Nope. It's been touted in the news since it was first discussed. NY and California are our two leading nanny state experiments.
Our View: New York anti-salt laws go too far
Publication: San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
Date: Friday, January 22 2010
IN yet another example of how California is falling behind, New York City is leading the pack by asking restaurants and food manufacturers to cut the salt content in their food by 25 percent. The initiative is voluntary, but like the voluntary trans-fat ban that became law when few eateries signed on, expect this one to become a law, too.
The average American consumes the equivalent of a teaspoon of salt a day, or about twice as much as the federal government recommends. Conventional wisdom says that high salt intake contributes to high blood pressure, which can trigger heart disease, which raises the cost of health care for everyone.
But there has never been a large-scale clinical trial to fully support the salt-intake theory, according to The New York Times. Doctors routinely tell their patients to reduce salt intake, but some medical researchers suggest that reducing salt intake may have unintended consequences. Workers who toil in the sun know that losing too much salt during excessive perspiration can cause problems. However, consuming too much salt can result in fluid retention, which triggers high blood pressure.
But there's a bigger issue here. And that's how far we're willing to have government "suggest" or "require" us to live healthy lives. Americans are getting fatter - does the government then ban sweets or fast-food restaurants? Don't laugh, it's been suggested by the Los Angeles City Council for South Los Angeles.
As far as we know, no one has ever put a gun to a gourmand's head and forced him to eat a sodium-heavy smoked turkey sandwich. Or threatened a consumer with broken kneecaps over a plate of french fries cooked in trans fatty oil.
Salt, which is used to enhance flavor and prevent spoilage, at one time was a precious commodity. But then so was personal freedom. Do we really need government to regulate every aspect of our lives? Why couldn't a food manufacturer tout its low-fat, low-sodium fare, and let consumers decide for themselves whether to buy it?
Because if past reduced-salt fare is an indicator, few consumers are interested. Low-salt cereal bombed because consumers figured the cereals wouldn't taste as good. Instead, food manufacturers are reducing salt voluntarily - by as much as 25 percent for a popular popcorn brand - by figuring out ways to preserve the taste - and not letting consumers in on their healthy little secret.
Fast food might be way too salty, but it's far better for food manufacturers and restaurants to reduce salt and unhealthy cooking fat on their own, without government holding a meat cleaver over them.
And it's up to consumers - following experts' guidelines, of course - to decide how much salt in their diet is too little, too much or nobody's business.
Since manufacturers have signed on to the less-salt-is-better movement anyway, this is one time we hope California's nanny nags don't catch up with New York's.
© Copyright 2010 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.
© Copyright 2010 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved
http://www.allbusiness.com/food-beverag ... 329-1.html
You mean people actually