A proposal that the government regulate salt in foods is now being considered. The main motivations are that attempts to curb excessive intake of salt have failed and that this excess consumption has had a serious impact on the health of Americans.
Salt is, of course, an essential part of the human diet. As such, we cannot do without it. However, excess salt (as noted above) is harmful. The main impact is that it helps elevate blood pressure and this contributes to a variety of health problems. The obvious challenge is finding a way to balance between what people need and what is actually harmful.
On one hand, it does make sense for the government to step in an regulate salt. After all, it presents a clear health risk and thus would seem to fall under the dominion of the state. At the very least, consumers should be provided with information about the salt content in food (including that served in restaurants) so that they can make an informed choice. It also makes sense to reduce the salt content of food when possible so as to reduce the health risk to those who elect to simply eat without considering the health impact (that is, those who chose to eat in ignorance).
While some people are tossing out terms like “food police”, I am fine with there being food police. After all, I am somewhat familiar with the history of food in America and what sort of ingredients and contamination people were exposed to prior to the FDA. Even with the FDA we still face problems (such as food poisoning)-so just imagine what it would be like without the state regulating matters.
Also, the proposal does not ban salt shakers. If it is decided that salt levels in foods will be reduced, you can still shake away to your heart’s content (and early demise). Finally, many companies already offer lower sodium products and they could expand these product lines.
On the other hand, the are some reasons to be against the regulation. Once point is that the problem with salt is not that salt itself is dangerous. Salt is not like lead or mercury. What causes the problem with salt is excessive consumption. As such, the government would not be protecting us from a dangerous substance, but attempting to do something about excess consumption. This, it might be argued, is not actually something the state has the right to do. To use an analogy, eating excess calories presents a health threat to people. However, the government does not seem to have the right to mandate that food contain less calories so as to address this problem. After all, calories are not bad, it is the excessive consumption that is bad. It might thus be argued that since people have the freedom to consume in excess, they should also have the freedom to consume excess salt as well. Of course, this argument could also be turned around to be used as an argument for government regulation of calories. Interestingly, arguments for not regulating salt based on the right of free choice could also be deployed to argue for not regulating drugs like marijuana and also for allowing people to chose to marry the same sex. Of course, folks tend to only want people to have the freedom to choose what they want them to choose.
Another relevant point is that this sort of regulation might be pointless. Even if the salt in food is reduced, then this might have little impact. After all, if the food is not salty enough for people’s taste, then they will probably just salt it (as people already do). Or people will simply eat more until their craving for salt is satisfied. As such, regulating salt content might not be worth the cost of the regulation.
My considered view is that the salt in many foods is needlessly excessive and should be reduced, mainly to help reduce the harm people inflict on themselves in ignorance. After all, since too much salt is harmful and people seem unwilling or unable to voluntarily curb their salt intake, then the state should step in to protect them.
However, people should still have the choice to harm themselves if they really want excess salt. However, this should be a matter of informed choice and not the result of ignorant consumption. However, the excessively salty foods should probably have a slight tax on them that would be used to help offset the costs to Medicare/Medicaid resulting from such excess salt consumption. After all, while people should have the free choice to harm themselves, the medical care to deal with their poor choices is not (yet) free.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
The key word is “choice”; the word “informed” should be added. Children raised in a “high-salt” environment come to believe that food must be very salty to “taste right”. Without additional information–minimum daily requirement of sodium in diet, quantity of sodium in the item being consumed, understanding of possible consequences of consuming too much salt, personal medical limitations on salt intake–no individual can make an informed choice.
Of course, we know even such reasonable suggestions (divulging sodium contents of restaurant menu items, for example) will meet with objections from the crowd whose only consideration is the profit motive and the well-being of business in our free enterprise system. In their minds, the extra cost to businesses that might arise from “informing the public” will outweigh the health benefits and the health care savings that would be achieved by rendering the public fully aware of the facts about salt.
From the standpoint of the businesses in question, their loss will outweigh the advantages gained from such programs. I suspect that this is because the loss is their loss and the gain is for other people. That is, they are (as the saying goes) placing profits over the health of the American people. This puts them on par with many other industries, which shows a serious concern about the “free market.”
A truly free market would mean that the consumer had free access to the relevant information about the products being sold, thus being able to make a free choice. If the consumer is denied such information, her choice is coerced to a degree.
Revealing the sodium content would not require revealing the unique recipes of the menu items. So any argument about revealing trade secrets is unsupportable.
Other weak arguments: 1/ the cost of determining the content (a one-time cost for each dish) and 2/ the cost of providing more detailed menus (likely to become a tax write-off once the lobbyists get to work).
There is a possibility that the private owners and franchises already have the necessary information at hand and are loath to reveal it. If so, perhaps it is because they fear how a public given “informed choices” would respond. The tobacco industry had reasons for keeping the facts about the harmful effects of smoking hidden from the public, too.
I’m sure that the tobacco industry and the food industry are not the only industries that have benefited from a poorly informed public (sometimes poorly informed because of information intentionally withheld by the industries).
Arguably the government is the only institution standing between an innocent, unassuming public and forces intent on making profit whatever the cost to the citizenry.* And I’m certain that health care costs in this country would be much lower if all such information would be revealed.
* Is there a section of the Constitution that supports government activities that control such harmful behavior on the part of businesses gigantic and small?
The view seems to be that the state can do this: “The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. . . . Statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do enter into agreements, are within the State’s competency.”
Seems like a labeling scheme would be appropriate: any food item with, say, more than 500 mg of sodium could be labeled “High Sodium” with an appropriate surgeon general’s warning at the bototm of the menu.
Labeling does seem to be a good idea. That would provide people with the info they need to make a choice while allowing companies to keep the products the same (if they so desire).
If the companies protest that people will buy less of their products if they knew it would hurt them, then that argument can be safely rejected as lacking merit.
TANTRIC MASSAGE IN CENTRAL LONDON