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."

57 of 794 comments (clear)

  1. This just in! by jemtallon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some politicians are idiots! More at 11.

    1. Re:This just in! by XPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All politicians are idiots! More at 11.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:This just in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Greetings.

      Slashdot has suspended your Slashdot Posting License for the remainder of the day (GMT) for the following reason:

      Serial Douchebaggery.

      Thanks for stopping by. See you tomorrow!

    3. Re:This just in! by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Keep in mind that you also have to take occasional yes/no quizzes, but don’t worry, there’s no right or wrong answer. Oh, and if you don’t want to answer the question, you can always get full credit for simply being there. Of course, attendance isn’t really even required anyway.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:This just in! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      What am I, the fucking internet meme police or something?

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:This just in! by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most dysfunctional legislature... ever!

      I beg to differ. I live in California.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    6. Re:This just in! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    7. Re:This just in! by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't see many idiots holding degrees in engineering.

      I'm guessing you don't work with many engineers.

    8. Re:This just in! by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not enough.

    9. Re:This just in! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most dysfunctional legislature... ever!

      I beg to differ. I live in California.

      Regardless of where you live, I believe that all politicians should serve two terms: one in office ... the other in prison.

      Note: Illinois already does this.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:This just in! by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rather than mod you down for what is likely an innocent mistake, I will just point to his bio on http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org, which doesn't mention nuclear engineering. I know he "trained for the position of engineering officer in submarine USS Seawolf, then under construction." and "Carter completed a non-credit introductory course in nuclear reactor power at Union College starting in March 1953" from reading his wikipedia page but that isn't the same thing.

      While he is familiar with some aspects of being a of nuclear engineer, he is far from actually being one. Thought you might want to know. And yes, while he is probably a nice guy, he was arguably the least effective president in the last 100 years, so he usually isn't a good example to hold up for any comparison.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  2. Go go Nanny State... by FroMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Go go Nanny State... by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the last time I checked, salt is a vital element to our survival (It regulates water content, not enough and we'd all die of dehydration regardless of how much water we drank). So by removing it from public sources, are they thereby impacting at least some people's ability to get salt (IE those that do not eat much at home) and hence endangering them? Sure, excessive salt can be dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as not enough... This sounds to me like a "That sounds bad, we should do something about it!" snap decision... Sigh...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    2. Re:Go go Nanny State... by cHiphead · · Score: 5, Funny

      BRAWNDO! Its what plants crave!

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Go go Nanny State... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government already tells me I cannot eat products made with cannabutter. I cannot eat psilocybin mushrooms. I cannot eat pieces of paper impregnated with LSD. The law in question here only affects restaurants that serve the public. Drug laws regulate my blood stream. There is no slippery slope here, we're already at the bottom.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Go go Nanny State... by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:Go go Nanny State... by BoberFett · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Go go Nanny State... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      McDonald's doesn't come to your house and take money out of your wallet. All the money that McDonald's makes is paid to them voluntarily by people who like it's food, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. Of course McDonald's doesn't and shouldn't care if you are obese, that's nobody's business but your own. Don't like greasy disgusting fast food? Easy solution: don't go to a fast food restaurant. Eat salad or something, it's really easy to find, it's right there in the produce section of your local supermarket. Is your opinion of people really so low that you think they can't grasp that simple concept and need a superior intellect such as yours to make decisions for them on what to eat? What an arrogant asshole.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    7. Re:Go go Nanny State... by ajlitt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Salt has electrolytes.

    8. Re:Go go Nanny State... by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can fully agree, and to an extend sympathize, with the point that we sometimes expect too much of our elected officials, in that we are dependent on them to craft bills ranging from water contamination to embezzlement to treaties and no one can be a master of all trades.

      But while I don't expect them to know everything about anything, I DO expect them to know how to FIND people that know everything about anything. Even the most elementary background work on a bill like this would have shown Rep Ortiz Duh-Brooklyn the massive quagmire he was about to open up. I wouldn't expect a master's thesis before crafting a bill, but what I would have done, in his case, is go to a favorite higher-end restaurant and make arrangements to speak with the chef for a while, to get a grasp of the subject.

      Otherwise we're just whizzing down tubes.

    9. Re:Go go Nanny State... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "A huge number of people are getting high blood pressure and strokes, and people on high-salt diets seem to get more strokes. I know people who got strokes. I'd rather be dead than have to live for the last 3 or 4 years of my life ranting at my caretakers without my cognitive facilities, or with the left half my body paralyzed.

      Unfortunately for the free-market personal choice crowd, you can't simply reduce salt in your diet by avoiding the salt shaker."

      From papers I've read in recent years, it seems to be the case that salt intake does not cause high blood pressure, etc. However, if you have dangerously high blood pressure, excess salt can exaccerbate the situation, and it should be avoided.

      In the second statement...I think you found your answer right where you were complaining. One should not be cosuming processed foods or eating in restaurants as their primary sources of food and nutrition!! Highly processed foods are the problem we didn't have 50 years ago...and it is a problem that can be avoided these days. People need to learn how to cook a home cooked meal again from scratch using more primary, raw ingredients. Potato chips should be a rare treat, not a weekly staple. And dining at a restaurant should be a treat from time to time, where you go to enjoy some more fattening and rich foods. Don't waste your dining dollars weekly on crap at the fast food places. Cook at home, have family time, eat healthier....and maybe once or twice a month with the money you've saved....go treat yourself out to a real restaurant (preferrably NOT a chain) get a little service, some good food...maybe a bottle of wine.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Go go Nanny State... by dballanc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

    11. Re:Go go Nanny State... by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is, do you know the term for those advisors you mention, experts (or at least supposed experts) who try to influence politicians to make what they view as the best decisions on fields that the politicians may not know much about?

      We call them "lobbyists".

      --
      Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
    12. Re:Go go Nanny State... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I don't think that's hypocritical at all. Democrats want big government. They want the federal government to intervene in all avenues of life, and to adhere to that position must accept the laws the fed makes whether good or bad overall. They also happen to want the federal government to make abortions specifically legal.

      That's stupid. You're taking taking a fundamental tenet of human rights - that an individual's rights in their natural state trump the government's power - and you're disposing of it to make it better fit your argument by pretending the individual's right to have an abortion comes about only because the government allows it. This is counter to the fundamental concept of Human Rights defined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They are based on the premise that human rights pre-exist in the absence of government - whether there is or isn't a government present (nor type of government) doesn't change these rights. When a government is formed, the formation involves defining which of those rights can be curtailed (e.g. the right to own and keep your own property is curtailed to allow the government to collect taxes).

      So the government does not make abortions legal - their default status is that of being legal. The debate is on whether government should be allowed to make abortions illegal. So a stance which opposes government curtailment of abortion is inconsistent with wanting government involved in every aspect of your life. (I also disagree with that defining how Democrats think, but more on that later.)

      Republicans on the other hand, want the government completely out of their lives, which is why it is hypocritical to then want the federal government to interfere with issues they believe are morally correct. You can't have it both ways, it's all or nothing.

      You're redefining the parties to fit the conclusion you want. Republicans don't want government completely out of their lives. Both parties want some government. Where they disagree on is what parts of their lives government should and shouldn't be involved in. Republicans place a higher priority on morality, Democrats place a higher priority on equality.

      Either can be excessive. This whole "one party is hypocritical" thing is just straw men set up by deliberately mis-stating the opposition's party's position to make it appear hypocritical. Republicans tend to be for banning abortions because they feel the fetus is equivalent to a human life, and so while they dislike excessive government, they feel protecting life is a legitimate moral responsibility of government. Democrats tend to be against banning abortions because they do not feel the fetus is equivalent to a human life, and so there is no moral justification for government to get involved, meaning the individual's right to choose to abort remains intact. Neither stance is hypocritical.

      As it happens, legislating equality turns out to be more invasive than legislating morality. In the presence of an energy source, thermodynamics and the universe tends to want to make things unequal. OTOH, society for the most part does agree on a common subset of moral principles. So consequently legislating things important to Democrats tends to make bigger government than legislating the things Republicans want. But it has nothing to do with one party wanting a bigger government, while the other party wants lesser government. It's a side effect, not the direct intention.

  3. eh? by the+biologist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:eh? by magarity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Limiting salt levels in foods, rather than an outright ban, might make sense
       
      Instead of having the info available to diners who are concerned about their salt intake and letting them make their own decisions? Yeah, better that the government employees tell us what to do. I know they know best; they've told me so!

  4. Black Market Salt Cartel by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am going to have fun setting up my black market salt dispenseries.

    YAY!!!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  5. but by lastgoodnickname · · Score: 5, Funny

    but if there's no salt for your hash, doesn't that make your clients and servers less secure?

  6. Fail by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Fail by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Which, if you actually read the bill is an outright lie by Ortiz:

      http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=+A10129%09%09&Summary=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

      3 S 399-BBB. PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR
      4 OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARA-
      5 TION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT,
      6 INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAU-
      7 RANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.

      Fail troll is fail.

  7. Nails are dangerous too... by fuo · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. ummmmm..... by qsliver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    “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.
    1. Re:ummmmm..... by Like2Byte · · Score: 4, Funny

      "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?

      Come November? Crow.

  9. Re:What's going on. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trans fats are an artificial substance that occur primarily due to anti-fat hysteria. In mindlessly fleeing from animal fats, we managed to create something 10 or 100 times worse.

    In this respect, it's a little less absurd to try to ban it.

    There should just be accurate labeling across the board.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  10. Re:Bad ideas last forever by pnuema · · Score: 4, Informative
    As an avowed foodie, there is absolutely no reason one needs to use trans fats. Ever. The only advantage they have over regular fats is shelf life, therefore cost. By banning them the playing field is leveled for everyone, and we can finally put that pox on humanity behind us forever.

    Trans fats have been removed from your favorite foods for a few years now. Can you honestly say you can tell?

  11. Re:Bad ideas last forever by Mordac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shortening != Trans Fat.

    You can go back and have cake, just don't put certain margarines and other artificial oils in it.

  12. Too much salt? by CranberryKing · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Too much salt? by mdarksbane · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really... so sodium chloride plus 2% random crap out of the ocean is inherently better for you than sodium chloride + 2% safe non-clumping agent and iodine? Because that's pretty much what you're comparing. They're 98% the exact same chemical.

      Don't take my word for it, ask the May clinic:
      http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sea-salt/AN01142

      But hell, enjoy your goiters.

  13. Re:This is just grandstanding. by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly. The obviously ridiculous bills (e.g. DMCA, PATRIOT Act, NY State Budget) never get passed.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  14. Re:Question by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Funny

    "My name is Felix Oritz. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  15. Re:Something has to be done... by ignavusinfo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, nothing needs to be done.

    The government has no business whatsoever dictating what restaurants can and cannot have (never mind must have) on their menus. If you can't eat something, don't eat it ... if that means not going out to eat, well that's your issue. Restaurant owners are not responsible for your health, you are.

    Christ, what the hell happened to personal responsibility?

  16. Salary by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who pays this idiot's salary? (And does he know where the word comes from?)

  17. Salt really isn't all that bad... by Fished · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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
  18. Finally by halfEvilTech · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  19. Re:Stupidity by imgumbydamnit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fuck you, you fuckin' fuck.

    --
    To err is human. To arr is pirate.
  20. They should involve the NRA by asupynuk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because - wait for it - the next thing you know, they are going to try and ban a salt weapon too.

  21. Less Govt. Intervention, not more. by realsilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  22. Inevitable. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. Thank god by RJBeery · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank god his father didn't pass away while having sex!

  24. An alternative: by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  25. What would Gandhi do? by RevWaldo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  26. Yes, Ban Dihydrogen monoxide... by deck · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  27. Re:Bad ideas last forever by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  28. Some people are idiots by SoopahMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is banning the solution to everything? I don't get it. People love to ban anything with legislation, it's completely illogical.

    1. Re:Some people are idiots by Viewsonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it looks like they're doing something. There has to be a name for what this is called, but it seems most people who are put in a position like this tend to make laws for the sake of doing something. If the world was 100% full of peace and happiness, you can bet those in charge would not sit there and keep it that way. They would feel useless, and thus, start making laws that, if anything, makes them look like they're being busy. It happens everywhere.

    2. Re:Some people are idiots by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's because they know how you should lead your life. They know. And you're doing it wrong. Therefore, you need their help making choices. They're banning things to help you.

      You should thank them. They are heroically protecting you by banning you from making incorrect choices. Why aren't you thanking them?

    3. Re:Some people are idiots by mikechant · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to humor yourself, the next time you go to a restaurant, ask for the nutritional menu. The recommended level of salt intake is 1000 to 1500mg (1g to 1.5g), though the USDA recommended amount is around 2400 or so.

      I think you're confusing salt levels and sodium levels here (i.e. quoting sodium levels but labelling the figures as salt levels). This is a pretty important disctinction. To quote from this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Recommended_intake

      "In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration itself does not make a recommendation,[64] but refers readers to Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. These suggest that US citizens should consume less than 2,300 mg of sodium (= 2.3 g sodium = 5.8 g salt) per day.[65]"

      (emphasis added)