The Salt Police Are Coming

[bonnie]

American Thinker

March 11, 2010

NY state seeks to ban salt use by chefs

Clarice Feldman

In a positively insane move , a dunce in the NY legislature who obviously never cooked a meal in his life,wants to ban all chefs from using salt in NY state.

MYFOXNY.COM - Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking.

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

He apparently would allow shakers at the table - for the time being at least.

[Dr. Shane]

Taking salt shakers off the table would probably do more good. Chefs tend to only use as much salt as needed to bring out the flavor in a dish while many consumers pile on much more themselves.

Sodium is a real public health issue so I agree something needs to be done. Of course, any chef will not add salt to a dish if the customer requests no salt. The bigger issue is all the processed food being used that already has salt in it.

[bonnie]

Taking salt shakers off the table would probably do more good. Chefs tend to only use as much salt as needed to bring out the flavor in a dish while many consumers pile on much more themselves.

Sodium is a real public health issue so I agree something needs to be done. Of course, any chef will not add salt to a dish if the customer requests no salt. The bigger issue is all the processed food being used that already has salt in it.

It is not the business of the federal government to monitor or restrict my salt intake.Anymore than they should control the amount of meat I eat,the number of cups of coffee I drink during a day,or how much I weigh.

Obesity is becoming more of a problem,especially in children. Are they now to mandate the amount of physical exercise your child gets and the amount of fat in their diet?

Most people do not eat out enough to have the salt intake from that a big problem or have that intrusion to make a difference.

[Dr. Shane]

Public health is a concern of the government. That is why prostitution is illegal. That is why the FDA was created. To say public health is outside of the domain of the government is to take a very radical position.

[karl]

Public health is a concern of the government. That is why prostitution is illegal.

Were you thinking "pubic health?"

You might be wrong about the impetus of anti-prostitution laws. The movement to decriminalize prostitution refers to the removal of all criminal laws relating to the operation of the sex industry. The decriminalization movement believes this will more fully support occupational health and safety and workplace issues.

[Dr. Shane]

Prostitution has always been a public health issue. Some may make the argument that modern medicine reduces its risk but historically it has been a great concern of public health. We have many laws dealing with public health. Asbestos laws, lead paint, mold remediation, no smoking as well as laws dictating how meat is cooked in restaurants. This is all within the government's rights in protecting the public.

[karl]

Prostitution has always been a public health issue. Some may make the argument that modern medicine reduces its risk but historically it has been a great concern of public health. We have many laws dealing with public health. Asbestos laws, lead paint, mold remediation, no smoking as well as laws dictating how meat is cooked in restaurants. This is all within the government's rights in protecting the public.

I'm thinking the original prostitution laws were not as concerned with public, or pubic, health as you might think.

Originally, prostitution was widely legal in the United States. Prostitution was made illegal in almost all states between 1910 and 1915 largely due to the influence of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union which was influential in the banning of drug use and was a major force in the prohibition of alcohol.

[bonnie]

BONNIE

WELL that is an interesting article about the salt issue

dgrimm60

Wonder where government intrusion into the lives of the american citizen will stop. As long as they cannot control my salt intake in my home this is a meaningless concern and law.

Shall we restrict the high calorie fat content food to those buying their groceries.

I have a neighbor with three morbidly obese daughters. What on earth shall we do with them?

I don't think they should serve pork in or local cafe. They need to be fined.

My neighbor drinks way to much coffee,how shall we stop that health concern?

Another neighbor eats chips and drinks pepsi for breakfast. Unhealthy and must be stoopped.

[karl]

Sodium is a real public health issue so I agree something needs to be done.

Education is the only thing that needs to be done. All else is an abrogation of liberty.

Sodium is not a public health issue. The excess consumption of salt by individuals is an INDIVIDUAL health issue.

[Dr. Shane]

I must disagree. We all pay health insurance premiums. When people choose to neglect their health they consume more health care and we all pay for it with increased insurance premiums.

[Dr. Shane]

I'm thinking the original prostitution laws were not as concerned with public health as you might think.

All laws have a moral element to them. Even protecting the public health is a moral issue. Archeologists have found high rates of syphilis in the remains of people living in port cities and attribute it to the high rates of prostitution in those cities.

[bonnie]

I must disagree. We all pay health insurance premiums. When people choose to neglect their health they consume more health care and we all pay for it with increased insurance premiums.

Then we need sugar police,fat police etc. I would guess the health damage by those two alone would rival that of salt.

Salt restricted on infrequent meals out will hardly help what you say is a problem.

Everything is a problem and no one needs to take responsibility for themselves as long as the government is more than willing to take over that role

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Sodium is a real public health issue so I agree something needs to be done.

Education is the only thing that needs to be done. All else is an abrogation of liberty.

Sodium is not a public health issue. The excess consumption of salt by individuals is an INDIVIDUAL health issue.

[Dr. Shane]

we need sugar police,fat police etc.

Indeed we do!

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: karl

Education is the only thing that needs to be done. All else is an abrogation of liberty.

Sodium is not a public health issue. The excess consumption of salt by individuals is an INDIVIDUAL health issue.

Originally Posted By: Shane

I must disagree. We all pay health insurance premiums. When people choose to neglect their health they consume more health care and we all pay for it with increased insurance premiums.

We are not yet all in the same risk pool' date=' but soon, courtesy of libs, we may have to all sink or swim together. If we had freedom, these horrid salt-abusers could simply reap the rewards of their own stupidity, but since we seem determined to have socialism we must penalize everyone by removing the taste from foods.

Everything in socialism must be dumbed down to the point that it will reward the lowest denominator. This will make life safe for the careless until the denominator sinks even lower. Then we will adjust to make life safe for even less motivated people.

[/quote']

With the reasoning being used we should be able to prevent those on food stamps from buying products not good for them.

I have followed shoppers in the checkout line. Sugar sweetened cereal,gooey pastries,cupcakes piled with two inches of frosting,potato chips(there is salt for you)Six-12 packs of coke and all manner of items not good for a person.

Not only is it harmful physically they are buying it with tax payer dollar. Chances are good those on food stamps also are on medical assistance we pay for.For the public good we have every right to prohibit buying that kind of garbage

[Dr. Shane]

With the reasoning being used we should be able to prevent those on food stamps from buying products not good for them.

Food stamps are nothing more than corporate welfare. Food stamps are used to plumb up the bank accounts of the big food corporations like Kraft Foods, Frito-Lay, General Mills, Pillsbury and the like. Low-income people are allowed to purchase junk food so that the rich stock holders of big food corporations can fill up their retirement accounts.

Indeed, food stamps should not be allowed to purchase high-fat and high sugar foods and drinks but than the fat cats getting rich off from the big food corporations wouldn't get their share of the welfare dollar.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

With the reasoning being used we should be able to prevent those on food stamps from buying products not good for them.

Food stamps are nothing more than corporate welfare. Food stamps are used to plumb up the bank accounts of the big food corporations like Kraft Foods, Frito-Lay, General Mills, Pillsbury and the like. Low-income people are allowed to purchase junk food so that the rich stock holders of big food corporations can fill up their retirement accounts.

Indeed, food stamps should not be allowed to purchase high-fat and high sugar foods and drinks but than the fat cats getting rich off from the big food corporations wouldn't get their share of the welfare dollar.

That doesn't even make sense.Generally I think it is around 700.00 per month for a family of four. If they spend that on good wholesome food or junk food what would the stock holders of big corporations care.

The ones that determine how it is spent is not big food corporations

[karl]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

we need sugar police,fat police etc.

Indeed we do!

I think he missed it, Bonnie.

Shane, you should not concern yourself with making life safe for the irresponsible. When you do this, you get more irresponsible people. The maximum number of caretakers you can get in your socialist paradise is 50% of the population. They must take care of the other 50%. 24/7/365.

Never mind the fact that your socialist paradise will collapse long before this, because you have to have producers and as more and more of your population gets involved in caretaking, this removes the workforce from their productive occupations to caretaking (service) occupations.

Caretaking doesn't make anything. It is non-productive.

Socialism doesn't WORK. It just gradually uses up what was generated by free enterprise until it either returns to free enterprise or collapses.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

[Dr. Shane]

Adopting public health policy doesn't make a nation socialist. Those that believe it does are taking an extreme, fringe position.

Banning the use of salt by chefs is itself an extreme position. However the opposite extreme is saying nothing should be done about the high amount of sodium placed in our foods by the food industry. Certainly something needs to be done.

[Dr. Shane]

Generally I think it is around 700.00 per month for a family of four. If they spend that on good wholesome food or junk food what would the stock holders of big corporations care.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Why would Coca-Cola and Frito-Lay care if the millions of dollars funneled through the food stamp program were never spent on their products?

It is and will be spent as long as people can.Not because Cocoa-Cola and Frito-Lay have anything to do with the food stamp program.

Quote:

Who decides to advertise high-sugar cereals on TV during children cartoons?

Who advertises any product? Who advertises cheerios,corn flakes,rice krispies,breads,pasta? Is that all part of the plot to rake in more food stamp dollars?

[bonnie]

If I want to salt my food I will do so. I do not need another "crisis" to determine the amount.

We maybe need to pass a law with a large fine for parents who leave their children in front of the tv for hours at a time.

We need to pass a law to fine or maybe jail those parents that allow their children to become obese.

[Dr. Shane]

Not because Cocoa-Cola and Frito-Lay have anything to do with the food stamp program.

[Dr. Shane]

We need to pass a law to fine or maybe jail those parents that allow their children to become obese.

Going from one extreme to the other does not solve the problem - it only creates a new one. The answer is in the middle of the political spectrum.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

We need to pass a law to fine or maybe jail those parents that allow their children to become obese.

Going from one extreme to the other does not solve the problem - it only creates a new one. The answer is in the middle of the political spectrum.

Going after the salt a chef uses is extreme as well. If they can be fined or should be fined so should those parents that allow their children to become obese. Or don't we care about their health,just those that use salt to what someone else thinks is to much.

My salt intake will only harm myself,drinking alcohol has the proven ability to addict and kill. I vote anyone selling alcohol be fined 5,000.00 for every drink sold.

Nor do I believe lobby groups have laid the rules for what may be purchased with food stamps. If that were the case they would be able to buy cleaning products.

It is truly amazing the number of people so spiteful and jealous of any business that does well.If they do it must certainly be because they are taking from the poor to make themselves wealthy.

Maybe the poor should wake up and get a clue.Especially where their daily bread comes from.

Or maybe you are going to say the poor are not bright enough to figure out potato chips have salt and really have no nutrional value