Alarming News

January 29, 2009

And you eat too much chocolate too

Rightwing News had it back in November, but apparently Mike Bloomberg is now moving to cut the salt in our food.

City officials said that people don’t realize the salt content of the things they buy in the supermarket.

The city’s plan is to get food manufacturers in the United States to agree to gradually start reducing salt content until it reaches a 50 percent cut in 10 years.

My favorite part of the article is the sub-headline: Citizens Revolt, Claim NYC Is Turning Into Nanny State.

I’m not sure what is more amusing, that NY is turning into a nanny state, as opposed to being at the forefront of the treating-its-citizens-like-toddlers movement, or the idea that New Yorkers would revolt against government intervention into the details of their diet and lifestyle. I remember the revolts of the smoking ban and the trans-fat ban. Blood ran through the streets. Or, actually, people shrugged their shoulders, smoked on the sidewalk and bought their cupcakes in New Jersey. It’s a liberal city, obviously the mayor of a city in the midst of a financial crisis is supposed to monitor what you eat, it’s why we elected him!

Posted by Karol at 04:16 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I’ll have to start buying Diamond Crystal at the supermarket.
http://www.forgotten-ny.com

Posted by: Kevin Walsh at January 29, 2009 at 6:41 pm

Expect more of this nonsense now that we have a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President. That will make the Democrats on the State level more bold and more open about their agendas.

Posted by: Pokerwolf at January 29, 2009 at 9:34 pm

I actually don’t have a problem with this. He’s not trying to make people stop eating salty food, he’s trying to get manufacturers to stop packing so much sodium into their products.
My favorite salsa has 230 mg of sodium per two tablespoons — 10% of the RDA. Veggie burgers have like 500 mg. Progresso Light soups have almost 1500 mg per can. These are foods that (a) don’t taste salty and (b) are supposed to be good for you.
Dump as much salt on your popcorn as you want, but foods that are “healthy” shouldn’t give you hypertension and leave you as bloated as a five-day beached whale.
Is it the government’s job to fix this? No, of course not. But obviously no one else is going to fix it. Shoppers can only write so many letters.

Posted by: Tanya at January 29, 2009 at 10:28 pm

I’m terrified of the steps Nanny Bloomberg will eventually take to prevent toxic shock syndrome.

Posted by: ari at January 29, 2009 at 10:45 pm

Tanya, you’re perfectly capable of fixing “it” for yourself. You’re evidently capable of discovering that certain foods are not as healthy as they seem.
Instead of you and Bloomberg using government to force people to be healthy, then why don’t you write a plan for Bloomberg to teach people about excessive salt, and he can fund it with $1 billion of his own money?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 29, 2009 at 11:18 pm

Aw Perry, you go on… a free market solution in the belly of the beast? One suspects that Bloomie had an impressive physical recently, and wants to pass on his new found knowledge. This sort of thing is what one expects from the nitwits in the state legislature, not from one of the caretaker Ceasars waiting for the Huns to show up.

Posted by: Casca at January 30, 2009 at 10:56 am

You’re evidently capable of discovering that certain foods are not as healthy as they seem.
I’m also not dragging three little kids around the grocery store, or shopping on a budget. I can pick and choose.
Most people don’t have time to stand there reading labels, or can’t afford an extra dollar per can for the “low sodium” varieties of soup.
It’s like when companies could still write “low fat” on something that had 15 grams of fat, because there were no regulations. Those companies can still produce their ultra high fat foods (and you can still buy it) but they can’t falsely advertise it as healthy any more.
Truth in advertising. How awful.

Posted by: Tanya at January 30, 2009 at 1:26 pm

“Dizzying intellect”, indeed.

Posted by: Tatyana at January 30, 2009 at 2:21 pm

Wait, so let me get this straight. Bloomberg writes a regulation specifying some max level of salt that a manufacturer can put in their product. This is predatory overregulation because you have absolutely no recourse to put more salt back in the product.
Could it be that the manufacturers are using salt for its well known preservative powers, and not for taste. And that, in a game theoretic sense, this is just another manifestation of the prisoner’s dilemma?

Posted by: David at January 30, 2009 at 3:09 pm

Hmm, that came out a little harsh. No sneering implied, so sorry if the tone is heavy.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2009 at 4:01 pm

“Dizzying intellect”, indeed.
I know you think you’re being witty, honey, but it’s a pop culture reference. Look it up.

Posted by: Tanya at January 30, 2009 at 4:03 pm

This is predatory overregulation because you have absolutely no recourse to put more salt back in the product.
Exactly.

Posted by: Tanya at January 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm

This “honey” has a lot of bee sting to it; it’s not a threat, just a warning, kiddie.
I was merely quoting your URL. When one makes certain selections, she should expect the consequences. To put it the way you’d understand: if you claim your intellect is above the norm, you better deliver. So far none of the promise demonstrated.
True, though: pop culture was never my strong point. Culture – sort of. Pop? – nope.

Posted by: Tatyana at January 30, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Casca, call me an idealist, but I’m pointing the way that works. Like Abraham, the high improbability of people listening to me doesn’t mean I won’t give up seeking the righteous.
Guess what, Tanya: it’s the fact of government regulations that allows “low fat” and similar claims to mean zilch. If a law doesn’t protect a particular claim, then you have no reason to trust anyone implicitly. I don’t expect you to understand this, but here we go. Because there’s a law defining “low fat,” you have an illogically implicit trust that such a food genuinely is. Without such assurance, you would certainly read the label to see how bad something is. There already is truth in advertising, because if manufacturers don’t accurately list the ingredients, that’s fraudulent misrepresentation.
If government defined “low fat” to mean 10 grams of fat per serving, would that make it so?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 1, 2009 at 10:55 am

By the way, Tanya, I didn’t reply before about something you said: “These are foods that (a) don’t taste salty and (b) are supposed to be good for you.”
Who said these are supposed to be good for you? Do they have “THIS IS HEALTHY STUFF, YOU MUST EAT IT!” on the label? Or are you merely like most people and tend to assume things without justification? I never once thought of salsa as healthy, principally because of what you tend to eat it with (i.e. do you really eat salsa on its own?). Anyone with more than a few working neural synapses should know that “veggie” does not automatically mean something is healthy. “Light” refers to caloric content, nothing more.
I personally eat very little salt. About ten years ago, when my father was still alive, he had a stroke and lost much of his sense of taste after a stroke. He added far too much salt when he did the cooking at home. But that’s my own situation. I don’t believe in infringing upon others’ freedom to do with their bodies as they will, when they harm no one else.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 1, 2009 at 11:04 am
Post a comment