nr706 wrote: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.

Until the Pure Food & Drug Act, I'm not so sure about that.

nr706 wrote: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.

I have little doubt that each of those things has indeed been in the foods people eat for as long as salt has.

nr706 wrote: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.

But "industrial" processed foods haven't been around for centuries.

Moreover, the levels of sodium are much higher than they were in the past.

I don't necessarily think salt regulations will make us healthier or a generally a good thing. But we should at least think about potential costs and benefits. Whether something is a traditional food ingredient seems irrelevant.

Personally, I think this demonizing of salt (if it's possible to demonize a mineral) is silly. I understand the concern for people with high blood pressure - I grew up in a home with a parent with serious high blood pressure, so I'm accustomed to using salt judiciously in cooking, and never developed the habit of sprinkling it on food (especially without having tasted the food first!). Perhaps because of my dad's health concerns, I've always kept a corner of my eye out for news on salt's role in health, and I've never come across anything that persuaded me that salt was harmful to people with normal blood pressure. My salt use habits have loosened up in the last 25 years since I moved out of my parents' home and started eating and cooking on my own, but my blood pressure has not changed.

It occurs to me also, don't just ask yourself what's the harm in having the FDA throw some resources (that is, tax $$) at this issue - ask yourself what things might be a better use of the FDA's time and budget.

Katie, I think if you read the earlier posts you'd see that we are talking about regulating salt in processed foods, not salt you put on food yourself. 75 to 80 percent of salt consumption comes from processed foods.

Kennyz wrote:I have little doubt that each of those things has indeed been in the foods people eat for as long as salt has.

I agree, but I've yet to see a recipe that calls for cyanide, rodent hair or feces as an intentional ingredient.

Katie:

I agree with you. If you look at my post which started this thread, it arose out of all the talk about how harmful salt is, but I never saw a clear case made for salt being harmful to those with no signs of elevated blood pressure or other heart risk factors. Nothing here has persuaded me otherwise (there are plenty of other health issues relating to diet to worry about!). The thread has morphed into an (interesting) discusion of whether our government out to be regulating salt content in food because, on a societal level, there are many people consuming levels of salt that are dangerous for them. The two issues are quite different. While I see no need for me to worry about salt intake, I can see the case (and the case against) a regulation to limit the salt content of processed foods.

Jonah

I still don't see what the harm is in limiting the amount of salt in processed food. What is the downside? Throwing out the health part of the debate, wouldn't this at least be beneficial to everyone's taste buds (agreeing with Mike's point)?

jesteinf wrote:I still don't see what the harm is in limiting the amount of salt in processed food. What is the downside? Throwing out the health part of the debate, wouldn't this at least be beneficial to everyone's taste buds (agreeing with Mike's point)?

Well, maybe. The question for me isn't whether the FDA should regulate salt. The question is about what the regulations will actually be. How will they define "processed food" and what will be the actual restrictions? That's what matters. For example, it is conceivable that they would define bacon, prosciutto and baccala as processed foods. Anything but the most generous regulatory standards would essentially eliminate those things from store shelves. I wouldn't like that.

jesteinf wrote:I still don't see what the harm is in limiting the amount of salt in processed food. What is the downside? Throwing out the health part of the debate, wouldn't this at least be beneficial to everyone's taste buds (agreeing with Mike's point)?

On the downside, I'd worry that enforcement would be expensive and ineffective. On the upside, it could reduce the overall, actual cost to society as a whole (especially on the back end) and potentially change the way we eat. Still, even in a perfect world -- where every effort worked exactly as intended -- I'd favor guidelines over regulation. I'm just not convinced that the hazards of sodium warrant government intervention or that the effort would be carried out in a way that would actually make it beneficial.

=R=

Will they be regulating the salt content in those round blue boxes with the little girl with umbrella on them?

Kennyz wrote:

jesteinf wrote:I still don't see what the harm is in limiting the amount of salt in processed food. What is the downside? Throwing out the health part of the debate, wouldn't this at least be beneficial to everyone's taste buds (agreeing with Mike's point)?

Well, maybe. The question for me isn't whether the FDA should regulate salt. The question is about what the regulations will actually be. How will they define "processed food" and what will be the actual restrictions? That's what matters. For example, it is conceivable that they would define bacon, prosciutto and baccala as processed foods. Anything but the most generous regulatory standards would essentially eliminate those things from store shelves. I wouldn't like that.

Big Bacon would never stand for such a thing!

nr706 wrote:Will they be regulating the salt content in those round blue boxes with the little girl with umbrella on them?

Yes, clearly the FDA will define salt itself as a processed food.

I think we need to ask ourselves first to whom (or what) we think the FDA is most accountable (as a regulatory agency with staff not directly elected by voters). Next, let's think about how any potential sodium regulations in processed food may hurt or help the persons or entities that we think the FDA is most accountable to. If your answer is that the regs would hurt the livelihood of these entities, then think about whether the FDA will come up with any meaningful regulations to reduce sodium in processed foods or just give the appearance of trying to reduce sodium for the public good. Food for thought.

Signed,
Aschie "The Cynic" 30

ronnie_suburban wrote:

jesteinf wrote:I still don't see what the harm is in limiting the amount of salt in processed food. What is the downside? Throwing out the health part of the debate, wouldn't this at least be beneficial to everyone's taste buds (agreeing with Mike's point)?

On the downside, I'd worry that enforcement would be expensive and ineffective. On the upside, it could reduce the overall, actual cost to society as a whole (especially on the back end) and potentially change the way we eat. Still, even in a perfect world -- where every effort worked exactly as intended -- I'd favor guidelines over regulation. I'm just not convinced that the hazards of sodium warrant government intervention or that the effort would be carried out in a way that would actually make it beneficial.

=R=

The talk is about regulating processed foods. I wouldn't be that worried about Nestle and Kraft lying about the sodium in their products or about the government's ability to do random checks. I presume you are thinking about enforcement of sodium levels in restaurants. Is that correct? The Institute of Medicine report basically concludes that regulating food served in non-chain restaurants is not feasible. They do recommend that the FDA regulate large chains that have standardized menus, production processes, etc.

jesteinf wrote:

Kennyz wrote:

jesteinf wrote:I still don't see what the harm is in limiting the amount of salt in processed food. What is the downside? Throwing out the health part of the debate, wouldn't this at least be beneficial to everyone's taste buds (agreeing with Mike's point)?

Well, maybe. The question for me isn't whether the FDA should regulate salt. The question is about what the regulations will actually be. How will they define "processed food" and what will be the actual restrictions? That's what matters. For example, it is conceivable that they would define bacon, prosciutto and baccala as processed foods. Anything but the most generous regulatory standards would essentially eliminate those things from store shelves. I wouldn't like that.

Big Bacon would never stand for such a thing!

In all seriousness though, if they don't we will then get into all sorts of debates over socioeconomic class and ethnic discrimination. How can the food eaten almost exclusively by rich white people have a different standard than the food eaten in poor communities? This is why I think that in the end, warning labels and similar devices will (and should) win out over sodium quantity restrictions.

jesteinf wrote:I still don't see what the harm is in limiting the amount of salt in processed food. What is the downside? Throwing out the health part of the debate, wouldn't this at least be beneficial to everyone's taste buds (agreeing with Mike's point)?

There are plenty of things which are probably good ideas and might not cause harm, but that doesn't mean there's a clear and convincing case that our federal government, at tax-payer expense, should be regulating them. Freedom is the default state; any restriction on freedom (including making salty food) should taken very seriously. "Ehh, what's the harm?" is hardly the bar I'd like set for restriction of my freedoms*

-Dan

* Should I some day choose to get in the salty food processing business.

I guess my only point is, if there's a little less sodium in the little circle of turkey product that one finds in a Lunchable...that's probably not such a bad thing, and the world will remain safe for democracy.

Of course final judgment on any of this should be reserved until the FDA actually does something.

Darren72 wrote:I wouldn't be that worried about Nestle and Kraft lying about the sodium in their products or about the government's ability to do random checks.

My 20+ years working in the food industry lead me to a very different conclusion; not necessarily about these companies but about how things typically go with self-regulation and government involvement. It's a vortex.

=R=

jesteinf wrote:I guess my only point is, if there's a little less sodium in the little circle of turkey product that one finds in a Lunchable...that's probably not such a bad thing, and the world will remain safe for democracy.

Sure, but what if you find out that the lunchable actually has the same sodium content as the Iberico ham you're buying from a gourmet grocer? How could the FDA get away with restricting one, but not the other?

Kennyz wrote:

jesteinf wrote:I guess my only point is, if there's a little less sodium in the little circle of turkey product that one finds in a Lunchable...that's probably not such a bad thing, and the world will remain safe for democracy.

Sure, but what if you find out that the lunchable actually has the same sodium content as the Iberico ham you're buying from a gourmet grocer? How could the FDA get away with restricting one, but not the other?

I'm sure there's a way (I'm a consultant, not a regulator so maybe there isn't). Listerine has a higher alcohol content than beer, but I've never been carded for trying to buy mouthwash.

Kennyz wrote:

jesteinf wrote:I guess my only point is, if there's a little less sodium in the little circle of turkey product that one finds in a Lunchable...that's probably not such a bad thing, and the world will remain safe for democracy.

Sure, but what if you find out that the lunchable actually has the same sodium content as the Iberico ham you're buying from a gourmet grocer? How could the FDA get away with restricting one, but not the other?

My concern exactly.

It's easy to think of only lousy, over-processed foods as containing huge amounts of sodium. Not so much the case.

jesteinf wrote:I'm sure there's a way (I'm a consultant, not a regulator so maybe there isn't). Listerine has a higher alcohol content than beer, but I've never been carded for trying to buy mouthwash.

Unless you can get bacon classified as a medication (not that somebody hasn't tried, I'm sure), I'm not sure the analogy holds.

How? By saying that only "good" salty foods are okay? Only those produced by small producers? The instinct I see developing is that it's not such a big deal to limit the amount of sodium in that lousy canned soup, but what about the bag of high quality salt & vinegar chips from a local producer?

Even if the goal is to hit nasty over-processed foods, I don't see how any limits could be imposed that wouldn't involve some level of collateral damage.

Again, I'm not a regulator. And while it might be fun to debate hypotheticals, I'm willing to hold my fire and reserve opinion until there are actually rules to have an opinion about.

FWIW, local producers could easily be exempted by having the rules apply only to companies with revenues above a certain level. Lots of government regulations work like that.

jesteinf wrote:

Kennyz wrote:

jesteinf wrote:I guess my only point is, if there's a little less sodium in the little circle of turkey product that one finds in a Lunchable...that's probably not such a bad thing, and the world will remain safe for democracy.

Sure, but what if you find out that the lunchable actually has the same sodium content as the Iberico ham you're buying from a gourmet grocer? How could the FDA get away with restricting one, but not the other?

I'm sure there's a way (I'm a consultant, not a regulator so maybe there isn't). Listerine has a higher alcohol content than beer, but I've never been carded for trying to buy mouthwash.

The alcohol in Listerine has been denatured to make it extremely unpleasant to drink in large enough quantities to get you tipsy, which is why you haven't been carded trying to buy it.

Interesting, didn't know that. I will try to come up with a less crappy analogy.

jesteinf wrote:Again, I'm not a regulator. And while it might be fun to debate hypotheticals, I'm willing to hold my fire and reserve opinion until there are actually rules to have an opinion about.

Which is why I couch it as strong concern rather than flat-out opposition.

jesteinf wrote:FWIW, local producers could easily be exempted by having the rules apply only to companies with revenues above a certain level. Lots of government regulations work like that.

But that's only meaningful if the presumption is that big=bad, and as much as many like to flog that mantra around here, it isn't necessarily the case. At what point does La Quercia cross that line into big and all of their products become subject to sodium limits?

The point is that the distinction that I think many would like to make is that it's okay to limit sodium in "bad" foods, but not in "good" foods that simply require a lot of salt to make properly. But then we're not talking about volume or revenue or anything tangible like that. We're talking about what we consider "bad" and "good." Who makes that call? How does anybody make that call?

Here's a question: Why do processed foods have high levels of sodium and have they gotten higher over time? If they have gotten higher, is there some reason why? Does it somehow lower the costs of production or provide some other benefit to the company?

It's possible that the answers to those questions might lead to how regulations would differentiate between processed foods and things like products from La Quercia.

Just thinking (metaphorically) out loud.

Can I assume that we've all seen the news that Frito Lay has developed a new salt crystal formation that will allow them to cut sodium levels by 25% in their potato chips without reducing the saltiness the consumer perceives?

PepsiCo Develops 'Designer Salt' to Chip Away at Sodium Intake

Kennyz wrote:

jesteinf wrote:I guess my only point is, if there's a little less sodium in the little circle of turkey product that one finds in a Lunchable...that's probably not such a bad thing, and the world will remain safe for democracy.

Sure, but what if you find out that the lunchable actually has the same sodium content as the Iberico ham you're buying from a gourmet grocer? How could the FDA get away with restricting one, but not the other?

Easy. You're assuming that all regulations are written blindly and applied fairly across the board to all foods (and, by extension, food manufacturers). Are any regulations (or laws) fair? Do you think regulations are written without any persons, entities or things in mind while they are being written? Speaking hypothetically to your example, if you're the Iberico ham lobby, you tweak the regulation, excuse me, the person writing the regulation, tweaks it so that it reads something like "said restriction applies only to products with x% of sodium per x millimeter of product that is processed originally from a product that has less than x grams of sodium . . . " (and so on and so forth so that, magically, Iberico ham is exempted out of the regulation).

Here's a question: Why do processed foods have high levels of sodium and have they gotten higher over time? If they have gotten higher, is there some reason why? Does it somehow lower the costs of production or provide some other benefit to the company?

From the beginning of the thread:

Some food makers are already gradually cutting down on salt, but quietly so nobody notices.

There was a long article on this a week or two ago in the Wall Street Journal. The gist of it was that having failed to sell consumers on low sodium varieties of base line products, manufacturers about 5 years ago began slowly reducing salt in their base products without telling consumers. Soups and cereals were mentioned, with a number of varieties having 30-40% lower sodium today than back then. Also sticks in my mind that Kellogg All Bran cereal has had something like an 80% sodium reduction

.