T1B

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:09 pm**

Processed food does, in general, have way too much salt. One of the (many) reasons I try to stay away from processed crap - besides the fact that it usually tastes like shit.
The thing that pisses me off is that if there is a lower sodium version it usually costs a lot more.

But if people are two damn lazy or stupid to turn the package over and read the nutrition information, or if they just don't give a shit whether they stroke out at an early age, why should it be the FDA's responsibility to put limits on it?

Maybe they could institute a four star system to rate the salt content.
Or require a prescription to purchase table salt at the market.

FDA debates stricter regulation of salt in food
Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:23pm GMT
By Kim Dixon

COLLEGE PARK, Maryland (Reuters) - U.S. health regulators on Thursday debated a consumer group's bid to boost regulation of salt in food and revoke the ingredient's "generally recognized as safe" status.

Excessive salt in Americans' diets is a major factor in high blood pressure and is a risk factor for heart disease, and most Americans surpass recommended limits, according to health experts. The consumer group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, cited these factors in calling for stricter regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"Clearly, salt should be considered generally recognized as dangerous, not safe," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the group, which has petitioned and sued the agency over the years.

Trimming the salt content in processed and restaurant foods by half could save up to 150,000 lives a year by reducing heart-related disease, Jacobson said, citing an article published in the American Journal of Public Health.

An FDA hearing on the matter marks the first time in a quarter century that the agency has considered the issue.

Officials of the American Medical Association, which represents many of the nation's physicians, and the American Heart Association were to testify later on Thursday at the hearing, calling for stricter limits on salt.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association-Food Products Association, a trade group for the food industry, favors keeping the current regime. It said the industry could support a voluntary approach on salt.

"Salt has been used safely in foods since antiquity," said Robert Earl, a group spokesman.

Excessive amounts of salt can be bad for health, but it is safe when used in moderation, he argued.

The agency now uses labeling and education to inform the public about salt, and limits the amount of salt that can be used in products labeled as "healthy."

The CSPI is asking that the FDA beef up salt labeling for all products, require manufacturers to reduce salt in packaged foods, and revoke salt's "generally recognized as safe" status, which would subject it to stricter regulation as a food additive.

The American Heart Association advises adults to limit daily sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams, or about one teaspoon. The average American consumes about 3,300 milligrams per day, according to government data cited by CSPI.

The vast majority of sodium in modern diets comes from processed foods like soups, frozen dinners and condiments, according to the heart group. One frozen chicken teriyaki dinner, or one small can of Bloody Mary mix, contains a full day's worth of sodium, Jacobson said.

The FDA last looked at regulating salt more broadly in 1982 but decided against it for several reasons, including the difficulty of enforcement. It opted instead to boost information and education and rely on voluntary efforts by food producers.

Citing the rising daily intake of salt and the burden of heart-related diseases in the United States, Jacobson said the hands-off approach has been tried and found wanting.

"We've been there, done that; it didn't work," he said.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:13 pm**

Salt doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:25 pm**

Amendment 2a, which most people do not realize was almost passed with the original BoR, would have read:

A well regulated Digestive Tract, being necessary to the happiness of a Middle Aged Person, the right of the people to keep and consume Salt, shall not be infringed.

We now know however, from advanced medical research, that the right to bear Metamucil is a lot more important to the well regulated Digestive Tract.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:29 pm**

Exactly. I always liked you Mikey, even though we disagree on a few things. You're one of them "salt of the earth" type guys.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:30 pm**

LOL.

Welcome home Tom.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:50 pm**

Oh--those wacky "US Health Regulators" !
Another example of why I think I'm living in an insane asylum !

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:25 pm**

Roach wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Salt doesn't kill people, people kill people.
with salt.

Buckshot works better.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:41 am**

Mikey wrote:Amendment 2a, which most people do not realize was almost passed with the original BoR, would have read:

A well regulated Digestive Tract, being necessary to the happiness of a Middle Aged Person, the right of the people to keep and consume Salt, shall not be infringed.
We now know however, from advanced medical research, that the right to bear Metamucil is a lot more important to the well regulated Digestive Tract.

Reading me like a cheap dime store novel, eh?

Yup.

Someone wanna link me up with which part of the Constitution grants the fed the right to regulate food consumption?

Plus, another increased federal expense to remove personal responsibilty and thinking for oneself, and making your own health decisions under advisement of your physician.

Just what we needed -- an increase of the stupidity tax.

Getting tired of it yet, folks? Is this why you go to work? So you can give your money to someone so they can tell you what you can and can't eat? Or, would you rather keep your money and make your own nutritional choices?

Hell, I don't think even Lenin or Stalin took things that far.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:56 am**

who care dinsdadal sucks cock..

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:37 am**

Mace wrote:
The government's regulating my food consumption??? Are they confiscating my salt shakers? No, didn't think so, you idiot.

Mace

Maybe not today, but by 2010 they will be. Mark my words.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:08 am**

Salt was invented in the U&L, in case you all didn't know.

Hi Tom.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:17 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Mikey wrote:Amendment 2a, which most people do not realize was almost passed with the original BoR, would have read:

A well regulated Digestive Tract, being necessary to the happiness of a Middle Aged Person, the right of the people to keep and consume Salt, shall not be infringed.
We now know however, from advanced medical research, that the right to bear Metamucil is a lot more important to the well regulated Digestive Tract.

Reading me like a cheap dime store novel, eh?

Yup.

Someone wanna link me up with which part of the Constitution grants the fed the right to regulate food consumption?

Plus, another increased federal expense to remove personal responsibilty and thinking for oneself, and making your own health decisions under advisement of your physician.

Just what we needed -- an increase of the stupidity tax.

Getting tired of it yet, folks? Is this why you go to work? So you can give your money to someone so they can tell you what you can and can't eat? Or, would you rather keep your money and make your own nutritional choices?

Hell, I don't think even Lenin or Stalin took things that far.

Another Rack for Doomsdale, we're not near as far apart as I thought. Maybe I should actually start reading your entries.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:38 pm**

Nice to see some of the old salts kickin' it around here, RadioFan, Roach.

Can't stay away from here too long no matter how busy life gets, it's kind of like a cat and it's salt lick.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:39 pm**

R-Jack wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:Just what we needed -- an increase of the stupidity tax.
Gets it.

When is the government or the FDA realize that placing regulations like this do not save lives? C'mon folks. If some brain dead fat fuck really thinks eating ~~Lean Cuisine~~ TV dinners and canned soup every day is leading to a healthy lifestyle, then they will most likely find another route than heart disease to off themselves. Fuck 'em.

You're not saying that food prepared at home, from fresh ingredients, in a room called the kitchen, tends to be naturally low in sodium and refined sugar, and have a higher nutritional value than frozen dinners, canned soup and Triple Whoppers are you?

OK, I didn't think so. Carry on.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:01 pm**

Mace wrote:The government's regulating my food consumption??? Are they confiscating my salt shakers? No, didn't think so, you idiot.

Mace

Oh...

So, even though the Nanny State wants to increase federal spending to regulate your food consumption, it will be for naught, since you can dump as much sodium as you like on your food after you take it out of the package?

So, this is worthy of an increase in federal spending... why?

Yeah, someone is an"idiot," alright." Actually, lots of someones... like anyone that doesn't just say no to Big Government stealing their money for nothing.

Big Government is now just spending money for the sake of spending money. It needs to stop.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:02 pm**

Got to stimuate the economy.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:07 pm**

Not sure this is the correct way to do that Mikey. The economy, according to some, is about to bleed out. The sub-prime mess, gas prices through the roof, the cost of the war on terror, the war on drugs, and now this ?

I'm afraid it'd be just adding salt to the wound.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:13 pm**

That stings, Tom...

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:32 pm**

Not trying to assalt you Mikey, just trying to salt this issue with some practicality.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:39 pm**

Speaking of things I don't appreciate...

The damn weatherman.

Sopposed to start snowing tomorrow morning (rarely snows around here, and the First of December is fairly early in the season for one of those rare snowfalls). After that, the snow is supposed to give way to a Pacific storm that's threatening 65MPH winds(100+MPH on the Coast, but there's another word for 100MPH winds on the Coast -- they call that "winter").

But not just any old 65MPH winded-storm -- they're talking about it lasting 30 hours. We get some blustery shit this time of year in the Interior Vallies, but it usually lasts a few hours, after which the cleanup starts (we got these things called "trees" 'round these parts, and series of multiple 65MPH gusts seems to take their toll on big trees... and the power lines and roofs below them). Shouldn't be more than about a million people or so without power when all is said and done. Not too bad for me, since I live in a fairly heavily populated area, adjacent to a major busness highway -- not so much for people living off the beaten path... they usually have to wait a few days, even up to a couple of weeks to get their power fixed... sucks to be them(no matter how many times it happens over the years, I'll still inevitably hear the story about "damn, I should have emptied my refridgerator once the power went out, since it really fucking stinks in there now.").

I suppose that means golf is out of the question for the weekend.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:49 pm**

A couple of pictures from my drive to work this morning. Since this rain thing happens so rarely around here anymore I decided before I left the house that I should document it for posterity.

The thing that really sucks is that people around here just don't know how to drive in the rain.
I mean, being a little more cautious and leaving some extra space between your car and the one in front is fine, but driving 25 mph in a 55 mph zone, with no traffic in front of you (ie first off the stop light). is a f'ing ridiculous. You're more likely to cause an accident by pissing people off and making them go around you.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:04 pm**

Last November, we broke our record for rainiest calander month since they started keeping track (November isn't the wettest month on average, but it's one of the "big three" -- Nov., Dec., Jan.). Made a decent run at it this November, but we'll be a little short of it... but still over 10 inches on the month, which is a pretty big number.

Mikey wrote:The thing that really sucks is that people around here just don't know how to drive in the rain.

Oh, make no mistake -- SoCals don't know how to drive in the rain around here, either. Fucking menace to society. But it ain't because they drive too slow... quite the opposite. And I don't know how many times you people need to have the front end of your car repaired before you figure out that a car with wet brakes on wet pavement doesn't stop as quickly as when it's dry -- I'm putting the over/under at about 3.

The body shops will love this weather -- ever car with a license plate frame from a california dealership will be showing up at their shop in the next week. Hopefully, the weather gets bad enough to scare some of them away.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:19 pm**

Yeah, there are people around here that still tailgate and/or drive too fast when it's wet, especially when it hasn't rained for months - the streets are that much slicker because of accumulated oil and stuff.
Putting those assholes and the ones who drive waaay too slow on the same roads at the same time makes for an interesting commute.

BTW...don't talk to me about you people. I didn't move to the U&L and don't plan to. And I've never damaged the front end of my car.
Well OK, once about 25 years ago. But that had nothing to do with driving too fast in the rain and everything to do with alcohol and a tree that wasn't where it was supposed to be.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:26 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:I suppose that means golf is out of the question for the weekend.

I'd keep playing. I don't think the heavy stuff's gonna come down for quite a while.

sin

Posted: **Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:06 am**

Mikey wrote:Got to stimulate the economy.

Too much saltpeter?

:P

Posted: **Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:38 am**

Dinsdale wrote:Someone wanna link me up with which part of the Constitution grants the fed the right to regulate food consumption?

Consupmtion? Ok. No, but...
[devil's-advocate] Try Art. 1 Sec. 8 for those foods [read: damn near all] that are shipped in Interstate Commerce.[/ devil's-advocate]

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:50 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:100+MPH on the Coast

129 is the biggest... so far.

Hasn't been too bad inland, except the whole "building an ark" part.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:16 pm**

if you have not driven in tennessee when they have a few inches of snow, you really have no bidness bitching about inept bad weather drivers. I lived there 3 years and suffered through a couple a "snow storms" which in tennessee means anything measurable.

You should see ricky and dale try to pilot their silverados around in it. quite amusing...until one of them hits you.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:59 pm**

smackaholic wrote:if you have not driven in tennessee when they have a few inches of snow, you really have no bidness bitching about inept bad weather drivers.

While I cdertainly won't discount the inability to drive in slick conditions of those from the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon...

Dude... I live next door to california, home to the worst drivers on the planet. Add some snow or ice, and hilarity ensues.

I left to go take care of some business. When I finally negotiated all the detours from downed trees and flooded roads, there was no electricity when I got there.

Good times... if your name is Noah.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:17 pm**

Just heard a report of 70-foot waves hitting the coast.

70 feet is pretty damn big. I'm guessing the crews of the cargo ships along the coastline aren't having a particularly fun time right about now.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:57 pm**

You keep busting on California drivers.

That's all well and good because there are some pretty shitty drivers around here.

The thing is, though, if they live in the U&L they're no longer California drivers.

(Hint: They're U&L drivers)

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:11 pm**

If you SoCals didn't insist on thinking that moving to the U&L somehow makes you a U&Ler, you wouldn't be ridiculed nearly so much.

Uhm, nope. They're still quite clearly california drivers. Dented bumper out front should have told you.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:33 pm**

I have no illusions about ever being an "U&Ler".

But by your same logic most of those "SoCals" aren't really SoCals any more than they're U&Lers.

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:27 am**

Dinsdale wrote:Just heard a report of 70-foot waves hitting the coast.

70 feet is pretty damn big. I'm guessing the crews of the cargo ships along the coastline aren't having a particularly fun time right about now.

At least it's not foggy.

Sin,

Diego

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:47 pm**

Since we've hijacked this thread with weather . . .

It's been snowing like crazy around here lately. Yesterday, my first official day after making the leap and going out on my own, I had a particularly brutal day driving. I had to go to Court in the morning about an hour away, then back near home for the afternoon. Okay, not too bad, I didn't run into too much snow there. Then in the evening, I had to go out to Angola, NY (those of you who were paying attention to college basketball in the late 80's -- early 90's might recognize that name as Christian Laettner's hometown, but I digress). It wasn't too bad out there other than horrible wind, but getting there was a different story. I had to travel through a massive snow belt. A drive that takes me 1:30, or at most 1:40 under ordinary circumstances wound up being 2:10. For awhile I was going no more than 10-15 mph, that's how bad visibility was.

Today most of the schools are closed and I don't have to drive through the same snow belt. I still have a lot of driving to do, though. Oh, did I mention how much I hate driving in the winter? :brad:

On the bright side, only five more months to go of this shit before the weather starts to get nice.

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:44 pm**

Is this the running weather thread ?
It's only going up to 73º today as we are having what is called a "cold snap". I may have to put on long pants and possibly turn on the heat pump for the pool water so I can have a swim this afternoon. It's tough living where there are such brutal winters.
Hey Terry (getting back to the original topic) do they still use salt on the raods or has that been banned ?

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:45 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Since we've hijacked this thread with weather . . .

It's been snowing like crazy around here lately.

Now would be a good time for PSU to get his ass up here with a snowblower.

sin

Spent the last hour shoveling... AGAIN. And will do so AGAIN when I get home tonight. And AGAIN tomorrow AM. :x

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:55 pm**

I've met a large number of transplants from Upstate NY over the last several years.

Can't complain about rain to these people -- they'll point out "and I've never once had to shovel rain here."

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:11 pm**

As recently as Sunday night it was 52 degrees here. It rained like hell here for a few days, then got cold enough to become snow.

Last March, the salt truck rolled through the neighborhood. Dude went fucking NUTS on the salt hammer. I went out a little bit later with a shovel and filled a glad bag with extra road salt. That'll definitely be enough for me to use on my walk for the winter.

Wolfman, I wish they would be more judicious in the use of salt. It is often overused here.

BShoveled, give the soloflex a rest and get out there and clear your walk like a good neighbor. Enough of the girlish wailing.

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:16 pm**

If it was sea salt you could use it for gourmet cooking.

Is there any such thing as gourmet PA road salt?

T1B

Dinsdale Should Appreciate This...

Dinsdale Should Appreciate This...