jlawrence01 wrote: "Your use of that link, which has NOTHING to do with McDonald's, is irresponsible at best."

I'm sorry but you didn't read the article carefully as it clearly states that Beef Products, Inc. is a supplier to McDonalds. (See below)

"With the U.S.D.A.’s stamp of approval, the company’s processed beef has become a mainstay in America’s hamburgers. McDonald’s, Burger King and other fast-food giants use it as a component in ground beef, as do grocery chains. The federal school lunch program used an estimated 5.5 million pounds of the processed beef last year alone."

This is a company that is putting meat by-products that were originally reserved for the pet food industry into mainstrean food channels.

It's your choice if you want to consume this garbage, but anybody out there that thinks McDonald's is healthy or wholesome is in denial.

From the NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/nyreg ... ref=dining

Just read through the past three pages and see a bunch of interesting points of view. It seems no one has brought up why too much salt is bad for a person in a medical perspective. There's currently a trend to make what we all might know as "normal BP" numbers to be too high.

120/80 has been "normal" but there's now evidence once BP gets over 115/75 mm Hg the risk of cardiovascular disease increases.

Cardiovascular disease is the culprit and elevated BP helps cause it and sodium can raise BP and then throw in how many Americans are over weight and throw sodium on top of obesity and you one of the reasons the medical community is alarmed by how much sodium we as Americans are taking in.

Sodium link from American Heart Association:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. ... ifier=4708

Sodium and Overweight link from NIH:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/nov30a99.htm

Of non-health related interest, I'm watching this now on Food Network.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/the-best-thi ... index.html

Beauner wrote:... but anybody out there that thinks McDonald's is healthy or wholesome is in denial.

Who said McDonald's is healthy or wholesome? Is this a strawman?

Darren72 wrote:

Beauner wrote:... but anybody out there that thinks McDonald's is healthy or wholesome is in denial.

Who said McDonald's is healthy or wholesome? Is this a strawman?

Agreed. Nobody on this thread ever wrote such an opinion.

=R=

A skeptical view of limiting salt intake from John Tierney in today's New York Times.

... but anybody out there that thinks McDonald's is healthy or wholesome is in denial.

Perhaps. Anybody who thinks that McDonald's is less healthy or less wholesome than, for example, Edzo's or Top Notch once could easily argue, is similarly in denial. And I say this as one who would eat at Edzo's or Top Notch but never at a McDonald's unless there is a gun to my head. One could argue that frozen beef and french fries are "less wholesome" than fresh, I guess.

This is a company that is putting meat by-products that were originally reserved for the pet food industry into mainstrean food channels.

This is misleading. The company wastes less beef. Less waste is a good thing. It's the same beef. Now, the article points out stewardship and testing issues and I'm all for understanding those and fixing them.

But, there are plenty of valid and truthful reasons to piss on McDonald's without having to twist the truth.

For the scientifically inclined: Lyle McDonald, a discerning and lovably crotchety nutritional guru who would fit right in at LTH in sentiment if not sensibility, posted the following review of research about "food quality", which raises salient points regarding McDonald's and the elusive meaning of what constitutes "healthy". Skip to the application section for the cliff's notes. (The film Bowling for Morgan also serves as an effective if hyperbolic counterpoint.)

I think it's valuable in distinguishing the moral and psychological realms of "healthy," and the bare bones (ha! ha?) nutrition of the matter, which tend to get garbled in heated debate.

Pepsi Develops "Designer Salt" to Chip Away at Sodium Intake
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 91566.html

WSJ wrote: Normally, only about 20% of the salt on a chip actually dissolves on the tongue before the chip is chewed and swallowed, and the remaining 80% is swallowed without contributing to the taste, said Dr. Khan, who oversees PepsiCo's long-term research.

This is what I'm sayin' Campbell's is also claiming that they have reduced sodium content by changing the type of salt they use (was this mentioned upthread already?) but in a less engineered process: Campbell Announces Major Sodium Reduction Plans For Top-Selling Soups

However, not everybody agrees about their science.

So, now it looks like the Fed has caught the bug from New York, and is poised to pass laws limiting the amount of salt in processed foods.

http://www.biteofthebest.com/fda-to-set-salt-limits-in-foods/

Cynthia wrote:So, now it looks like the Fed has caught the bug from New York, and is poised to pass laws limiting the amount of salt in processed foods.

http://www.biteofthebest.com/fda-to-set-salt-limits-in-foods/

This is not correct (as of now). The FDA released this press statement that says, in part,

A story in today’s Washington Post leaves a mistaken impression that the FDA has begun the process of regulating the amount of sodium in foods. The FDA is not currently working on regulations nor has it made a decision to regulate sodium content in foods at this time.

It should be clear that they are considering regulations, but have not made any decisions.

Here is the new Institute of Medicine report on sodium: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Strateg ... tates.aspx

The fact that the FDA is considering passing laws is frightening enough. I don't think the FDA has such a great track record that I'd trust them to get it right, even if I believed it was the Fed's job to tell me what to eat.

I also think that, for people who like salt and don't intend to cut back, the only effect will be that the salt shaker gets used rather more than it does now.

I don't see more laws as being the answer. It would more than likely be just like the "fat free" craze, where manufacturers find some other unhealthful ingredient to boost to compensate for the loss of the targeted "bad' ingredient du jour.

I do see the school lunches effort as being more the right direction. Don't raise kids on bad food, and there's some hope they won't eat it when they're older.

Cynthia wrote: I don't think the FDA has such a great track record that I'd trust them to get it right.

Do you like Nutrition Facts labeling on all food products on shelves?

The FDA was responsible for that. I personally think it works really well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_ ... cation_Act

I didn't say I disliked everything the FDA has ever done. I said they don't have a very good track record.

The nutrition labels on foods are nice. I'm a big fan of information and education, and labels fall into that category.

It's not the same as telling me what I can and cannot eat.

And it's not the same as approving something that later has to be withdrawn because it's killing people.

What's the harm in reducing the amount of salt in processed foods? At worst, it will have no impact on people's health. At best, maybe it will be beneficial.

Cynthia wrote:And it's not the same as approving something that later has to be withdrawn because it's killing people.

Like unlimited salt in food?

Kennyz wrote:

Cynthia wrote:And it's not the same as approving something that later has to be withdrawn because it's killing people.

Like unlimited salt in food?

Think of the beverage crisis that could spur!

=R=

Cynthia wrote:I didn't say I disliked everything the FDA has ever done. I said they don't have a very good track record.

The nutrition labels on foods are nice. I'm a big fan of information and education, and labels fall into that category.

It's not the same as telling me what I can and cannot eat.

And it's not the same as approving something that later has to be withdrawn because it's killing people.

I'm intrigued. Could you tell me more about their track record? (Not just isolated examples.)

What do you want to eat that they will not allow?

Cynthia wrote:The fact that the FDA is considering passing laws is frightening enough.

Yes, it is frightening, considering that the FDA cannot pass laws.

Darren72 wrote:

Cynthia wrote:The fact that the FDA is considering passing laws is frightening enough.

Yes, it is frightening, considering that the FDA cannot pass laws.

Yes, the FDA regulates, not legislates, but not so much of a difference to companies that would be subject to those regulations.

Please, let's keep the discussion focused -- as much as we can -- on the Salt + Health issue and not get into an extended debate about the merits (or lack thereof) of the FDA or any other government agency, for that matter.

Thanks,

=R=
for the moderators

Kneejerk food-libertarian though I am, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this. Part of the reason people love processed food is that it's so full of salt, it tastes "good" because it tastes strongly of salt, a trumpet blast of one big flavor is mistaken for flavor in all its subtleties. That's an artificial preference for saltiness that has been created by the industrial food system, pressing the salt button extra hard to get us to light up, and so I'm not that concerned about artificially reducing it back down to something sane.

Probably I'm being naive, and America's natural salt pork producers will be the ones to suffer while Swanson chicken broth continues to make the Dead Sea taste like Orangina, but that's my instinctive reaction.

not that I needed the FDA's s report on salt from earlier this week(ive known excessive salt isnt healthy for 30+ years now).

But if thats whats needed to get the word out to the folks who dont know any better, its all good in my world. maybe I am just not scared of "big brother"

I don't get this argument at all.

I also think that, for people who like salt and don't intend to cut back, the only effect will be that the salt shaker gets used rather more than it does now

Isn't this the point of free choice? If you want salty food, then add it yourself. For everyone else, it's only a benefit to reduce sodium. Per my post way upthread, food companies have been reducing sodium in products for quite a few years anyway.

Also remember, too, that there are two agencies that oversee and regulate our food. Perhaps we are confusing FDA with USDA?

As to salt and regulations, I'm fine with there being an upper limit set on how much salt can be in food, just as I am with the limits set on what can be called cheese vs cheese food product. Or is that the USDA?

rickster wrote:I don't get this argument at all.

I also think that, for people who like salt and don't intend to cut back, the only effect will be that the salt shaker gets used rather more than it does now

Isn't this the point of free choice? If you want salty food, then add it yourself. For everyone else, it's only a benefit to reduce sodium. Per my post way upthread, food companies have been reducing sodium in products for quite a few years anyway.

This is exactly the argument that a lot of people make: You can always add, but you can't subtract salt.

Mike G wrote:... Part of the reason people love processed food is that it's so full of salt, it tastes "good" because it tastes strongly of salt, a trumpet blast of one big flavor is mistaken for flavor in all its subtleties. That's an artificial preference for saltiness that has been created by the industrial food system, pressing the salt button extra hard to get us to light up, and so I'm not that concerned about artificially reducing it back down to something sane.

Right. The more salt you eat, the more salt you need for something to taste appropriately salty. I think the philosophy among some proponents of reducing salt in processed foods is that, over time, people will adjust their tastes so that a reduced amount of salt seems more normal.

Here is a Q&A from the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/Consume ... 181577.htm

Perhaps it's time I go short on Salt 'n Vinegar potato chips?

From my perspective, labeling is a great example of government regulation in the food industry supporting transparency, so that each of us can use our free will to determine what to ingest. Setting an arbitrary limit on sodium levels, based on an expectation of serving size and the rest of the consumer's diet just seems silly to me.

-Dan

dansch wrote:Perhaps it's time I go short on Salt 'n Vinegar potato chips?

From my perspective, labeling is a great example of government regulation in the food industry supporting transparency, so that each of us can use our free will to determine what to ingest. Setting an arbitrary limit on sodium levels, based on an expectation of serving size and the rest of the consumer's diet just seems silly to me.

-Dan

What about levels of cyanide, rodent hair and feces, all of which have limits set by the FDA? Why not just remove those limits. Just label how much rat shit is in my cheerios and let me decide for myself. If I want to drink a bottle of water with a potentially lethal dose of cyanide, shouldn't that be my decision?

I'm not saying I will agree with whatever limits the FDA sets. But to me, what's silly is the notion that they should not bother even considering limiting the potentially dangerous things that go into food.

Kennyz wrote:What about levels of cyanide, rodent hair and feces, all of which have limits set by the FDA? Why not just remove those limits. Just label how much rat shit is in my cheerios and let me decide for myself. If I want to drink a bottle of water with a potentially lethal dose of cyanide, shouldn't that be my decision?

I'm not saying I will agree with whatever limits the FDA sets. But to me, what's silly is the notion that they should not bother even considering limiting the potentially dangerous things that go into food.

My perspective ... (as if anyone cares) ... salt has been a traditional food ingredient for centuries, if not millennia. Cyanide, rodent hair and feces haven't. Regulating the former seems to be over-reaching, whereas regulating the latter, which might be far more likely to cause health problems, is reasonable.

Kennyz wrote: If I want to drink a bottle of water with a potentially lethal dose of cyanide, shouldn't that be my decision?

If that's what you want, go for it. But wait at least 'til the kid has graduated college.