csrule Food Journal

Season to taste

02/17/09 @ 11:01:00 am, by Cheryl Sternman Rule • Categories: Food Politics, csrule

Salt

Last July, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a measure requiring restaurants to cook without the use of trans fats. The law goes into effect in 2010.

Several cities, including New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Boston also banned trans fats, and now more cities, and states, are taking up the issue.

When I wrote about this last summer, a hot debate ensued as to whether the government was overstepping its bounds. On the pro side, several people -- myself included -- argued that overwhelming evidence pointed to trans fats as clearly dangerous not only to individual health, but to public health when you consider increased public health care costs. On the con side, several people countered that government has no place determining what one can or can not eat, and that if people want to consume 500 trans fat-laden donuts a day that's their prerogative, government be damned.

Well, the issue has been raised again, this time with salt.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has recently begun a campaign to encourage processed food companies to reduce the amount of sodium in their goods by more than 40 percent over the next decade. According to a Feb. 6 New York Times op-ed by Michael Alderman, the department is motivated by a desire to reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes in the general population. But he asserts that though several studies have looked at the sodium-health connection, more research and scientific evidence are needed.

Many prominent medical professionals agree that Americans consume far too much salt, to the detriment of their health. But is reducing sodium in processed foods the answer? In a letter to the editor, someone posited that reducing sodium in processed foods might deplete their flavor and encourage food companies to up their use of enhancers like MSG instead. Others countered that while not everyone would benefit from reducing their sodium intake, enough people would to justify the public policy move.

I use the salt shaker fairly liberally at home, but have no problem at all if the makers of processed foods -- which I avoid because their health profile is so poor -- are pressed into cutting back. The question is: is strong-arming them to do so right, or not?

Permalink • 14 comments • Trackback (0)

Trackback address for this post:

http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/htsrv/trackback.php?tb_id=3050

Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Xero [Visitor]

· http://www.xerarchs.com

I would like to see them use lower sodium salts. My blood pressure is severely high and I get cotton mouth after eating something high in sodium, even if it didnt seem salty. I have a nice selection of flavored sea salts at home. I dont use table salt at all.

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 12:24

Comment from: rmiller0 [Member]

I think it would be lovely if the companies decreased the sodium content; however, I do not believe the government should tell them to. After all, doesn't the government have more important food issues (i.e. peanut butter) to tend to, rather than telling someone how much salt they can have? Perhaps their efforts should be more concentrated.

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 13:27

Comment from: indosungod [Visitor]

· http://indosungod.blogspot.com

As consumers we have not been proactive in demanding better products from food manufactures be it restricting trans fat, sodium or overly processed food so I think it is fair that the government steps in (the govt of the people, by the people for the people).

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 13:47

Comment from: Mithrandir [Visitor]

· http://www.soundandfury.info/

I wouldn't want to see salt content regulated. But you said "encourage". I'm fine with that, so long as it's done intelligently. Of course, the odds of a government intelligently solving a complex problem seem low...

I think we'd all be better off if we (as a culture) ate less packaged food. I have no idea how one might go about encouraging that without making the lives of single mothers (and the like) more difficult. Inexpensive privately run public cafeterias, perhaps?

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 14:07

Comment from: Roving Lemon [Visitor]

· http://therovinglemon.blogspot.com/

I think sodium is an easy target, especially considering that the current research isn't very definitive. If the government wants to undertake thoughtful, effective regulation, I think they should be looking at *why* there is so much sodium in processed food. Why? To make the food taste better. And why does the food need to taste better? Because it's made from poor-quality ingredients, bumped up with fillers and starches, produced using heavily industrialized methods. So maybe that's what the government should be focusing on. But I bet then they'd get a lot of pushback from the food industry. I don't know how much of a salt lobby there is, but obviously not enough of one to have blocked this initiative from being introduced. And I agree with whoever said that they'll just use something like MSG instead.

I don't think it's government's job to police what individuals eat. But I do think it's government's job to insure that the food industry is producing food--whether raw ingredients or processed packages--that is safe and meets minimum standards of quality and nutrition. Good food doesn't need a lot of salt. If food needs a lot of salt, there's probably a good reason.

Getting off soapbox now....

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 15:06

Comment from: Moe Rubenzahl [Visitor]

· http://feedme.typepad.com

Hard one but not new: Freedom vs. public good. I don't think the public benefit here is sufficient to tell people what they can buy and sell. But that said, I would enjoy seeing lower salt use because people are so used to overly salty foods that they can't taste it. Reducing all the salt use would make foods taste better for all.

As it is, most reduced sodium products (e.g. chicken broth) are saltier than I like.

But that's just me and while I would like to see it happen, legislating it seems wrong to me.

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 15:16

Comment from: Dana McCauley [Visitor]

· http://danamccauley.wordpress.com

Hmm... as a chef and the wife of a restaurateur, I know it isn't uncommon for people who have issues with salt to ask for their food prepared without added sodium. I would hate to receive a bland plate of food just because some people don't like or can't have something that I enjoy and that, at this point in my life, doesn't seem to have any ill affects on my health. I guess the issue is different when you consider non-chef prepared food like the boil in the bag schlock sold at many chains and the very heavily salted food sold at many fast food outlets.

I hope they can compromise so that a la minute restaurants can continue to serve food seasoned by experts unless otherwise asked to refrain.

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 15:21

Comment from: angela Reed [Visitor]

· http://www.parisiennefarmgirl.blogspot.com

Ok, are they going to tell us how many portions we can have next? Or how many times a week we can eat out?
I don't eat packaged food but this sounds like the "nanny state" to me and I am not interested. I agree with the MSG comment, there are a lot worse things than salt our there being dumped into food.

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 18:22

Comment from: teresa [Visitor]

· http://www.nutrimirror.com

i've been tracking my sodium and fat using an online food journal since the beginning of the year (resolution). anyway, i thought i'd tell you about it because it is easy to use and it is free. it lets me log my foods and exercise and lets me set goals and stay within reason of my sodium-i love salt.

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 19:36

Comment from: Charmian Christie [Visitor]

· http://christie-corner.blogspot.com/

I stopped buying most tinned goods because I simply don't like a lot of salt. If I'm forced to use a tinned item, I don't add any salt to the rest of the recipe. I often find restaurant food too salty and would rather add my own at the table. I'm a minority. I took control of my salt intake years ago without government assistance.

I don't think micromanaging content is the way to increase health. Removing salt from foods isn't a replacement for a diet high in fruits, vegetables and fiber. And as far as I know, they have yet to tin exercise.

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 20:48

Comment from: Maura [Visitor]

· http://maurarose.livejournal.com/

Government has no place telling food manufacturers how much of anything they can put in their food (provided, of course, it's not something like rat poison). Manufacturers already provide the ingredients and amounts on packaging labels. If the government wants to encourage a reduction in salt, transfats or anything else that's deemed bad for us, and educate the public about eating well, I'm fine with that. No one but my mother is allowed to tell me I can't eat something.

Permalink 02/17/09 @ 22:32

Comment from: Reuben Morningchilde [Visitor]

· http://nom-nomnom.blogspot.com

Generally I think a forced regulation is always the wrong move. Comsumers will feel patronizend and the industry will come up with workarounds worse than what we had before.

Educating, motivating and empowering the comsumers to choose healthy options in my eyes is a much better way. If the public starts voting with their purse(s), the industry will follow head over heels.

Permalink 02/18/09 @ 00:46

Comment from: Davekatz [Member] · http://www.food-fire.com/

I think that the government needs to keep our food safe, but avoid making "lifesyle" regulations.

That said, I'd rank trans fats and HFCS right up there with other dangers like rat poison, salmonella and the food dyes and preservatives that just happen to be carcinogenic. They have no place in our food.

Salt, fat and sugar? Meh. Sure, I'd like to see less of them in processed foods, but what I'd really like to see a whole lot less processed foods.

Permalink 02/18/09 @ 07:14

Comment from: SunshineGrrrl [Visitor]

So, I get that some people have problems with excessive salt content, a certain amount of people who have heart health issues. I, however, have a taste for it and do not have heart issues and I rather they not tell me what I can and can't eat. I'm not a fan of the trans-fat ban either, though I'm a huge fan of the nutrition information on the menus. Even then, there are low sodium alternatives. I don't think there is even enough definitive studies on this to make a really educated decision even so that it seems, mostly, reactionary and that it looks good to a certain segment of the american people. Let's allow people to make their own decisions on this.

That said, I often feel I have to salt most food at restaurants in seattle coming from the south where you are raised on bacon.

Permalink 02/18/09 @ 23:18

This post has 159 feedbacks awaiting moderation...