Slashdot Mirror
Bill To Ban All Salt In Restaurant Cooking
lord_rotorooter writes "Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn, introduced a bill that would ruin restaurant food and baked goods as we know them. The measure (if passed) would ban the use of all forms of salt in the preparation and cooking of food for all restaurants or bakeries. While the use of too much salt can contribute to health problems, the complete banning of salt would have negative impacts on food chemistry. Not only does salt enhance flavor, it controls bacteria, slows yeast activity and strengthens dough by tightening gluten. Salt also inhibits the growth of microbes that spoil cheese."
Some politicians are idiots! More at 11.
Do you really want the government telling you what you cannot eat?
Stay out of my bedroom, welcome to my kitchen?
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Salt is a dietary requirement. If you don't get enough salt in your diet, you get sick and die. Limiting salt levels in foods, rather than an outright ban, might make sense. However, I expect the only result would an increase in the number of people carrying personal salt shakers when they eat out.
I am going to have fun setting up my black market salt dispenseries.
YAY!!!
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
What a douche
Honestly. ... ...Guys?
Why not remove all fat from food too?
And sugar.
And calories.
That way we'll all be uber healthy and slim, right?
He's from Brooklyn. 'Nuff said
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
but if there's no salt for your hash, doesn't that make your clients and servers less secure?
Don't politicians have more important things to deal with?
I know. I know. I must be new to, well, western civilization...
Ortiz admits that prior to introducing the bill he did not research salt's role in food chemistry, its effect on flavor or his bill's ramifications for the restaurant industry. He tells me he was prompted to introduce the bill because his father used salt excessively for many years, developed high blood pressure and had a heart attack.
Reacting emotionally is how bad laws get written and passed.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Why does this guy hate salt so much? Did he have a bad experience with salt, possibly during his early childhood? Does the taste of salt remind him of his ex-lover?
I don't think he really appreciates what salt has done for humanity. It preserved our meat by preventing bacterial growth, flavored food when we had little access to other spices, and even served as currency in ancient times. It gave us handy little phrases like "take that with a grain of salt," and you can even use it to kill slugs.
I stepped on a nail once when I was a kid... It hurt.
They should pass a law that makes it illegal for carpenters to use nails so this never happens to another innocent child.
In Louisville KY, the city is considering banning trans fat in restaurants. This just seems crazy.
Not to mention that most people get their iodine from iodized salt. Down with the pro-goiter lobby!
Salt is a vital nutrient. I am a marathoner and a long distance biker. If I don't get enough salt, I die. Literally.
Salt is used by the evil corporation to make their over-produced crap more palatable. Therefore, salt itself is evil.
The dietary sodium intake leading heart disease and high blood pressure is NOT settled.
And real cooks cooking real food ALL use sodium.
Hopefully, like the beer raids in PA, this will lead to the idiots that propose this crap legislation getting less and less political power.
This is so stupid. Normally, I'd have something constructive to add, but this is just too dumb. Maybe they'll ban black pepper next...
“I think salt should be banned in restaurants. I ask if a dish has salt in it, and if I does, I get something else that doesn’t have salt,”
Correct me if I'm wrong but a large number of the chemicals that make up food are salts of one type or another. What exactly does he eat?
The above comments are the ravings of a lunatic and should be ignored completely.
Salt is white, clearly this is legislation in support of hate crimes.
~Mekkah
The problem isn't this bill, which won't pass. The problem is that bad ideas like this, once introduced, have a life of their own. They keep getting reintroduced until they do pass. (good ideas, on the other hand, get shelved and are never heard from again).
They've already assaulted baked goods by banning trans-fats (certain baked goods need shortening for texture). Ruining everything else, even with a watered-down anti-salt bill, is now inevitable.
a bill to make our food taste awful. Let us just take a look at how this can help. Just think of all the money people will save by not going out to eat because the food tastes like shite. Of course if people stop going out to eat then restaurants will have to lay off workers or even go out of business. Those people that are now out of jobs can save what little money they get on unemployment by not going out to eat - at least for a few months until their unemployment runs out and they lose their homes. More lost jobs because some shite for brains politician knows nothing and wants to get his name in the paper.
Instead of cutting salt out of their diets people could get healthier by getting more exercise - like kicking politicians in the ass when they have stupid ideas.
http://nwbagpipes.com/
...probably eats paste.
Salt, sugar and caffeine?! That would be three of the six major food groups. (The remaining three being chocolate, alcohol and fat, making a tequila shot (with salt), a boston creme donut and a shot of espresso the breakfast of champions.)
Ian Ameline
...whacko stupid politicians. If one proposes a stupid law, he gets a life sentence to a mental institution since he's clearly a danger to society.
Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you.
won't somebody think of the PICKLES??? This could be the end of the kosher dill as we know it!
Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
But this isn't that something.
Perhaps this article is a good analogue to illustrate what happens when technologically illiterate lawmakers propose technology legislation.
It's true that it is IMPOSSIBLE to eat a low sodium diet if you're eating out without severely restricting what you consume (if you disagree, I'd love to hear which items worked for you besides lettuce and hard-boiled eggs).
It's also near impossible to eat even a regular sodium diet if you eat out a lot, like I do.
Perhaps there needs to be some law to require *LARGE* restaurants to offer a low-sodium (but not salt free) option for maybe 10% of their menu items, or to regulate the sodium in a single portion to less than a day's recommended allowance (a lot of current dishes will fail).
This is a great example of the knee-jerk reaction process that the government employs.
Creating overreaching laws and rules for everyone is very rarely the solution to a problem.
"All forms of salt" would suggest this includes products like table potassium chloride, which is sold as an alternative to common table salt. That's like banning Coke because of the sugar, and also banning diet coke because it resembles coke. Oh.. Wait.. this is already the case with commercial help crops. No stupid proposed laws surprise me any more.
Nyoh! I love salt!
~don't feel threatened by my pineal~
I spoke much to soon with: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571786&cid=31365008
Banning sugar next? They're already working hard to push tax on "sugary" sodas and drinks in NY.
I love the loaded language. Sugary, like we're talking about a bottle full of sugar. And they don't even seem to make much of a distinction about the types of sugar used, other than expecting us all to accept artificial sweetners as a reasonable alternative.
And even better, they're claiming that the money earned by this tax will help pay for other programs. I love this bullshit. So, do they really want people to stop buying these drinks, putting an end to this revenue stream? Of course not! They hope people will go on buying this stuff, giving them another way of digging into our pockets for some extra money.
Like bills to outlaw the word "bitch" or define Pi as 3, there's no reason to get all worked up about it as it has 0 chance of ever passing.
Those problems are related to the fact that no one uses REAL salt anymore. That stuff that Mortons sells is an awful chemical that destroys your arteries. REAL sea salt is GOOD for you.
You betrayed the law!!! :p
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Does NY have a sales tax on restaurant meals. I wonder how much revenue they will lose with fewer people going out to dinner.
* 2 tablespoons sugar
* 1 tablespoon kosher salt*
* 1 tablespoon pure olive oil
* 3/4 cup warm water
* 2 cups bread flour (for bread machines)
* 1 teaspoon instant yeast
* 2 teaspoons olive oil
* Olive oil, for the pizza crust
* Flour, for dusting the pizza peel
Who pays this idiot's salary? (And does he know where the word comes from?)
Liberty in your lifetime
Someone tag this 'demolitionman'
"Too much salt" is one of those dietary memes that just won't seem to die. However, the reality is that (a) only a fraction of individuals (even individuals with high blood pressure) seem to be salt sensitive and (b) there are much more effective ways of reducing high blood pressure than reducing salt consumption. I was on blood pressure medication, a low salt diet, etc. prior to reducing my carbohydrate intake dramatically last summer, and all it got me was drug side effects and blood pressure that was just barely normal (average 136/88). Since I've stopped eating most concentrated carbohydrates, my blood pressure has reduced dramatically (I don't bother to monitor any more, but at my last doctor's appointment it was 122/72). On top of that, my blood sugars have improved dramatically (from average BG of 138 to average BG of 91) and my lipid profile has improved dramatically (total cholestorol 233 then vs. 135 at last doctor's appt., triglycerides 700+ vs. 85 at last doctor's appointment.) All this even as I lost almost 100 lbs.
What was the change? I *stopped* eating sugar and other refined carbohydrates, and I *started* eating salt again. Oh yeah, and I *love* fat and protein, because they make me feel full.
The bottom line is that I have no confidence in the ability of the "main stream" medical community to define a single nutritional standard that will work for everyone. And I have even less confidence in the ability of bureaucrats and legislators to correctly parse through the research to find the truth. So leave my food alone. If you really feel like you've got to do something, please start requiring restaurants to label their foods (on the menu) so that it's easier for diabetics like me to find menu items that aren't loaded with sugars that will make our blood sugars spike. Or if you really want to interfere, require restaurants to offer low-fat, low-carb, and low-salt entrees. But don't impose your notion of good nutrition on me, because I tried to do it your way and it damn near killed me.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Thank god for this bill.
When I was a yound boy I started doing salt. I figured yea its just salt right? Afterwards I moved on to cracked pepper and eventually later in life started experimenting with parsley, basil and oregeno. Before I knew it I was hooked on Thyme and garlic and I lost everything. My wife, my job, my kids, all gone. Even the dog ran away. No you will find me lurking on the school grounds giving away free herbs, knowing that once hooked they will never be the same. So please think of the children and avoid my culinary fate.
I say he be placed on a diet entirely free of salt. His inevitable decline into insanity followed by death can be an example to others.
How much money is he going to waste on what has to be the year's dumbest legislation? Is it too much to ask that a legislator at least do SOME basic research before pulling a bill ouit of his ass?
I sincerely hope his opponant in the next election paints him as Assemblyman slug.
-they ban sugar in jam
- they ban sugar in all foods that need to be sweet by nature.(like jam)
- ban sugar in sodas
- ban flavoring in foods
- ban iodine in salt (its IS bad in high dosages!)
- ban certain plants that might have a little too much fatty acids
- ban eggs
- ban milk
the list goes on. but everybody knows this is totally absurd. this is not like smoking where the user is damaging the people around him. people come to restaurants in expectation of these ingredients. if they dont want salt, they should tell the chef or waiter that they want no salt.
worst of all, this assemblyman wrote the bill BEFORE even researching the effects of salt.
Because - wait for it - the next thing you know, they are going to try and ban a salt weapon too.
I was having a similar discussion with my husband the other day when he was discussing how he wants some government regulation on those types of products that claim to provide male enhancement or are diet supplement pills that supposedly burn fat just because someone took the pill. He feels that people should be able to trust what companies advertise.
I pointed out to him, that right now our leaders feel any regulation should always go to the extreme. This is a prime example of going to the extreme. This is what this representative is proposing, the extreme.
Without some salt in foods, food will not stay preserved as long, and many other bad things will take place. This has the potential for increasing the cost of meals at restaurants because food will not last as long, which then means more deliveries or purchases will need to be made for a restaurant to keep up with the shortened lifetime of the food supply used to prepare the meals. This increases our carbon footprint for all of these service industries to meet the new regulation. And if this is only done in one area of the country or one state, now fast food places have to make separate batches of food for the consumers and if one batch is mistakenly sent to a No-Salt location, what are the ramifications then? Would people sue the restaurant because, OMG, I just ate salt...? Possibly, maybe even likely.
I completely agree, less salt is better, but an outright ban? Ridiculous! Regulations are in place by the FDA, correct? If companies are not following the regulations in place already go after them. Enforce existing rules and regulations first, and staff up to meet the needs of enforcement. If after regulation it is found that changes need to be made, tweak the regulations.
We need less govt. intervention. Govt. leave my food alone.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
What problem are you trying to solve? Have you read food labels lately? What information is missing that would help you in your quest for healthy food?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Ortiz admits that prior to introducing the bill he did not research salt's role in food chemistry, its effect on flavor or his bill's ramifications for the restaurant industry. He tells me he was prompted to introduce the bill because his father used salt excessively for many years, developed high blood pressure and had a heart attack.
Emphasis mine. According to this statement, Oritz says that he did not consider that banning salt in restaurants would affect the flavor of the foods served in those restaurants. It isn't possible for this to be true. He's lying through his teeth.
“I think salt should be banned in restaurants. I ask if a dish has salt in it, and if I does, I get something else that doesn’t have salt,” Ortiz tells me, before going on to say that he has eaten, and expects he will continue to eat, among other things, ham, cheese and bread in restaurants, all of which contain salt.
So what he's saying is that he has found a way to satisfy his desire not to have salt in foods that works within the current set of rights and regulations. He doesn't want salt, and he doesn't get salt.
Perfect! It looks like he has found a workable solution to his personal conviction that salt is bad. I would expect other grown adults to be fully capable of arriving at their own opinions of the substance, and, if similar, take similar steps. Welcome to America ... where you can make your own lifestyle work for you without legislating that everyone else must adopt it.
Isn't it a requirement of Kosher meats that they be Salted as a part of the preparation? No Salt, no Kosher.
So, this idiot is saying that Jewish people can't have their religious and culturally required diet? Yeah, like THAT's gonna fly in NYC.
(Not Jewish myself, but I love gefilte fish, and lox is my favorite bagel topping. I would be seriously pissed if I couldn't get them anymore.)
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
This is inevitable. Not only will we see more of this, but it's going to get a lot more invasive. Politicians have decided it's their responsibility to look out for our well-being.
What does everyone think the president and congress is talking about when they say we need to change how we live, that we need to practice preventative healthcare? They're going to cram this sort of thing down our throats.
Every so often someone mentions us sacrificing our freedoms for the sake of security. But inevitably it's always mentioned in relation to the war on terrorism. The real threat to our freedom isn't anything so overt. Wars are temporary and there are plenty of people fighting these overt threats. The real threats to freedom is legislation like this. They're far more subtle, more far-reaching and long-lasting and it's the sort of thing that is harder to defend against because it's pretty easy to argue it's for our own good.
Twenty years from now people might be able to repeal invasive surveillance policies because the terrorist threat has subsided if not outright disappeared. But how do you repeal these kinds of bans? You're repealing a ban on something unhealthy! You're going to raise the cost of healthcare! We can't have that!
The real tool here should be education. People need to understand what they're consuming and the effects it may have on their bodies. Then they make the decision. But they should also be held responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be realistic in this day and age either. Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that we can have a complete libertarian free-for-all where anything goes. But I'm talking about basic personal freedoms here. Pig out on unhealthy food all your want, but be prepared to deal with the health issues you're likely to encounter later in life.
People want the freedom, but they don't want to deal with the responsibilities and consequences of those freedoms. It creates the perfect atmosphere for the government to step in and make these decisions for us. That's really what it comes down to. Either we live safe, secure lives free of major responsibilities but have to give up many of our freedoms, or we have our freedom but we have to deal directly with the consequences of our actions. Unfortunately too many people nowadays seem to have the delusion that we can enjoy the best of both worlds.
Maybe if everyone stopped crying about elitism when people suggest that we elect smart people to run the country, we wouldn't be having this problem.
Sadly, stupidity seems to be bi-partisan.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Show up at the next public meeting and pass out bread, chocolate desserts, and steak, all of which were made without salt. They'll go 'wow, what is this Martian pig slop from hell' and that'll be the last we hear about it.
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Wasn't this a plot device in Demolition Man?
Outlaw salt...and only outlaws will have salt. Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment to protect the right to this mineral. :)
Thank god his father didn't pass away while having sex!
I understand where they're coming from - there are a lot of studies showing that this would help public health considerably. However, in this case I don't think the cost to taste and autonomy is worth it. I don't begrudge them for raising the issue nor this proposed solution (in a democratic-ish society, putting ideas on the table isn't a bad thing), even as much as I think this way of solving it isn't one that sits well with me.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I agree that it's stupid, but it's probably an effective way of not taxing the poor... who probably shouldn't spend money on soda when they need to pay for essential groceries instead.
...when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands!
I think someone was watching Demolition Man and thought, shit, that's a good idea. I'm gonna take credit for that.
Whoever modded this offtopic is a twit.
The general topic is ways of getting people to eat healthier.
-Banning certain foods is one way.
-Labelling foods in an easier to understand and notice way is another way
I'm saying the other way is more effective and sensible than the first way.
I'm comparing an alternative method to the proposed method which is the
topic of the article.
So back off, conversation-fascist!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Everyone should dress up like Gandhi and march down to the bay to make salt.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Just substitute 1Tbsp. salt with 1/8tsp. MSG. Thus solving the problem forever.
Another way to put it...
Damn!...Just, Damn!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That name is "Schmuck". Putz works, too, but Schmuck fits better.
Curious and funny.
The moron who proposed this was a Democrat. Democrats are always claiming to be the party for intelligent people and with more intelligent politicians.
Of course, as we've seen with Republicans Bush and Palin, the GOP isn't exactly the party for MENSA members either.
The only way we're going to elect smart people to run the country is if we stop electing Democrats and Republicans. Good luck with that.
The article brings up a much more important issue:
"Forcing a restaurant to stop using salt is the equivalent of telling a carpenter to stop using nails or a barber to not use scissors."
If you think salt is bad (and it is! Ban it!) imagine how bad nails and scissors are! Not only are they sharp and able to puncture and cut, but you can also get tetanus from the rust that may be on them. And any child can get access to these uncontrolled items, in almost any household!
Think about how many accidents occur because of nails and scissors. And what about the expense of having everybody given tetanus shots? Its a needless burden on our already overtaxed medical system.
Salt is the least of our worries. We need the government to get control of these serious risks to our health, because lord knows we cant do it ourselves..
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
Look, most of the processed food, from caviar to sausage, from cheese to V8, all have salt in it.
When people go to a restaurant, they are tasting salt...A good cook know exactly how much salt to add to the cream sauce and tomato sauce, gravy and soup. Why would I go to a restaurant if I have to add salt myself?
Most of all, if you do not like salt...just tell the cook...'No salt please'....
Or better...go get a head of lettuce and chew on it.
New Economic Perspectives
Is saltishist russia......ah, never mind
Beside, salt is not the worst villain, fat is. Are we gonna ban fat too?...
These people are exactly the reason why we have to monitor the liberals closely. They have a tendency to take freedom away from people in the name of doing good for you.
Okay, salt is horrible for you. And it's overused almost everywhere, in canned foods, poultry, every type of fast food, most chain restaurants, baked goods, etc...
BUT.. outlawing it is just stupid. It's nice to be able to go to a restaurant every once in a while and get a meal that's actually well-prepared and tastes good. And that requires some salt, at least. This is a luxury good. And restaurants that provide this luxury can rightly charge higher prices for it.
Unfortunately, this means that those restaurants tend to dominate the market. The problem occurs when this becomes the food that average people eat every day, fast food, prepared foods at home and at chain restaurants, rather than the random meal eaten at an authentic restaurant. Americans don't prepare their own meals nearly as much any more, and when they do, they aren't as picky as they should be about it's contents.
And why is this? Well, we are busy. Americans over-work. When the economy is doing well or when our skills are in demand, we work 12 hr days and don't have time for anything but fast food. When the economy is doing poorly, we are still dependent upon prepared foods because most of us haven't developed the skills to prepare food from scratch. And, more importantly, the infrastructure isn't there to support fresh foods at your local grocery store. Fresh food is more expensive, and unemployed people don't prefer expensive foods over inexpensive ones. The market demands food that is fast and cheap, not healthy.
Okay, and why is that the case? Western capitalism requires you to work in order to survive. Specialization and corporatism favor those who work longer hours over those who work fewer. People are cheap, subsidized even. The cost of reproduction is minimal. Health is an afterthought, a political issue rather than a personal responsibility.
And, importantly, this system is maintained by force. It's not inherently sustainable. When it fails, it is bailed out by government fiat, perpetuating the cycle of boom and bust that creates such horrible dietary habits, and reliance on prepared and fast foods, in the first place. Interest rates are held artificially low (0.75% right now), giving the signal to out-of-work Americans that they shouldn't bother investing in any type of reasonable, sustainable infrastructure for healthy food preparation because they will be back to working 12 hour days soon (when the next bubble is inflated) and relying on more unhealthy salt-laden fast food.
So, once again, the proposed solution for government force and interference is more government force and interference, rather than eliminating the source (lousy government) that caused the problem in the first place.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Why don't we just make it a Federal crime to elect a fucking moron?
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Nero fiddles while NYC burns. The Big Apple is in a state of economic disarray facing huge deficits due to a revolving door of public handouts and other absurd spending habits. Politicians with absolutely no business experience conclude that raising taxes through the roof is the way to go, resulting in the overtaxed rich simply moving out of state.
And what are they doing about it? Politicians such as Idiot Ortiz decides to place further restrictions on a hugely competitive restaurant market with more lunatic laws.
The Big Apple is rotting from the inside.
The politician thought he was banning Assaults not All Salts in restaurants.
And no one has said "Be well, John Spartan." yet?
First, they wanted to ban smoking. Tobacco smoke stinks and it's unhealthy. No one would put up too much of a fight for it. Then they wanted to ban trans-fats, they were unhealthy and no one could argue that they really needed them. Now, the want to ban salt. SALT!
The people of New York encourages this idiocy by not standing up to it before. Now that they've made their bed, let them lie in it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Ortiz admits that prior to introducing the bill he did not research salt’s role in food chemistry, its effect on flavor or his bill’s ramifications for the restaurant industry. He tells me he was prompted to introduce the bill because his father used salt excessively for many years, developed high blood pressure and had a heart attack.
“I think salt should be banned in restaurants. I ask if a dish has salt in it, and if I does, I get something else that doesn’t have salt,” Ortiz tells me, before going on to say that he has eaten, and expects he will continue to eat, among other things, ham, cheese and bread in restaurants, all of which contain salt.
The presumption is that others are too ignorant or irresponsible to "ask if a dish has salt" and if so to "get something else" - and further that the State ought to interfere with individual liberty for the protection of these imagined imbeciles.
Salt in food will be banned, meanwhile it will remain legal to purchase ethanol and tobacco for human consumption. If an individual wishes to abstain from salt, tobacco, or alcohol, they may do so. The interference of the state is not necessary.
You elect this gentleman, and your economic output is forcibly confiscated to finance the rediculous proposals he spouts, and you (collectively) do nothing to correct this abhorrence. This perhaps proves that you are indeed the mindless sheeple in need of the nanny state to protect you from your own stupidity. You are responsible for the stupidity of your representatives.
Enjoy your electrolytes.
The problem I'm trying to solve is this:
What percentage of the people who go into a grocery store would you say read the labels (i.e. the fine print) on the food packages
before making their decision.
They have 15 minutes or 1/2 hour to make selections from, what, 10,000 different items in the store?
What we need is at-a-glance, visible-from-a-distance information so that a shopper with an intent to eat healthier can
filter their shopping selections rapidly enough for that to be practical.
Also, the sea of different colored labels, viewed from afar, gives the shopper general notions of the stats of how many
healthy food products are being sold in the store, compared to how many really bad ones, etc, and in what sections of the
store / what general types of food, are the foods predominently very unhealthy, or predominently very healthy.
So it serves an educational purpose, without requiring undo, ornerous levels of cognitive load on the shopper.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
To protest the British Empire's control and taxation of salt, Mohandas K. (Mahatma) Gandhi led a 200+ mile march to the sea, where he made an illegal batch of salt. This sparked large scale acts of civil disobedience against the salt laws by millions of Indians, and was a major step on the long road to the independence of India.
If the British Raj had try to ban the use of salt outright, however, I suspect Gandhi - being a devout vegetarian - would have handed out cricket bats to every available man, woman, and child and led a march straight to New Delhi.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
That should read "onerous" levels of cognitive load, ...though "ornerous" levels sounds pretty painful too.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
This is just like all the other fluff bills out there. Politicians want to create a reputation of being tuff on drugs, guns, health, etc. So they introduce bills as rediculous as this so they can say they worked hard on whatever issue they are grandstanding about during election season. This is just normal politics, it will get assigned to a comittee and then forgotten...
-- Kind Regards whtdrgn101
What problem are you trying to solve? Have you read food labels lately? What information is missing that would help you in your quest for healthy food?
True, the problem isn't in the information (except for those annoying labels that show nutritional information by ounce, but don't disclose how many ounces are in the thing in total, but those are a minority). The problem is for some categories of food it's almost impossible to get things that aren't pumped full of sugar and salt. Like bread. There is no reason to put sugar in bread, but it is incredibly difficult to find bread at the supermarket that doesn't have sugar in it.
Shame on you, you think that internets people would know better.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/why-the-ny-salt-ban-proposal-is-a-good-idea/37342/
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
crap. it should be "undue, onerous" levels. I think I'm eating too many red foods and its affecting my brain.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The banning of the use of dihydrogen monoxide (also known as hydric acid) in the preparation of food would be an excellent admentment to this bill. Yes, I know what dihydrogen monoxide is. In our lab at my previous place of employment we even had a material safety data sheet for it. Check it out here Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division.
They're already working hard to push tax on "sugary" sodas and drinks in NY.
I love the loaded language. Sugary, like we're talking about a bottle full of sugar.
Um, really, it’s not far off... a 12-oz. Coke has 39 grams of sugar. A 12-oz. (355 ml) bottle of plain water would weigh 355 grams. That’s almost 10% sugar by weight.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I have Meniere's syndrome and think this is bogus! I have to carefully limit my salt so I don't build up pressure in my inner ear, so I take care to do so.
If anyone else is concerned about limiting their salt intake, then they should limit their salt intake.
Our elected officials think we are too stupid and too lazy to take responsibility for ourselves. Make sure you let every one of them know how you feel about their opinion of us come election time!
I don't support the bill, but I do think that restaurant food has way too much salt in it. I recently went on a diet and lost over 100 lbs. During this diet I cut out all the added salt from everything I ate, and stopped eating salty stuff. After I reached my goal weight I went to a few different restaurants to try "normal" food again. Honestly the main thing that I tasted in everything was salt, and it tasted disgusting to me. I feel restaurants should cut out how much salt they use (not completely though) and allow the customers to add salt if they want it. But I don't agree with the government "regulating" it.
"The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison
Salt is not good for you. Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, red meat...bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
being that I'm an American and don't ever leave my couch. All this bill will do is biochemically endorse our greatest stereotype.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
...salt does. Finally someones adressing Americas #1 concern.
Have one or two glasses of water accompany your dinner. There is a special device in your body specialized in excreting excess salt.
Salt not only has a flavour of its own, but enhances other flavours. Enjoy it.
Bert
Maybe they should get him to ban hydrogen dioxide next. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
Want a fun read?
Seach the following;
Aspartame
Sucralose
Acesulfame
I'd link but my html-fu is weak and I have too much to do today to look it up at the moment.
This would make more sense if they hadn't found that using salt in the cooking process results in less salt consumed than if you put in no salt and hand someone a salt shaker. If your customers are salting every bite, you've hardly fixed the problem.
If he wanted to do the nanny-state properly he should ban customers from having salt shakers and leave salt levels to the experts in the kitchen.
Someone standing next to him explaining what words like "daily," "allowance," and "recommended" mean.
Didn't I see this in Demolition Man?
Actually, sugar is food for the yeast in bread.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Actually, sugar is food for the yeast in bread.
Bread does not need sugar, though sugar helps it rise faster; in fact, traditional french bread can't have sugar. There are actually a few brands of bread in the supermarket that won't have sugar; my point was they are very hard to find, because the vast majority pour it (listing it as sugar, high fructose corn syrup, or evaporated cane juice)in liberally.
No one does Nanny State better than the Democrats. And this clown will probably be re-elected ...
Salt (more specifically sodium chloride) is needed for your continuing good health.
It's the same with iodine and many many other things.
What do they all have in common?
Take too much and it will mess you up.
I've seen people get sick from taking too many vitamins. Is he going to ban those as well.
People have died from drinking too much water, guess he'll ban water also.
And don't forget food. That most heinous of delectables, eat too much and you'll get obese, and we know what obesity does to your health, better ban that too...
To put it simply, Mister Ortiz, you are a very dangerous imbecile that needs to learn about basic nutrition and sciences. Until then, keep you unhealthy and absurd ideas to yourself.
let's take it to the next level and ban restaurants... no, just ban all food. Problem solved.
Although this is overdoing it allot I think the state of many americans are long overdue for some nanny state control. When other parts of the world are dying of hunger, americans are dying of fat.
But I'll agree this is just silly.
And I wonder what this means.
from the article: "each individual addition of salt"
is that 1 salt molecule ?
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
"What consequences?" I'm sure the idiot politician asked. I wonder if this bill bans (1) all salts (which would be impossible), (2) all foods containing sodium chloride (which is ridiculous and cost-prohibitive to enforce), or (3) just all added table/sea salt.
If it's banning (3) and (2), it would ban all foods preserved by brining or curing from being served in restaurants. That means all preserved meats (sausage, ham, and bacon to name a few), preserved fish like gravlax, and all natural pickles such as sauerkraut, not to mention a whole host of ethnic foods that are made by preserving in salt or salt solutions. Let's see this moron backtrack when his favorite pizza joint can't sell pepperoni or olives on their pizzas anymore-- or for that matter, tomato sauce, cheese, and the crust itself. Enjoy your imaginary pizza! The only real topping available is mushrooms!
How about pasta? Every prep method I know involves salted water. Are they going to shut down or fine Italian shops too?
Don't even get me started on the inevitable ruckus the fast-food joints will raise because now their those that salt their fries will find that they taste like cheap greasy gym socks.
One thing I do know is that this bill would force every consumer in his jurisdiction to cook at home, because all the restaurant food would taste like cardboard and/or be so cost-prohibitive that they'd shut down.
And all this assumes that this bill will even pass, because the aforementioned fast-food places will raise enough of a fuss to shut this stupidity down. For once, those poster-children of obesity and crummy labor/management are useful...
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
unless you're really stupid enough to think a pinch of salt could possibly have any effect on bacteria levels or yeast growth, dumbass
The poster child for humorless libertards has spoken. Take of, and have a day!
> Banning sugar next? They're already working hard to push tax on "sugary" sodas and drinks in NY.
How much you wanna bet that they propose replacing soda with juice? Push one form of sugar water in favor of another...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, no, no. Salt was only a symptom of the underlying problem. Don't you see? This person had a *heart attack*, a HEART ATTACK. Clearly we must ban hearts so as to prevent more attacks of this nature. Anyone with a heart must be kicked out of New York State!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Obviously, he knows NOTHING about cooking.. He should be given a crash course by Alton Brown (make watch a 5 day marathon of Good Eats).
Of course, even worse, this is part of the whole leftist, socialist, 'Goverment knows better than the citizens' attitude that the Democrats have had for decades (not to be confused with the Republican ideology of 'Republcans know better').
Nanny State 101---Ban all bad things...soon, all we will be able to eat is lettuce, with vitamin pills.
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
Aside from the head-shaking, "Look at this idiot over here" value, why is this even newsworthy? The whole concept of banning salt-use is so preposterous that this will tank without debate. Even in an F'd up state like NY (sorry NY, I couldn't help it, as I'm from Cali.)
The fact that people are attempting to logically debate this, using it to snip at Dems (and back at Repubs), debate drug policy, etc. just shows the extent folks are liable to get sucked into stupid arguments. For every 1 ill-thought out or knee jerk bill you hear about in Congress there are, oh, roughly 50 in the states... so, again, why is this even comment or newsworthy? Even for Slashdot (sorry /., I couldn't help it, as I'm from... Slashdot.)
It's a privacy question. Ask the supreme court. Abortion is private and you have a 4th Amendment right to privacy. (Read it. It's in there. Supreme court says so. Just keep reading it until you agree that it says privacy. You wouldn't question the legitimacy of the supreme court, would you?)
Every single other aspect of your health care is fair game. And everything else about your life too. It's all subject to government second-guessing your choices.
But abortion is private.
Why is banning the solution to everything? I don't get it. People love to ban anything with legislation, it's completely illogical.
First, they came for the salt, and I did not speak because I used AlsoSalt. Then they came for the sugar, but I did not speak because I used Splenda. Then they came for the butter, but I did not speak because I used Margarine. Then they came for me, because all that was left was Soylent Green.
???
Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you.
You mean like vomit? Or shit? Just wondering.
--AC
Remove him from office.
Ban him from government for life.
Bring him up on charges just shy of treason.
No. I am not joking.
This has gone on long enough. How many bills and amendments get proposed that accomplish nothing but drain our resources?
This guy did *ZERO* research. Admitted it himself. ...and this is "for the people"??
No. He sought his own personal agenda ahead of that of Country and Constitution, against the oath he took for office...without so much as a single thought for Country or Constitution.
Make. Him. Gone.
Then make a habit of doing the same to all of the others that constantly pull this BS. The next twit to push a bill for some "Save the Children" game-ratings? Gone.
This poster has never baked bread.
The sugar in the bread serves two functions. It feeds the yeast so that the bread rises, and it reacts with starch to make the crust turn brown & tasty.
Without sugar, your bread would be much denser, and all one color. The 'crust' would just be really dry compared to the interior of the bread.
I'd suggest not demanding changes in food chemistry unless you understand why the particular ingredient is in there. Otherwise, you end up in the state assembly and make yourself look a fool for trying to ban salt.
The only thing that has more salt than salt is soy sauce, after all.
One thing I've always wondered: why don't they ban nicotine? Smoke all you want, just mandate to the cigarette manufacturers that they need to produce nicotine-free smokes. I don't know much about tobacco, so that wouldn't work even in theory if nicotine is near-impossible to remove. And in practice, it won't work for many many more reasons.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Does this mean that the bars are not going to be able to serve Tequila properly (with salt & lime)?
Yeah because without the gov't diapering us and giving us our bottle, we would never make it. Jeez
Asinine bills are proposed all the fsking time by idiots like this guy. IT IS NOT NEWS. Call me when you actually get more than 5 people actually pushing for it, otherwise its just another stupid bill by a stupid person. Move along, nothing to see here.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
I think it would be better for all of us if his father had passed away before ejaculation during the sexual intercourse that generated Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn.
NYC has a LOT of very high end resturants, and I'll bet you that almost every chef uses some table salt in at least some salt (in moderation - I'm NOT talking fast food quantities here)
How much you want to bet that a LOT of the better chefs will move to Long Island, NJ or Westchester, and there goes the money from the high end dinning
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Make sure you let every one of them know how you feel about their opinion of us come election time!
You mean that nice man I read heard about on the news who's looking out for our health? This is how many politicians get reelected. The average citizen votes on feeling, not on reason.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Who would have thought that "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme" was an evil coded message meant to get our kids hooked. (Hey, is that Clapton's version of "Cocaine"? Turn it up!)
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
I don't know why people always blame Bill every time an unpopular law is proposed. It was Felix Ortiz who came up with this.
I can't take any medical expert seriously when there site hits me with Cheerios (that are good for your heart) and Splenda ads.
"Prohibits the use of salt by restaurants in the preparation of food by restaurants."
When they can't even form a proper sentence for the official summary of the bill you know these aren't the brightest minds in the world.
Remember smoking bans?
Started out by taxing it.
Expanded by banning it in public venues.
Expanded again by banning it in some private venues like restaurants.
Expanded again by banning it in all publically accessible places including outdoor areas.
Expanded again by including private residences like apartment buildings.
Next logical step is to ban it on all private property.
The final step will be to criminalize it's possession and/or distribution.
I guess with salt he wanted to skip over to step #3.
Although I doubt this proposed bill will get anywhere, this is often the standard progression...
I suffered a collapse recently, not a pleasant thing.
My medic told me it was a lack of sodium in my blood that made me weak, so I had to force some more salt into my meals. And haven't had a problem since then.
We need our sodium, present in salt, as mostly everyone points out in comments. Politicians get more and more retarded every day.
They make wars, they take away freedom...they cause way more *direct* and *tangible* pain than any "witch" they want to "hunt".
ugh. low sodium diets exacerbate hyponatremia. I shouldn't be let loose with a keyboard when I'm this tired.
We don't elect smart people, we elect people crooked enough and desperate enough to do the job.
This is just the legislative equivalent of clicking on Send before checking your facts.
I've actually had to increase my sodium intake to get to the recommended amount. My diet (lost 80 lbs so far!) has been moving me away from processed foods, which means that on some days, I'm consuming as little as 600mg of sodium. The present USDA recommendations (available at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI//DRI_Water/water_full_report.pdf ) for people my age (9-50) are between 1500 and 2300, unless they're in an at-risk group. This means that some days, I have to add a teaspoon of kosher salt to my food (which can be trouble if you're trying to salt raspberries). The WHO recommends less than 1700mg ( http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_916.pdf ), so I've been trying to keep my intake between 1500 and 1700.
In all cases, the WHO recommends keeping your sodium and potassium levels equivalent (70mmol of sodium, 70-80mmol of potassium, or 2800-3200mg of K). Too little potassium/too much sodium results in too much muscle activity and hypertension, too little sodium/too much potassium results in too little muscle activity, heart arrhythmia, respiratory collapse, coma... The FDA recommends a bizarre amount of potassium (120mmol or 4700mg) based on the sodium sensitivity of African Americans and something about kidney stones. For most people who do not have a sodium sensitivity, this will just be eliminated by the body, which may cause problems with the kidneys and liver. Also note that while sodium is mentioned on food labels, potassium is usually not, and some foods are very high in potassium but don't bother to mention it.
Each of the documents I linked has a long list of studies that they used to determine those levels, but I'd really like to see something more concrete and which doesn't simply vilify sodium. Alas, that's far too common in the diet advice I see online.
Right. Because Nixon, Carter, and Clinton made everything come up rainbows.
The problem is not with the intelligence of politicians. The problem is the existence of politicians.
Look, we have already been through this with the saturated fat ban & smoking ban. These are all efforts to improve public health. It's for your own good. Stop fighting it. Some people just don't get it and want to live in the dark ages. Try being more progressive.
You have no right to stop poor people from making stupid decisions. The only proper course of action is to subsidize them so they can continue being a drag on society.
Hahahaha you're cute, thinking that the people running the country aren't absolutely brilliant. They're taking whatever they want from whoever they want and thumbing their noses at anyone who tries to stop them. They happily let you believe they're stupid while they ram their giant metaphorical cocks straight up your collective asses. It would be funny if it weren't so fuckin sad.
I used to go to NYC for the food. Now they will seriously loose my tourist money. Now Hoboken will get my dollar.
Demolition man anyone?
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_Man_%28film%29
It is explained that anything "not good for you" is deemed "bad" and therefore illegal, including alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, non-educational toys, meat, spicy and unhealthy food, table salt and tobacco.
since the movie also says that Arnold Swatsneger was elected president, i cant say that sounded quite stunning.
if the gov is gonna say a person can't have an abortion, they better pay upfront costs of birth control, encourage its use until people are 'sure' they want to have children and can probably support them (though they shouldn't force use) and they better make all forms of birth control not only free but easily accessible. they also must still allow abortions in certain situations, like pregnancy from RAPE! the day after pill would suffice in most instances that birth control was not used, usually people know damn well whether they used protection or not.
i can see why people would complain about killing a fetus, but not a lot of people seem to care about a few cells that are duplicating and might eventually become a fetus. i don't recall the exact stages of pregnancy or the length of time till an actual human form is present. but i do recall how similar the earlier form is to a cancerous growth, and we all know well that pregnancy can negatively effect a woman's health... i have no opposition to banning abortion after a reasonable period of time, or even having fines or jail time as a punishment for those who do have abortions afterword. but until there's a 100% way to avoid pregnancy that's easy to use and easy to get, stopping an accidental pregnancy, within a reasonable amount of time, is still appropriate for many reasons. not least of which is the following:
on the subject of individual rights, someday somebody is going to have to realize that sex with a condom is not always pleasurable and that the man needs to have some other way to decide whether or not a child is born as long as he is going to be held liable for it's well-being. sex is a healthy activity for adults, but people lie, and accidents happen. if the female fails to use birth control or the birth control fails she isn't required by law to tell the suspected father that she's even pregnant, and the woman can then decide to get an abortion or not all on her own. whether the guy knows or not, he has no legal way to avoid at least the financial aspects of fatherhood other than to have abstained from sex in the first place; which is unrealistic. i've known far to many males to be held financially accountable for children they accidentally helped create but have often had no contact with, simply because the woman got pregnant and selfishly decided to keep it, but couldn't afford it.
it is no less fair to a child to be killed while in the womb than it is to say a woman can't stop an accidental pregnancy, within a reasonable amount of time after conception, or that a man can later be held accountable for the decision of a woman to have a child, especially without his knowledge. there are many issues in regards to human rights and family rearing that must still be addressed, and there are no cut and paste solutions because as of today our nation and our world is filled with many systems of belief that guide our moral decisions. perhaps we should reject them and instead use scientific reasoning just to find a middle ground... i'm sure science can find evidence to prove that is all abortions were stopped life overall would be more miserable for the majority of society. and i'm sure science could also prove that the unfairness in regard to the legalities involved with parentage do more harm than good through the stress imposed on those directly effected: generally the unwed parents and their offspring.
there currently needs to be far more education and far more discussion on the matter before any laws are even drafted.
Although *LARGE* restaurants probably have more resources than small restaurants to do partake in a social engineering experiment, this always seems to be the standard "progressive" argument, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Oh wait, where did I hear that line before, it wasn't progressive, but....
If it's a good idea, shouldn't it be applied across the board? If that's not feasible, there should be a good reason or some equivalent that has the same principle. Maybe make the small restaurants stamp a disclaimer label on their menus:
WARNING: this menu does NOT contain the government mandated number of low-sodium dining options.
Well, isn't that fair? And if putting in a disclaimer is good enough for the small restaurant, why isn't that good enough for the large restaurants? You should ask yourself why some enterprising person hasn't been successful creating a chain of low-sodium (or regular-sodium) restaurants if there is a market for them for all the people that eat out alot like you do and are concerned about this.
As an alternate approach, perhaps why not just start with a pilot program with government run cafeterias (say capitol hill, public schools, prisons etc) to see what works and what doesn't work (yeah, I think I know why not, but it's a fair argument so humor me). I doubt many government owned or run cafeteria programs would be able to pull this off easily and they have the entire resources of the government behind them, but maybe it could be like the military/school "color-integration" program of past decade if done properly.
Historically, it's very populist to attempt social engineering on the *LARGE* guys by passing laws that attempt something and exempt the government agencies from the same requirements in the same breath. The *LARGE* guys lobby and either are successful at killing it or watering it down with FUD. However, if it turns out to be a really a good idea and there's an example that the government to point to, you know that the *LARGE* guys would be all over it in a heartbeat, so why not try that approach?
The standard answer it's easier for lawmakers to kibitz and pander than to actually properly define and solve a problem. If an smoking-ban bill and an trans-fat-ban bill made some politician popular, just think what an salt-bill bill will do to my career. Maybe we should just stick-it to restaurants instead of the whole population for now to get more populist support. All form, no substance.
Sadly, lately we (as a public) eat this all form, not substance approach up because we aren't taught or (at least don't exercise) critical thinking skills. It's like we've regressed as a society to a more primitive state of comfortable group-think led by cheerleaders tugging emotional heartstrings. Sigh...
At least this salt-ban bill isn't going anywhere in it's current form...
Smart people don't want to run for office. Do you? I know I don't.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
It is not even remotely worth worrying about. This will never pass.
Get rid of Iodized salt. End of story.
All you guys defending salt sound like a bunch of potheads
I don't, for several reasons, but one being that I know I wouldn't be elected as I'm not exactly the most gregarious and outgoing person out there (which is why I'm a software engineer and prefer to sit in front of a computer all day).
Additionally, the fact that I'm an engineer means I have a personality type where I view things in black-and-white, and worse I have a bad habit of speaking my mind about things and not saying different things to different people to try to please them all. People hate that in politicians. (Of course, they also say they hate that politicians "speak out of both sides of their mouths", but then they go on to elect these politicians anyway.)
Finally, if I did have a chance to be President for one term without having to go through all the ridiculousness of the election campaign, I'd be happy to do it just to have a chance to try to fix things for the better. But I have no illusions at all that I could be elected for anything besides maybe a school board member (and probably not even that since I don't have kids).
This poster has never baked bread.
Actually I have.
The sugar in the bread serves two functions. It feeds the yeast so that the bread rises, and it reacts with starch to make the crust turn brown & tasty.
As I told the previous poster, it is a myth that you need sugar to make the bread rise. If you don't believe it, try baking it without yeast. Just allow it more time to rise.
Without sugar, your bread would be much denser, and all one color. The 'crust' would just be really dry compared to the interior of the bread.
And you've obviously never tried a traditional French baguette. The bread would be much denser only if you did not allow it a little bit more time to rise.
Garlic will chase them away.
If this guy wants to do something about health, forget banning salt. They should ban the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup instead. There is a body of evidence that suggests that HFCS is worse for you (in terms of obesity) than sugar.
Banning it would also have the positive effect of making stuff taste better :)
but I wasn't ... eh forget it.
a little birdy said that Felix Ortiz is a gay and had an affair with another man
Perhaps we can get him to sponsor a bill to make the value of Pi 3.0 so geometry can be easier and a bill defining division by zero as one. Then a bill to make not paying any tax a felony with a minimum sentence of 10 years and also make it a felony not to vote.
With the right encouragement, this asshat can go far.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Fine if all you want to do is eat the traditional french bread that you speak of. I personally like greater variety in bread. Most breads that I make do require sugar, but not a large quantity. Even a Hallah doesn't take a large quantity of sugar. In fact, if I use honey instead of sugar in my Hallah, it's moister when eaten (and is certainly moister than a simple bread not including any sugars beyond the starches in the flour already).
... why does the government recommend you consume 2000mg/day of it?
Why do you pass out and go brain dead if you have a deficiency of it?
Why is it absolutely necessary for normal functioning of the nervous system?
These people are IDIOTS.
Honey is a better option nutrition-wise than sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, and a small amount of either is fine, especially considering that the yeast will convert most of that sugar anyway. But I strongly suspect, based on the location in the ingredients, and the total sugars number, that the sugar in packaged bread far exceeds the amount that you're putting in your challah.
Type <a href="http://example.com/resource.html">Some Text Describing The link</a>
Only paste the real link address (you can copy it into the clipboard by right-clicking and selecting "copy link address" from the context menu) between the posts instead of the example URI shown there.
Don't get me wrong, the summary is accurate. Its crime is splicing together random sentences ripped directly from the article to try and form an original summary. A section from the article, in its full glory (<b> mine):
And the last two sentences of the summary:
You can see that the poster or "editor" knew what they were doing because the beginning of the sentence was massaged extensively. And the next sentence was taken from an earlier part of the article. If you're going to restate the article in your own words, then do it in your own words. And if you're going to quote directly from the author, then make the quotes obvious, and don't change his words.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
...it contains iodine, a nutrient we all need. Get rid of sea salt, which despite popular layman beliefs is not healthier for you.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I have a proposal:
Felix Ortiz should be required by the committee to consume NO salt for a period of one year before they take this bill up for consideration. If he is even still alive, he'll have changed his mind. He should also pick up a book or two or audit a couple of physiology and nutrition classes and learn that not everyone's biology is the same. Some people's bodies have problems taking the USDA recommended amount of salt. Others ideal amount may be exactly what the USDA recommends. Others may require several times that amount.
The same should be required of legislators who wish to outlaw all cholesterol, or outlaw all saturated fats. Let's see if they can survive past the one-year mark.
I probably couldn't make it past a month on zero cholesterol and no salt. My adrenal glands need every bit of cholesterol I can get (or go on daily cortisol injections, which introduces other problems), and I need a lot more electrolytes including sodium chloride than most people do. So, I choose to get what I need by carefully selecting foods which are high in sodium, potassium, and the other electrolytes, and very high in cholesterol but relatively low fat/low cal, such as shrimp and other seafoods. Due to the same underlying health condition I have to also avoid most forms of soy and soy extracts, which blocks out most processed so-called "health foods." So, my diet consists mostly of whole, un-processed foods.
Felix Ortiz, like most democrats (and most modern republicans) is an idiot.
Don't you see that the so called smart people are the ones coming up with things like this? It's because they know that they know more than the masses and they are just trying to protect their constituents from themselves. Nevermind that they may not actually know more. The key is that they think they do.
When people say the word elitist in the context of politics, I find they mean either (a) people who study but never actually do anything or (b) people who think they know more than everyone else and therefore should be able to tell us all what to do.
Soon all restaurants will be Taco Bell.
Okay so let me get this straight, rather than regulating the maximum amount of salt you can put into food, this guy wants a straight up ban of it? I think I smell a genius.
Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
Unreal. Freakin idiot politicians. No wonder this country is in the crapper
Yeah! These people are too dumb to make all our choices for us. We should elect smart people to make all our choices for us.
Or, how about we make all our own choices and take all the power away from government? Then it doesn't matter whether the government people are smart or not.
Of course McDonald's doesn't and shouldn't care if you are obese, that's nobody's business but your own.
I see where you're coming from for the most part, but I disagree with this statement in particular. Someone who sells a dangerous product that causes harm to other people bears some moral responsibility for what is done with the product. The more dangerous the product, and the fewer harmless uses there are for it, the greater the burden to sell responsibly (or the better reason to ban the product entirely).
Not that I think fast food should be banned. I just think the McDonalds does have a responsibility to its customers and society not to deliberately encourage bad habits via marketing, especially to children.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The problem with your politician is not stupidity. In the 60 years of his life, do you honestly believe he hadn't ever heard stuff like cheese or ham contains salt, and working from there, intuitively knew his bill is 100% impractical? With a brain that's good enough to speak, this takes more than an infinite improbability engine to accomplish. Your politician isn't stupid - at least not on the level you're thinking - he's pretending to be stupid. The thing he's really trying with this bill is testing the limits of political manipulation - see how much bullshit he can get away with. Yes, he's a little bit too careless or confident this time - so you can still argue he's stupid - but that's a much different thing now. But, mark my words - this bill WILL be reintroduced in a different form. The real goal here is experimentation with public opinion. It WILL continue until something ridiculous passes. And your politicians WILL know better than you the ramifications of their bills - and take pleasure in that.
Huh? What are you trying to say here? Is there some element of the GOP platform that I'm unaware of that supports murder or some such?
I think he's referring to the way that Republicans value human life merely existing but not wanting anything to do with the quality of others' lives that would involve taking themselves out of a comfort zone of only having to give a crap about anyone other than personal friends and family.
i.e. Not caring about what a pregnant woman has to sacrifice to keep an unwanted child, and not wanting to spend one red cent more in tax dollars to help out a single mother who wasn't ready to support the child. Her mistake. Not their eff'ing problem, and too bad if the child has to bear the ramifications of failing to be wanted. It's better that a child grow up miserable, poor, and unwanted than to not grow up at all. And it's better that they grow up that way than be supported by their country or community if that would mean paying more taxes.
In other words, it's not that they actually *value* the lives of the unborn, personally. Just in the abstract sense that abortion is wrong, and other people shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Or does it just bother you that the GOP is generally opposed to cradle to grave welfare states that take away our liberty under the guise of protecting people?
Yeah, 'cause God forbid we "take away our liberty under the guide of protecting people" in an attempt to better the lives of our citizens when we could just do it because we're scared of crazy people living in the deserts and holed up in mountains.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
If she has the right to remove a fetus, why doesn't she have the right to insert a needle full of heroin? It's her body, isn't it?
And why doesn't she have the right to inject heroin directly into her unborn fetus and see if she can get a buzz that way?
I'm... I'm going straight to hell when I die, aren't I?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So now your "Zero Trans Fat" cookie contains an equally damaging amount of saturated fats from the palm oil.
Let's also not forget that the increased demand for palm oil is leading to the destruction of rain forests. Rain forests that wouldn't be destroyed if we just went back to hydrogenated soybean oil.
What's a health-conscious, environmentally-aware New Yorker to do?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Here
Why should the government care who you live with?
Are you out of your mind? Go read the health care legislation versions entering reconciliation.
Stop repeating the lies. No one is going to force you into a health regimen.
When you've educated yourself beyond ignorance, you will see the requirement to carry INSURANCE. Not any mythical monolithic health regimen.
Stop repeating the lies. No one is ramming anything down anyone's throat.
When you've educated yourself beyond ignorance, you will find Americans support the content of the health care insurance legislation. Furthermore, you'll find a majority of Congress voting for the legislation in an open vote. There's no ramming, no throat, no "against the people" bullshit.
Stop fucking lying because you'd rather not have it pass.
I propose that a new law be introduced that any person attempting to introduce such legislation be required to survive a year without any form of salt prior to introducing his legislation.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Father, I love you more than salt." She spoke simply, quietly.
More than salt? More than salt?! The king was displeased. He couldn't believe his daughter had compared him to something so common and coarse as salt. He was angry, thinking of all the gifts he'd lavished on her. Such was his rage that he banished her from the kingdom.
As a son of a father that was on a salt restricted diet, and did the cooking for him in hi slater years, due to having had a heart attack, I can state that salt is overused in many fresh and packaged goods. Yes salt is needed in some recipes, but in many more recipes it can be added to the dish by the person eating it rather than added during cooking. You can always add salt but you can't take it out!
-Eric
-Eric
Some salt is necessary to make certain recipes work at all, and to make others palatable. But restaurant cooking is notorious for using more salt than is necessary, so measures to prevent this would be welcome.
Sorry, you got it wrong there - the 4th major foodgroup is cholesterol, not chocolate. Sure, you can use chocolate, but there are alternatives. The perfect breakfast is therefore:
- honey- or acorn syrup-glazed bacon (for the salt, sugar and fat)
- scrambled eggs stirred up with cream and fried in butter (to give us the necessary cholesterol)
- washed down with beer (for the much needed alcohol, way more nutritious than the tequila shot, giving you Si for your bones and lots of vitamins)
- and finally the shot of espresso you suggested.
Trust me, I am a scientist. I know what's good for you.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
please ignore
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
... loading with salt their offerings?
You can take as much salt as you want, one bill like this only proposses that you are not given unecessary amounts of salt without your knowledge.
If you knew how much salt is going into your food in restaurant food (and please go and google what that does to you)you would not be so glib.
I agree with the author in this... doing this, would unbalance food chemistry as we know it. Horrible idea and it will never be passed.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
The point many of you are missing is that restaurants routinely put far too much salt on dishes, and in any case all the processed food we eat already has salt (and often lots of it), so an outright ban on restaurants adding salt makes lots of sense.
You want more? You put it yourself knowing that dish is not salty by default.
Thank god for this bill.
When I was a young boy I started doing salt. I figured yea its just salt right? Afterwards I moved on to cracked pepper and eventually later in life started experimenting with parsley, basil and oregeno. Before I knew it I was hooked on Thyme and garlic and I lost everything. My wife, my job, my kids, all gone. Even the dog ran away. Now you will find me lurking on the school grounds giving away free herbs, knowing that once hooked they will never be the same. So please think of the children and avoid my culinary fate.
"How you know you even *got* amiloride-insensitive Na+ receptors from chromosome 17, kid?"
Are you fucking kidding me?
Oh, and for the record, I agreed with the rest of his post:
And even better, they're claiming that the money earned by this tax will help pay for other programs. I love this bullshit. So, do they really want people to stop buying these drinks, putting an end to this revenue stream? Of course not! They hope people will go on buying this stuff, giving them another way of digging into our pockets for some extra money.
It’s no different from the traffic light cameras: they claim the cameras are to make the intersections safer, and then they get upset when precisely that happens. Because, obviously, a safer intersection results in fewer tickets and less revenue for the city, and the traffic cameras that were supposed to pay for themselves aren’t generating the revenue you expected.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Just as amazing, Ortiz found at least two other assemblymen to agree with him. From the bill:
SPONSOR Ortiz (MS)
COSPNSR Markey
MLTSPNSR Perry
I'd think it would be poor politics to sign on to cosponsoring bills I didn't understand. Naive me.
I've seen this before.. in "Demolition Man".
Great. Where will you get your iodine from then?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Idiots! This is right up there with the dweebs who decided a few years ago that PI should be 3. Salt is an essential part of our diet, to say nothing about the chemical processes that allow us to think and move. Clearly this guy is an example of the need to administer IQ tests to run for public office. Problem is, from some of the recent characters on the political scene, its not clear as to which end of the gene pool the electorate wants to fish. Anyhow, if they support people with well intentioned but seriously disfunctional ideas like this, they deserve what they get.
Someone tell the oceans, what will the fish do?
Get up!
If it rises, you're either using chemical leveners (ex. baking powder), or the wild yeast that landed in your dough is making it rise. Bread does not rise unless you supply it with something to produce gas. (You can beat a hell of a lot of air into it, but that doesn't work well with something the consistency of typical bread dough.) Wild yeasts are everywhere, and get in everything we cook. In fact they're what we used for eons before we figured out what yeast was.
Yeast can eat the flour instead of sugar, but it's not as good a food source for the yeast so it takes a lot longer.
However, this still doesn't get around the problem of getting the bread to brown nicely. If you want a blonde crust, fine. But it takes sugar to get the traditional brown crust.
And vice versa.
They go apeshit over salt, but can't be bothered to completely remove the sentencing disparity between rock and powder cocaine.
One is a "think of the children" and one disproportionately targets minorities. Guess which is which?
Porquoi?
they shouldve taken away our guns before our salt.
I don't think banning added salt is logical or wanted, though I wish consumers would demand a more reasonable use of salt in restaurant food. That said, a couple of comments: 1) Salt is not a spice, it is a mineral. It does not enhance flavor, it adds its own unique flavor. 2) Yes, salt is necessary for us to survive, but you'll find that we get salt in almost everything we eat - enough for our needs without adding any. Most Americans eat a lot of processed foods and, if they tracked their salt intake, will find that they have reached the maximum recommended daily allowance sometime early in their lunch. We, as a nation, eat entirely too much salt, and suffer high blood pressure and other maladies as a result.