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."
"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
The bill is hopelessly vague about what "salt" is. If it just applies to "table salt" (sodium chloride), restaurants would simply switch to salt substitutes like potassium chloride. Also, the bill is vague on things that *contain* salt, whether they're allowed. There are all sorts of salty ingredients out there -- some artificially salty, some naturally salty -- that could be added to dishes to add the salt indirectly. If it were to ban anything that contains any measurable amount of salt, it would ban almost every food on Earth.
Anyway, this is just a guy who knows nothing about cooking and probably not much about chemistry. Don't think it malicious. My uncle was in congress for a term (he didn't run again because of health problems). I remember playing trivial pursuit with him. He'd miss out on what seemed the most basic, obvious questions to me in most categories -- but boy oh boy, if a legal question came up, you can bet he knew the answer! Going into public office takes a great deal of your time; these people usually aren't generalists. As of the late '90s or early '00s, the last time my uncle had watched a movie in a theater was the original Star Wars, back in the '70s. That's how much being involved in the high levels of politics can consume your time.
Now, even most people who are highly specialized in one particular field will know of salt's role in cooking. But there are enough elected people out there that at least some won't. But trust me -- he will soon ;) This bill will disappear in short order.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
Funny, I've found that to be the exact same thing most hypocritical about Democrats. You can scoop a fetus out because it's your body, but by god if you try to put salt on your food we'll throw you in the fucking slammer.
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!
Foodies are douches, be a gourmand instead :-P
Trans fats do occur naturally in milk and beef (the most prominent examples). Admittedly at smaller levels than from hydrogenated oils, but it's still there.
Secondly, my understanding is that even the 0g trans fats per seving Crisco formulations (etc) still have what add up to substantial amounts of trans fats. Are any of the vegetable shortenings REALLY trans fat free? Unless people go back to using lard, we're still going to be eating trans fats, just thankfully less than we did just 5 years ago.
Yeah, but from what I understand the with the cost of living in NYC...$100K/yr will barely keep you on the poverty level.
You understand wrong. When I lived there I "only" made $45k. I managed to live a comfortable lifestyle. You can get by without a car in the city -- that's a huge chunk of saved money right there. Your biggest expense is rent. Energy costs are above the national norm (I think I was paying $0.18/kWh when I lived there) but that's not a real big deal when you live in an apartment. Groceries were comparable to what I pay now in Upstate. Maybe a tad bit more expensive but it really wasn't enough of a difference that it hurt my bottom line.
The biggest money pit in NYC is the culture. Museums, shows, arts, etc. aren't cheap and there's a lot of ways to blow money on those items in NYC. But that's all discretionary spending.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I can't help but be completely and utterly appalled at how anyone could consider what you describe as acceptable for an elected official at that level.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure your perception is quite valid - I just can't accept that we should shrug off ignorance so easily, especially when it has the potential to affect so many.
It may be unreasonable to expect one person know everything about every subject, but it is reasonable to expect someone to not push forward in an area where they have knowledge. It's the sit down and STFU and listen if you don't know what you are talking about rule.
If I'm feeling generous I might be able to forgive an ignorant legislator that votes for such an absurd bill - but for one to introduce such a thing there should be no forgiveness. Wait. I take that back. I couldn't even forgive the yes-voter. There is no place in a sane government for a legislator to approve a measure they don't have a reasonable understanding of. Ever.
That it is commonplace (I'm guessing the majority of legislation, spurred on by legislators who trust the lobyists as experts in field) leaves me with a feeling of disgust and hopelessness.
I think Douglas Adams had the right idea - no person who wants to be in power/politician should ever actually be allowed to be (liberally paraphrased).