|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 21, 2010 13:12:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I hear you jgalt, and if the FDA wants to advise consumers about the potential dangers of excess sodium consumption (and, as I mentioned before, ensure that food contents are fully disclosed on all packaging), I have no problem with that. But this step is going way too far, IMO. Just curious. How do you feel about seat belt laws? Seat belt laws are exactly what I thought of after reading CAHoya's post. Everyone should wear a seatbelt. People who don't wear seatbelts put their family's well-being at risk, in addition to their own lives. So, yes, individual citizens are "helped" by seat belt laws. However, insurance companies are helped to a greater degree, and seat belt laws also give government agents another reason to detain citizens. What's wrong with a public information campaign (WRT either seatbelts or salt) vs. legislation? If all states got rid of seatbelt laws (arguably the ultimate public information campaign) tomorrow, would seatbelt use dramatically decline across the nation? People need to know what they're eating. We eat a lot of bad food in America, and most Americans don't think twice about guzzling fast food or potato chips. This law allows us to continue our bad habits of ignoring food quality, while making processed foods slightly better. Even if we reduce sodium content, processed foods will still encourage obesity and will still be bad for you in general. Better to ask Americans to read their food labels than for the government to say "it's safe now! We reduced the sodium! Fill your gut with Frito-Lay products, America!"
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 21, 2010 13:35:25 GMT -5
Wearing a seat belt, at least in MD, is only a secondary offense and you can not be pulled over for it.
Also if you can find healthy options in a Grocery store then you are a moron because there is this huge section full of fresh fruits and vegetables that are all perfect for your health.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Apr 21, 2010 13:42:31 GMT -5
Wearing a seat belt, at least in MD, is only a secondary offense and you can not be pulled over for it. Also if you can find healthy options in a Grocery store then you are a moron because there is this huge section full of fresh fruits and vegetables that are all perfect for your health. Well, of course, but most of us eat more than just fruits and vegetables. As for seatbelt laws as well as cell phone laws while driving, I am for them, especially on cell phones because that is something that can cause harm other than yourself. However, I think there are right ways and wrong ways to implement them.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 21, 2010 13:59:21 GMT -5
I think there is a huge difference between seat belt laws and cell phone laws for drivers.
I don't see the risk to public safety (other than your own) in not wearing a seat belt. Is there any research that shows people who don't wear seat belts drive any worse than those who do, or are more likely to cause an accident? I haven't seen anything like that.
Contrarily, there is a great deal of evidence that people who talk or text on cell phones are more hazardous on the roads than drunk drivers. They are a clear public safety risk and, as such, I am OK with laws governing such behavior.
And as far as grocery stores go, there is an abundance of low-sodium options in packaged foods at even the most basic of American grocery stores (maybe not at convenience stores, no, but your more traditional grocery stores, yes).
And they are available for all types of foods, from snack foods to canned goods and much more.
If that's still not low-sodium enough for you, there is nothing to prevent you from buying some fresh chicken, fresh veggies and other ingredients and firing up a nice hearty stew for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Apr 21, 2010 14:02:04 GMT -5
Wearing a seat belt, at least in MD, is only a secondary offense and you can not be pulled over for it. Also if you can find healthy options in a Grocery store then you are a moron because there is this huge section full of fresh fruits and vegetables that are all perfect for your health. yeah well not every neighborhood has a real grocery store. Often they have bodegas or 7-11s.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Apr 21, 2010 14:05:51 GMT -5
I agree in the difference with seatbelt and cell phone laws. With cell phones you are endangering others, but if you don't wear a seatbelt, you are basically only endangering yourself.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 21, 2010 14:22:54 GMT -5
Wearing a seat belt, at least in MD, is only a secondary offense and you can not be pulled over for it. Also if you can find healthy options in a Grocery store then you are a moron because there is this huge section full of fresh fruits and vegetables that are all perfect for your health. This is true in some other states as well, but in most states it is grounds for detention (and optional arrest).
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Apr 21, 2010 15:28:53 GMT -5
I think the thing with seatbelt laws is that if you didn't have them maybe parents wouldn't encourage their children to wear them which would then be endangering more than just your life.
It's sad that we have to have things like helmet laws. That we have to protect brains functioning so poorly they don't even think to protect themselves.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 21, 2010 16:04:20 GMT -5
In all things connected with safety the federal government knows best.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 21, 2010 16:23:28 GMT -5
Studies conducted on the economic burden of noncompliance with seat belt use indicate that non seat belt wearers consumed more hospital resources, missed more time from work due to the greater severity of their injuries, cost insurance companies more money(though interestingly, were more likely to be uninsured or underinsured, leading to lower collection rates by hospitals) and died at twice the rate of seat belt wearers, thus removing more (theoretically) economically productive members from society.
Is the greater economic benefit to society of seat belt laws or the health benefits of "salt laws" worth the intrusion of government into our lives? For me, an interesting but difficult question to answer. Despite the stance I took in the Goldman thread regarding the need for government intervention re: derivative markets, in general, I prefer that the market make such determinations, not the government. While I agree with the economic argument on the seat belt issue, I admit to conflict concerning salt. Where does one draw the line? As Boz said, I surely don't want anyone telling me how much beer I can drink. But beer is not an ingredient in food. I can choose to not consume beer. Excess salt, on the other hand, appears in far too many foods, making it quite difficult for some members of society to avoid over consumption. Excess salt consumption contributes mightily to hypertension, a scourge of low to moderate income black Americans. Will this policy lead to a reduction in hypertension in blacks? If so, great. Yet, I admit I shudder at the thought of the gov't mandating salt content. As I stated earlier, a difficult yet quite interesting question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2010 16:35:14 GMT -5
And as far as grocery stores go, there is an abundance of low-sodium options in packaged foods at even the most basic of American grocery stores (maybe not at convenience stores, no, but your more traditional grocery stores, yes). And they are available for all types of foods, from snack foods to canned goods and much more. If that's still not low-sodium enough for you, there is nothing to prevent you from buying some fresh chicken, fresh veggies and other ingredients and firing up a nice hearty stew for yourself. All that sounds easy enough. I've got Safeways, Harris Teeters, Whole Foodseses, Giants and everything else within a couple miles of me (not to mention farmers markets, etc.) As of last summer, there wasn't a single traditional grocery store within the city limits of Detroit (Population: Approx 1 million). You can educate all you want about the benefits of healthy eating and the dangers of sodium in processed food, but people eat what they have access to (and can afford).
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2010 17:02:02 GMT -5
So you are OK with Cell phone while driving laws because they have an impact on the safety of others, but not smoking in restaurants and offices even though they have an impact on the health of others? Salt is one of those items that has an ever increasing effect. That is, the more you eat, the more you want. Mandating lower sodium content in foods seems like a good idea for a healthy country. Maybe people will eat less. There's all kinds of news stories about obesity in this country and how something needs to be done, but when the govt. tries to do something as unobtrusive as reducing sodium content in foods we still hear outrage? What, you don't have a salt shaker? I mean, they aren't saying henceforth you will never hear "salt? or no salt?" when you order your next Margarita
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 21, 2010 17:29:56 GMT -5
So you are OK with Cell phone while driving laws because they have an impact on the safety of others, but not smoking in restaurants and offices even though they have an impact on the health of others? I think the distinction is that you choose which bar/restaurant you go into, hence choosing smoking or non smoking, but you can not choose who you drive next to or around All that sounds easy enough. I've got Safeways, Harris Teeters, Whole Foodseses, Giants and everything else within a couple miles of me (not to mention farmers markets, etc.) As of last summer, there wasn't a single traditional grocery store within the city limits of Detroit (Population: Approx 1 million). You can educate all you want about the benefits of healthy eating and the dangers of sodium in processed food, but people eat what they have access to (and can afford). Well then obviously the Government should start its own chain of grocery stores, or better yet just ration all the food anyone eats, that way everyone will have fruits and veggies forced upon them by the all knowing all loving all benevolent leader. And if the Democrats get their 70% income tax passed we'll all finally live in a perfect paradise it will be just like Leningrad! Oh glory day! The point is, and what was the spirit of Boz's original post, is that maybe its great to say yeah people shouldnt eat so much salt so well just not make food with so much salt. But that is very very very slippery slope. There will always be something more that can be legislated away or regulated out of existence until the only thing left is our freedom. Think im crazy? just look at what happened in Germany in the 1930s or Russia in the 1920s or China in the 1940s- all apparently rational people, thinking they are acting in the best interest of "the people", freely voting away all their Freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 21, 2010 17:55:58 GMT -5
As of last summer, there wasn't a single traditional grocery store within the city limits of Detroit (Population: Approx 1 million). You can educate all you want about the benefits of healthy eating and the dangers of sodium in processed food, but people eat what they have access to (and can afford). Oh no! I must travel to an adjacent suburb to purchase fresh meat and vegetables! Looks like it's Ramen and King Cobra from the 7-11 for dinner again.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 21, 2010 18:01:45 GMT -5
And as far as grocery stores go, there is an abundance of low-sodium options in packaged foods at even the most basic of American grocery stores (maybe not at convenience stores, no, but your more traditional grocery stores, yes). And they are available for all types of foods, from snack foods to canned goods and much more. If that's still not low-sodium enough for you, there is nothing to prevent you from buying some fresh chicken, fresh veggies and other ingredients and firing up a nice hearty stew for yourself. All that sounds easy enough. I've got Safeways, Harris Teeters, Whole Foodseses, Giants and everything else within a couple miles of me (not to mention farmers markets, etc.) As of last summer, there wasn't a single traditional grocery store within the city limits of Detroit (Population: Approx 1 million). You can educate all you want about the benefits of healthy eating and the dangers of sodium in processed food, but people eat what they have access to (and can afford). Yes, lets use Detroit as a typical example of an American city. meh.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Apr 21, 2010 18:15:22 GMT -5
most inner city areas do not have proper grocery stores. And often parents working late don't have time to drive out to the suburbs to get healthier options, or they don't have time to cook. It's a lot faster and easier to get cheap crap from the store on the corner. I'm sure you'd fine the same situation in anacostia or other such areas as you do in detroit.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 21, 2010 19:13:14 GMT -5
Even if you look at DC, there's basically nothing for you within a metro ride or even two stops at some points in the city. The Giant that opened up on 8th Street will alleviate some of the stresses for folks around Metro Center, but others probably have to rely on more local grocers who are less likely to sell fresh grub.
That said, this is probably a case of imperfections in the market. Supply/demand and overhead rightly takes some of the larger shops out to the suburbs, but there is very little anymore between the small grocer and the large Wegmans kinds of places that could turn a profit downtown. This leaves some folks in a tough spot, particularly if they don't have a vehicle and can't afford the Dean and Deluca or Mom/Pop kind of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Apr 21, 2010 19:15:21 GMT -5
Not wearing a seatbelt also costs society when society has to pay for the emergency medical services to come to the scene and pick up your dead body.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 21, 2010 19:23:33 GMT -5
Not wearing a seatbelt also costs society when society has to pay for the emergency medical services to come to the scene and pick up your dead body. Yes because when you wear your seatbelt and are in an accident, you usually just drive yourself to the ER or the morgue.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Apr 21, 2010 19:41:28 GMT -5
Not wearing a seatbelt also costs society when society has to pay for the emergency medical services to come to the scene and pick up your dead body. Yes because when you wear your seatbelt and are in an accident, you usually just drive yourself to the ER or the morgue. haha, well for SOME reason I think the seatbelt makes the morgue less likely. People for years didn't want to wear a seatbelt and the federal government had to step in. First they tried the automatic seatbelts, which were an epic failure b/c people were afraid of getting stuck in them if there was an accident. Then they thought of removable auto seatbelts, but people just removed them. And then airbags....ahhh-doesn't rely on stupid people to use, and cuts down the mortality rate.
|
|