and so far so good.

Which is my point. Why should those of us, you included, pay more for the few that can't control themselves?
Why should I pay more for something that I am capable of eating in moderation?
Why do I need the government telling me what I can and can not eat?

If these foods were so dangerous, shouldn't they be removed from the shelves altogether?

I am not the one assuming everyone that eats chip is lazy and fat -- the government is -- which is why this would be imposed across the board and not just for those that eat them in excess or has health problems and shouldn't eat them at all!

The other problem with all of these "recommendations" is that the same amount is not acceptable for everyone. I can certainly consume more salt safely than someone with heart disease. So what are these levels really going to do? Are they going to have different levels for all different people depending upon their individual health records? They could, of course, because now the government has that information as well. (another little "yeah yeah" for healthcare reform)

That's the entire problem with this whole thing --

It creates larger government and more expensive products and doesn't do anything to help the people that really need it. The acceptable levels will be based on an average all-ready healthy person. So what about the person with multiple ailments prone to heart disease? They will still be getting too much salt for their diet unless they cater the numbers to their needs -- which they could do now.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by butcherguy
If this is really about the government caring about our health,
what redeeming quality does tobacco have, that the government allows it's sale?

How many people are killed on the highways each year by drunk drivers?

The wonderful government allows that alcohol to be sold.

Does anyone really believe that someone in Washington cares?

[edit on 20-4-2010 by butcherguy]

If they cared about our health, and these products were that dangerous, they should be removed from the shelves altogether.

But instead, the government now creates jobs for themselves (they will need people to monitor, research, and enforce this) which will increase taxes (we pay for the governments salaries), then the corporation that makes the product will raise prices (claiming they need to substitue with a more expensive alternative [which won't be any healthier] and need to have more strict quality control).

It's a fun little dance that does nothing but cost us more money.

As I said before, daily salt intake is different for different people based on their health issues. They will make the recommendations based on the average, healthy person. People with health issues will then have to cater their particular consumption based on their needs. They could already do this and aren't. So makes anyone think they'll do it with fancier labels and bigger writing??

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:49 PM
Should we limit sodium in our diets? Sure, that's a good idea.

Is it the government's job to do so? NO.

You would think the government would have more pressing issues to deal with other than the salt in the American diet. Oh, I dunno, the economy or the deficit for example.

If I have government officials collecting a paycheck on the taxpayers expense studying salt in people's diets, he/she obviously doesn't have enough to do....

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

"This is about control and nothing else".

I always enjoy your posts, and agree with them quite often. But not this.
I come from a long line of familial renal disease. The first thing the physician does is "cut out the salt". Because it's so, so harsh, and has detrimental side effects.

Hypertension, which is associated with high sodium consumption, causes stroke, and heart attack. Both can be debilitating.

Somebody mentioned the motivation of wanting to save the country on health-related expenses, as soon as government health care kicks in.
And who knows? I'm not going to argue that's this is not the motivation. It very well may be. (I personally doubt it, but who knows).

But, even if this is the motivation, what does it tell you?

This is more like the "seat belt" law, trying to help us with a simple thing, that in the long run could add years to people's lives. I"m glad for it personally.

But guys, if you have any doubts about it, just google sodium, and it's effects on one medically. We eat way, way too much.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by lpowell0627
It creates larger government

This. I can't believe someone is on the taxpayers payroll looking at what people eat.

How about cutting this position and lessening the spending a bit?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Darkrunner

Originally posted by lpowell0627
It creates larger government

This. I can't believe someone is on the taxpayers payroll looking at what people eat.

How about cutting this position and lessening the spending a bit?

Are you suggesting we do away with the FDA?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:10 PM
The science of this is absurd... sodium is one of the most common neurochemicals used in synapses. We need these basic chemicals like sodium, chlorine, potassium.

What are they gonna do, cut out table salt (NaCl) and replace it with silicon dioxide?? What McDonald's already uses to salt their fries.

This is either very poorly thought out, or it's a real step for the killing-people-off ideal.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:13 PM
They better leave the salt shakers on the tables in restaurants. Otherwise, a measure like this will kill the food industry. Nothing like eating flavorless food at your favorite restaurant. Salt when used appropriately is a flavor enhancer.

I understand reducing sodium intake. I have already cut my intake. I season with kosher or sea salt by the pinch not the shake. But govt. mandates are a little ridiculous.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

Originally posted by Darkrunner

Originally posted by lpowell0627
It creates larger government

This. I can't believe someone is on the taxpayers payroll looking at what people eat.

How about cutting this position and lessening the spending a bit?

Are you suggesting we do away with the FDA?

I'm suggesting that these people have too much time on their hands. If they REALLY cared about the health of the American citizen, they could start by banning tobacco.

Oh wait. There are too many billions to be made in taxes.....

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by Darkrunner

Snappy comeback! But otherwise meaningless, sorry. We need an authority ordained by the government to oversee our food. Otherwise we continue to receive tainted and/or toxic substances from other countries as imports, as well as our own domestic sources. Remember the lettuce from California that was tainted a few years back.

It was reported by physicians, quickly researched and identified, and the government traced the source, warned us, pulled it, and corrected the problem. I don't call that a waste of time, or tax dollars.

Medical studies of causation factors in certain disorders, report findings to these agencies. When enough proof becomes evident that something is damaging, the government is almost obligated to act on it.

I only wish they did a better job.

Edit to add: The example with the lettuce approximates the same kind of thing. The difference is, "this lettuce will make you very sick, right now. So they acted quickly.

With sodium, it's different. Eating this 2,000 mgs of sodium in the can of Campbell's soup is not going to kill you "right now". It's a cummulative effect.

[edit on 4/20/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

Are you suggesting we do away with the FDA?

No, God forbid we do something stupid like eliminate a federal agency which is so deep in Monsanto's pockets that they bed down on their pocket lint every night.

I wouldn't lose much sleep over the FDA being eliminated. If it happened, it could very well be the greatest thing that ever happened to the health of Americans in general.

To be real honest, it will come as little to no surprise when, a year or two down the road, Monsanto or DuPont come out with some sort of "flavor enhancing" chemical compound that will be marketed as a salt replacement. I mean sure, it may result in massive amounts of autism, a quadrupling in the number of cases of rare brain tumors, and sterility... but at least we'll suffer less from treatible ailments like hypertension and edema...

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

I am a bit scared about more artificial salts. When we are really sick we end up in the hospital with an IV of Dextrose and saline. Sugar and Salt.
They can come up with a replacement for these items that they give us to save our lives in the hospital, and what will the Monsanto-type replacement do to us? Round us up ?
Leave things alone, geez, I can't even find aspirin for a reasonable price now and it is hidden ! I won't take organ-destroying tylenol, but they want us to !
Everyone I know, even the sheeples, are sick and tired to the Nth degree about now. We want to be left to live in peace. And die in peace.
love 2 all.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in