NaCl

Your thoughts on proposed governmental limits on the amount of salt in processed foods?

Corporate America seems to think that we want or need or demand a lot more salt in our food than our fellow consumers in Europe. I heard on the news today that Kentucky Fried Chicken over here has 3 times the salt it does at their restaurants in England.

I stopped eating Lay's potato chips with their latest "new great taste" formulation, which I found intolerably salty. I buy Utz's chips now, which they say on their back label is one of the lowest salt brands around these days. Their secret? They haven't changed their formulation in 70+ years.

I don't add that much salt in the form of pure salt to the food that I cook. I do a lot of Oriental cooking and that means that a good bit of sodium finds its way in via soy sauce, fish sauce, and whatnot.

I'm have no sodium-phobia, but I do find that an awful lot of food at chain restaurants is excessively salty to my palate.

Government regulation usually ends up doing more harm than good. If we're not careful, it might mean that things that are supposed to be very salty end up being banned from the marketplace. I'm uncomfortable with that solution.

A public awareness campaign seems to be pushing trans fats out of prepared foods, without the need for excessive government regulations. Perhaps it'll work for excessive salt as well. I hope so.

-Paul W.

Your thoughts on proposed governmental limits on the amount of salt in processed foods?

stupid! Let me decide. Usually I avoid high salt items but there are times that I want something that is good and salty. If I want to occasionally eat an entire bag of Utz potato chips I sure as H-LL want them loaded with salt.

So far, Larry, the FDA has not proposed any changes -- they are in the study phase of the process in response to a petition by an advocacy group.

I was really surprised at the strength of the medical testimony at the first hearing today with strong statements by the AMA, Harvard and Yale on the connection between salt levels and heart problems.

There was much less agreement on whether increased regulation is the way to reduce salt consumption in the US. It will be interesting to see how this plays out -- as Paul indicates, food manufacturers and restaurants seem to believe American consumers want high levels of salt in their prepared foods.

The American Heart Association has some useful, non-political information on the entire area, including this helpful list for people interested in promoting their own health:

Avoiding high-sodium foods

This recommendation is probably the hardest to follow, because so many convenience foods (like packaged meals and soups) and snacks (potato chips and popcorn) are high in sodium. But most of us take in more sodium through these foods than by using table salt. That's why it's essential to cut back and eventually eliminate them. The foods below are usually high in sodium (but read the labels, because some may be available in a low-salt or unsalted form):

* Canned soups and dry soup mixes
* Canned meats and fish (buy water-packed tuna or salmon instead)
* Ham, bacon and sausage
* Salted nuts and peanut butter
* Instant cooked cereals
* Salted butter and margarine
* Processed meats, such as deli items and hot dogs
* Prepared mixes (pancake, muffin, cornbread, etc.)
* Prepackaged frozen dinners (unless one serving has less than 400 mg of sodium)
* Preseasoned mixes (tacos, chili, rices, sauces, gravies, etc.)
* Snack foods (pretzels, potato chips, olives, cheeses, pickles)
* Salad dressings
* Fast food

Other foods that can have very high levels of salt include chocolate, candies and over the counter drugs.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. ... tifier=336

Thanks Bob for the list. This illustrates why I think it is a stupid thing to do. I have almost completely removed everything on that list from my diet. The things that remain (bacon, nuts, canned soup, and potato chips) are consumed rarely, once a week or less (once a month or less for the potato chips). One only needs to take control of their own consumption habits and salt is not an issue. As noted there are low sodium options for many of the canned and package foods out there. I started making my own stocks due to sodium levels in the packaged stuff - kept making them due to the flavor once the low sodium commerical stuff hit the market.

Obviously, I am a minority in this country. I actually cook. I rarely eat out and when I do it is not Micky D's. So since I have taken the steps to ensure that I am limiting my sodium, why should I be impacted by any future government restrictions on the few products that I want to be good and salty when I (occasionally) enjoy them.

Sorry for the mini-rant but I believe it is the responsibility of every person to take care of himself or herself.

I’m pretty much against the government meddling in anything more than they already do. You can cut your own salt consumption by staying closed to the produce area or reading labels.

Personally, I like salt in all of its forms…and I especially like salty snacks like smoked almonds, corn chips, peanut butter, olives, pickles etc.. Far more than say?...sweet snacks.

Richard

The problem is that it's difficult to take care of yourself if virtually everything in this country--and I'm not talking about fast food--is oversalted (and I like the taste of salt). I've discovered that lower-sodium versions of foods can actually taste brighter and cleaner, e.g., lower salt V-8.

Why should a 4-oz can of mushrooms have a total of 660mg sodium (almost a third of the recommended intake)? Inventory your canned and frozen foods for sodium and you'll shocked at the amount of sodium (and remember the level is described for one artificially small portion). And responses like, "I don't eat canned mushrooms" are not helpful to the big picture. Remember, "I don't smoke" didn't mean much when people could smoke everywhere.

So it's really not stupid at all to force lowering the salt in foods--I'm sure manufacturers can come up with good-tasting recipes. Manufacturers have been asked for 30 years to lower salt, but they've lowered it only for other countries and the US be damned. Before the FDA, manufacturers adulterated foods with all kinds of substances now banned (want some red lead in your butter or chalk in your milk?).

Salt in your ginger ale, anyone?

Some of the testimony was very interesting, Larry -- thanks for bringing this subject forward. A couple of extracts:

"The evidence has been building up over the years about the effects of salt on blood pressure and cardiovascular disease," said Nancy Cook, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. "FDA action is probably the only way you can achieve a reduction in sodium."

Other countries, including Finland and the United Kingdom, have had success in reducing the amount of salt in processed foods, Cook pointed out. "Food manufacturers aren't going to do it on their own," she said.

Stokes said it's not too hard to improve the American diet. "You could start by adding one more serving of fruit or vegetable a day and take the salt shaker off the table," he said. "You can also rinse canned vegetables before using -- that removes up to 40 percent of the salt."

U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that Americans limit their salt intake to 2,300 milligrams a day. But half the population -- blacks, middle-aged or elderly people, and those with high blood pressure -- are at special risk and are advised to use only 1,500 milligrams a day.

However, the average salt intake for most Americans is about 4,000 milligrams a day, according to the CSPI.

Only a little of that salt comes from the salt shaker or home cooking. About 77 percent comes from processed and restaurant foods, the group says. Many restaurant dishes have more than one or two days' worth of salt on a single plate, according to the CSPI.

Incidentally, from in a 12 ounce serving of Diet Canada Dry Ginger Ale:

Sodium 40 mg 2%

8 ounces of Club Soda:

Sodium 80 mg 3%

8 ounces Tonic Water:

Sodium 35 mg 1%

Manageable, but I wonder why sodium is there at all?

Thanks for posting this subject, Larry.

My pleasure.

Good advice about rinsing canned veges. I'm going to start doing that.

I don't like government interference any more than anyone else, but manufacturers are not our friends and need to be prodded.

BTW, salt is a learned flavor. The more you use, the more you need to taste it. Reduce salt intake for a length of time and then try some food with the original amount. It'll taste too salty.

I can confirm that your taste for salt sharpens as you use less of it.

I've been cooking without salt for Janet's health reasons for the past four years. I add salt to my food after it's cooked -- always loved the taste.

At first I used the salt shaker, then bought Kosher salt and pinched out a bit. Read a note from Pepin who said that it looked on TV like he was just tossing in any amount of salt, but in fact with experience that he could judge the number of crystals he was adding and that he was as accurate as if he used a measuring spoon.

I've learned to do that -- I just pinched what I thought was ten crystals, and found that I had nine.

The salt crystals deliver tiny little explosions of flavor in my dishes now, which are much more interesting than in the past when salt permeated the entire dish.

There are a few dishes where salt is essential for taste, chicken in particular, but over the past four years, salt became less and less interesting to me.

Kosher salt measures out as less because the crystals are larger. Plus the larger salt crystals taste saltier if sprinkled at the table.

My thoughts: don't eat processed foods. If you do then you are going to get a good dose of sodium so plan accordingly.

rwj

So it's really not stupid at all to force lowering the salt in foods

You asked for my thoughts on the subject and I think it is stupid. If you don't want to know what I think about the matter than do not ask in an open forum.

And responses like, "I don't eat canned mushrooms" are not helpful to the big picture. Remember, "I don't smoke" didn't mean much when people could smoke everywhere.

No they are very helpful. There is a difference between not knowning and not caring enough to learn. Most people either don't care enough to learn about proper nutrition or choose to ignore it. Is it the duty of the government to make people eat healty?

I don't eat canned mushrooms because I don't want the salt they put in them and because they taste worse than fresh. However, even if I eat 20 cans of them a day while sitting right next to you the impact to your health from my consuming of canned mushrooms is unmesurable small if at all. However, if I smoke 20 cigs a day while I sit next to you then I have impacted your health. There is a very significant difference between sodium intake that impacts just the individual that chooses to do so and second hand smoke which can impact many people who have little choice to avoid it. Again is it the duty of the government to protect one from oneself?

Now before you write me off as one of those people that beliefs that anything the government does is wrong you need to understand that I actually work for the government. I just believe that there are places where the government has to step in for the overall welfare of the nation and times when it needs to stay out of individual decisons.

Hollywood has figured it out. Just watch the movies. In the second Matrix movie it is finally revealed that the flaw in the matrix is choice. Or to quote another movie "Freewill, she is a bitch" Human's deserve the right to make their own choices as stupid as they may be as long as the results of their actions don't impinge upon the overall well being of the greater populace. Unfortunately, there are things that I love more than salt, that are easier to justify government control over and some of which have been tried and failed before. Most on this board claim prohibition was a mistake on a grand level but the damage done from alcohol far exceeds the damage done by sodium when one looks at both the direct and indirect hazards on a community.

I too am against regulation of the we'll-make-your-decisions-for-you type (mantra of little Fascists of all stripes) but Paul Winalski has a good point --

Corporate America seems to think that we want or need or demand a lot more salt in our food than our fellow consumers in Europe

I'd go further and say that as with so many such things, it's actually US consumers who cause it (mainstream products are just fine-tuned to what their test markets and focus groups prefer; here corporate America is more the messenger than the author).

But this subject was very fashionable in the 1970s for blood pressure (I remember one of my professors: You NEED 0.2 grams of salt daily. You GET 2 grams each, on average, and if you eat some foods, you get 20.) Then I heard from medical friends that the effect was idiosyncratic: Only part of the populace had blood pressure responding strongly to sodium intake, so the right thing was to be screened.

Now the anti-sodium message is back again with a vengeance (and without the individuality part). It appeared abruptly in the press some time back, as if a committee in a smoke-filled room (oh, sorry, they don't smoke any more, I guess) examined options for a new pop health issue that might "take," and settled on this.

[Jenise]

I’m pretty much against the government meddling in anything more than they already do. You can cut your own salt consumption by staying closed to the produce area or reading labels.

Personally, I like salt in all of its forms…and I especially like salty snacks like smoked almonds, corn chips, peanut butter, olives, pickles etc.. Far more than say?...sweet snacks.

Richard

I agree with everything you say, Richard, with the caveat: a huge portion of the fast food and packaged food consumed in America is consumed in America's inner cities where because of violence and property damaage regular supermarkets with the aisles you mention don't like to be. Thus, convenience alone makes junk food the food of choice. You and I are really not the people this policy is/would be aimed at benefitting.

" It appeared abruptly in the press some time back, as if a committee in a smoke-filled room (oh, sorry, they don't smoke any more, I guess) examined options for a new pop health issue that might "take," and settled on this."

Max, the current hearing was required in response to petition filed by CSPI. The group has been pounding the salt issue for a number of years, and two years ago decided to attack FDA's determination that salt is Generally Recognized As Safe. The history is spelled out in their 2005 press release, which concludes:


CSPI’s new legal filing with FDA asks that the agency treat salt as a food additive for purposes of regulation, as opposed to an ingredient the agency designates as “Generally Recognized as Safe,” or GRAS. The agency has greater authority to regulate food additives, including the authority to set upper limits or require special labeling for a given additive. CSPI asked the agency to set upper limits for salt in various categories of processed foods and to lower the Daily Value, or DV, for individuals from 2,400 mg to 1,500 mg of sodium per day. CSPI notes in its petition that several government bodies have urged Americans to reduce their salt consumption, and even FDA itself in 2005 reaffirmed its conclusion that sodium has an adverse impact on cardiovascular disease. In 2003, the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, or JNC 7, called for a 50 percent reduction in sodium consumption—a target that CSPI urged FDA to shoot for.

CSPI’s current petition to the FDA was also sent to Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt with a cover note of support from organizations including the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the International Society on Hypertension in Blacks. Prominent physicians and researchers signing the letter include Dr. Carlos Camargo of Harvard Medical School, Dr. Steve Havas of the University of Maryland Medical School, Dr. Jeremiah Stamler of the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Dr. Myron H. Weinberger of the Indiana University School of Medicine, and Dr. Jackson T. Wright of the University Hospitals of Cleveland.

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200511081.html

with the caveat: a huge portion of the fast food and packaged food consumed in America is consumed in America's inner cities where because of violence and property damaage regular supermarkets with the aisles you mention don't like to be. Thus, convenience alone makes junk food the food of choice

It has been a long time since I spent any amount of time in what would be called the inner city of a major american city. Are you stating that the only businesses that consider it profitable to be in those markets are only selling junk food? I assume from this statement then that there are not any of the fast food chains since the profit margin would not be there due to the potential liabilities of operating in such a dangerous area. Is this the case. Because if it is not the case than I don't think one can cite the violence and property damage as concerns. If it is the case, than what makes any business, regardless of what they sell, locate in such an area. Obviously the businesses that manage to stay there for a number of years are making a profit doing so. Therefore, I would assume that they are making a profit off of the junk food that they sell. I would also assume that they would not make a profit off of those items that are more healthy but cost less. Ever see an inner city where you can't buy a 12-pack?

Assuming all of the above is somewhat correct, the real question then becomes why is it profitable for any business to sell only junk food. The first things that come to mind are that the people that live in the inner city choose not to buy the better items when a store does stock them. Obviously fresh items have a limited shelf life while those items that come in cans, bags, and boxes can last longer. Therefore, a merchant can afford to have extra cans, bags, and boxes but not fresh fruit, vegies, and meat. Food that goes bad and has to be thrown out ruins profit margins. So since the people do not buy enough for the merchant to ensure that he does not loose money on what he has to throw out, he stocks less or none at all.

So if I am correct, the stores do not have them since they can not make enough money on them to justify keeping them in the store.

[Jenise]

Are you stating that the only businesses that consider it profitable to be in those markets are only selling junk food?

Proportionately speaking, yes. The grocery stores aren't there at all. Sure, convenience stores are ther eto provide you with the 12 pack you mention, plus cigarettes and all the chips you can manage, and the fast food joints have moved in because they realize the opportunity the lack of other options provides them. The kind of grocery store that you and I usually shop at are not there. They've moved out to the burbs where there are a higher proportion of stay-home moms, and where it doesn't take a security force to keep their carts from getting vandalized and stolen.

So it's really not stupid at all to force lowering the salt in foods

You asked for my thoughts on the subject and I think it is stupid. If you don't want to know what I think about the matter than do not ask in an open forum.

And responses like, "I don't eat canned mushrooms" are not helpful to the big picture. Remember, "I don't smoke" didn't mean much when people could smoke everywhere.

No they are very helpful. There is a difference between not knowning and not caring enough to learn. Most people either don't care enough to learn about proper nutrition or choose to ignore it. Is it the duty of the government to make people eat healty?

I don't eat canned mushrooms because I don't want the salt they put in them and because they taste worse than fresh. However, even if I eat 20 cans of them a day while sitting right next to you the impact to your health from my consuming of canned mushrooms is unmesurable small if at all. However, if I smoke 20 cigs a day while I sit next to you then I have impacted your health. There is a very significant difference between sodium intake that impacts just the individual that chooses to do so and second hand smoke which can impact many people who have little choice to avoid it. Again is it the duty of the government to protect one from oneself?

Now before you write me off as one of those people that beliefs that anything the government does is wrong you need to understand that I actually work for the government. I just believe that there are places where the government has to step in for the overall welfare of the nation and times when it needs to stay out of individual decisons.

Hollywood has figured it out. Just watch the movies. In the second Matrix movie it is finally revealed that the flaw in the matrix is choice. Or to quote another movie "Freewill, she is a bitch" Human's deserve the right to make their own choices as stupid as they may be as long as the results of their actions don't impinge upon the overall well being of the greater populace. Unfortunately, there are things that I love more than salt, that are easier to justify government control over and some of which have been tried and failed before. Most on this board claim prohibition was a mistake on a grand level but the damage done from alcohol far exceeds the damage done by sodium when one looks at both the direct and indirect hazards on a community.

No need for a chip on your shoulder. It's called dialogue. So we disagree, that's what makes discussions interesting. I'm supposed to agree with everything you say?

Seems to me there are some folks who pretend to understand the inner city multi-cultural marketplace without ever experiencing it firsthand.
Pfew!
Bp

My thoughts: don't eat processed foods. If you do then you are going to get a good dose of sodium so plan accordingly.

rwj

Good idea perhaps, but nearly impossible. Who on this forum never eats at a restaurant (fast food or fancy), never eats any canned or frozen anything, never eats any of myriad processed foods from salted peanuts to cheese to ham, etc.? Raise your hand.

Opinions stated herewithin do not necessarily reflect those of the forum moderators or anyone else on this forum, but are solely those of the poster.

No need for a chip on your shoulder. It's called dialogue. So we disagree, that's what makes discussions interesting. I'm supposed to agree with everything you say?

I would hope that no one agrees with everything I say. Last thing I want is a planet of people that all thing the same way. Sorry if it came off wrong but I just felt you were asking for dialog and then discounting that dialog for which you did not agree.

No worries.

Rather than ask the government to mandate salt content, why doesn't CSPI just start their own canned goods company, and produce stuff with the amount of salt they say is right. Then they can spread the word all they want about why their product is better, and surely, the masses will beat a path to their door.

Of course, that would require CSPI to produce something besides hot air. I won't hold my breath.

Education. Not mandates.

"Education. Not mandates."

John, I haven't made up my mind about the entire area as a policy matter; Janet and I are in complete agreement on our personal approach.

On policy grounds, though, would you mandate that restaurants effectively publicize the sodium levels of their foods?

McDonalds publishes its nutritional values online and in a data intensive chart posted on some restaurant walls, but the charts are often hard to find and often defaced in our area. I wonder if the answer might lie in the enormous quantities of salt in their foods. For example, a Big Mac with large fries contains 1450 mg of salt, 50 mg less than the amount recommended for adult black Americans for an entire day. Add a large Diet Coke, and the customer is at the limit for the entire day.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller ... ndex1.html

Regards, Bob