Post #322,686
3/11/10 11:52:20 AM
|

Slip sliding away...
http://www.myfoxny.c...surd-20100310-akd
"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.
The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.
Well gee, it worked for trans fats...right? There's plenty of evidence that milk is bad for you too...shall we keep going? Eggs, processed meats/cheeses...
Yes waiter, I'd like my organic tofu with a side of organic tofu.
They'll tell you - don't do that
They'll try and tell you - it's for your own good
Big Mother is watching you
Mother's protecting you
Mommy knows what's right for you...
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
The Bill of Rights just disappeared
There it is - whoops it's gone!
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
All your rights just disappeared
Everybody stay calm.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,688
3/11/10 12:07:45 PM
|

Doesn't say that customers can't use salt.
It just says that restaurants can't add salt to food. I don't see any thing that says they can't have salt shakers on the tables or salt packets in the bags.
http://assembly.stat...&Summary=Y&Text=Y
But, hey, it gets him in the news and burns up Fox News so it's done its job... :-/
It looks like it's been referred to committee, so it'll probably die there.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #322,690
3/11/10 12:20:06 PM
|

why should it matter?
why should we limit the chef's ability to create his product in any way he/she sees fit?
It sounds to me like you are somewhat in favor of this?
Color me unsurprised.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,691
3/11/10 12:26:01 PM
|

People have no idea what's in their food.
Encouraging people to taste their food, and encouraging cooks to think about their ingredients rather than doing things rote because "we've always made it this way", before adding salt is a good idea. American food has too much salt in it, and people who eat out have little choice about it.
No, I don't think a law about it is a good idea (at least not at this time). Having Fox spend as much time telling people about how much added salt is in their food would probably be more productive than them getting all riled up about this.
But that's too much work...
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #322,695
3/11/10 12:43:57 PM
|

me I like fries that are cooked in beef tallow nlots of salt
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #322,694
3/11/10 12:35:17 PM
|

It's called "judgement"
This grandstanding assemblyman -- and I'm pretty sure he's just trying to get his name in the news -- wants to pass a law based on the idea that someone thinks something is bad, so no one should be allowed to use it.
You seem to be arguing that some people disagree with some legislation so no one should be allowed to pass any laws.
Are both of you right, or are both of you wrong?
--
Drew
|
Post #322,692
3/11/10 12:29:18 PM
|

So many problems
First, the AHA is full of shit. They're the ones who advocated margarine for years as the "solution" to heart disease. They're the reason we now have the trans fat problem. They have as little scientific evidence supporting their position on salt as they did for their position on saturated fats.
Second, if you eliminate trans fats there are multiple alternatives that are better tasting and better for you -- butter, lard, olive oil -- but potentially more expensive. Banning trans fats is like banning melamine in dog food: It's poison, stop using it.
Third, there is no alternative to "salt in any form". Salt doesn't just provide "salty" flavor. It is instrumental in multiple chemical reactions for both baking and cooking that change both the texture and flavor in ways that can't be achieved by sprinkling salt on after it's cooked.
As for your slippery slope argument, that's also bullshit. The trans fat ban is a good law. This one isn't. One should be supported, the other should be opposed. The "slippery slope" argument leads to the conclusion that that no legislature should ever be allowed to pass any law, because if they do then someday they may pass a bad one.
Do you support "zero tolerance" policies at schools? If you let a 5-year-old point his finger at a classmate and say "bang" and don't arrest him, than obviously he's on his way to shooting up his school, right? Slippery slope, right?
--
Drew
|
Post #322,702
3/11/10 1:30:48 PM
|

No.
It's Nanny state crap. I need to government to come in and ban things because they are bad for me and I can't control myself. (not)
Not only do I see a problem with that (your spurious argument about passing no laws at all aside)..the fact that some idiot even PROPOSED it is offensive to me...unless you believe that the cook is PURPOSEFULLY TRYING TO KILL ME. Otherwise...its a choice. He chooses to add salt. I choose to eat it.
No I don't support 0 tolerance...nor do I see the slippery slope argument applying to your example there. 0 tolerance doesn't allow for someone to make the judgement (exercise choice) to determine if that 5 year old was playing cowboys and indians or actually making a threat....and arresting any 5 year old for any school behavior (like cutting your apple with a knife brought from home)is probably a little too over the top...but that's another topic.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,709
3/11/10 2:57:01 PM
|

Boggle
0 tolerance doesn't allow for someone to make the judgement (exercise choice) to determine if that 5 year old was playing cowboys and indians or actually making a threat.
That's exactly my point. Zero tolerance policies exist because of the slippery slope argument. School administrators believe -- often incorrectly -- that they are not allowed to exercise any judgment, so they immediately elevate to the most excessive option available.
And if you read a little more closely you'd see that I also oppose the salt ban. Your "Slip sliding away" subject line clearly suggested this was the next step on a slippery slope that started with the trans fat ban. Or did you mean something else by it?
You call it "nanny state". I say it's failure to use judgment. Which is exactly what's behind zero tolerance.
--
Drew
|
Post #322,712
3/11/10 4:20:14 PM
|

Re: Boggle
Zero tolerance is set by people like this guy in NY and school administrators, in many cases, are NOT ALLOWED to exercise judgement. I've seen it in action. Principle MUST enforce or face discipline his/herself. Personal experience with my kids. Principle literally faced the decision of her ass against my son. Son lost and was suspended for a day because he got hit. No retaliation. But he was "involved in a fight". Automatic. Had she been allowed judgement, my son would have gone to school the next day. (but this is fl...where zero tolerance has surpassed its own wildest dreams)
I don't see it justified as a slippery slope position. I see it justified as a position that eliminates favoritism (read limits accusation of racism/nepotism, etc). Johnny pointed and went bang...he got scolded..Tyrone pointed and went bang...he got suspended....why? (introduce lawyers, etc).
I know you oppose the ban...you cook...BUT its justification is EXACTLY THE SAME as was used for trans fat. It is one more step down the slope that started when they said you can't use this ingredient when cooking. Salt is just one more.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,721
3/11/10 7:40:51 PM
|

Both arguments being made re: ZT policies
When justifying themselves to parents, the argument given is usually that it's about safety. And we "just can't afford to take any chances." Defense against accusations of favoritism is also a huge factor, though it's not the one administrators generally blame.
There's a mailing list I'm on where ZT incidents are a common topic, and the explanation given by administrators is almost always that it's a safety issue. I can't recall the last time one of them said anything about preventing favoritism.
Back to the food issue, you're admitting that you're making a slippery slope argument. And I'm saying that argument is always bullshit. Thinking adults have to use their judgment. If they do, they'll see that some things are good, some are bad, and some are in-between. "Slippery slope" says you have to resist everything that is one inch away from your personal idea of truth or it leads to ultimate ruin. One problem is that everyone has their own idea of where "truth" lies, and will resist anything that doesn't line up perfectly.
It used to be called the domino theory. How'd Vietnam work for us?
--
Drew
|
Post #322,738
3/12/10 12:25:36 AM
|

I think there is some confusion
over the place of ZT in Drew's argument.
If I understand it correctly, he sees the Fox position as zero tolerance for any kind of regulation of ingredients.
But it makes more sense to him, and to me, to use judgment.
|
Post #322,762
3/12/10 9:39:46 AM
|

Ding ding ding ... we have a winner
--
Drew
|
Post #322,763
3/12/10 9:47:27 AM
|

Interestingly enough
thats my position as well...but it seems we have a group of regulators that have been emboldened by the first step (even if it was a good step) that are happy to continue down the slope.
So while the first step may have been a good one...you are now placing alot of faith in government to not make the second step a very bad one.
We have alot of very bad laws on the books all started with the best of intentions.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,767
3/12/10 9:53:44 AM
|

Where do you see faith?
The first regulation was good. I support it. This proposed regulation is bad. I oppose it.
Where do you see me saying that just because they made one good decision that I blindly trust them to make nothing else but good decisions?
That kind of thinking depends on a belief that the world is divided into "good people" and "bad people". Anyone who thinks that way would disagree with anything a "bad person" says, just because the "bad person" is saying it.
Oh, wait ...
--
Drew
|
Post #322,769
3/12/10 10:32:19 AM
|

Your ease..
in accepting the initial piece of legislation.
Your faith that your opposition will be mirrored by those in power that can pass the bill whether you like it or not.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,771
3/12/10 10:50:57 AM
|

Hard not to think you oppose *any* legislation
I didn't "accept" the first legislation, I supported it. I agreed with it. I thought it was the right thing to do.
The only reason for me not to have accepted it would be fear of what the next legislation would be, and that my support of this law that I supported would automatically morph into support of whatever comes next.
And I still don't see where I've shown any faith that my opposition is mirrored by those in power. In fact, I'm worried that it may pass. I'm hoping that enough people will see this for political grandstanding and it won't go anywhere. I'm hoping that enough people who matter will recognize the difference between good ideas and bad ideas.
It looks like your position is, "Don't let people in power do anything, even if it's the right thing, because that will make it easier for them to do something else, which might not be good." Is that not what you're saying?
--
Drew
|
Post #322,790
3/12/10 2:29:08 PM
|

Give that a "sort of"
There are areas being legislated that should not be. In those areas, yes I am saying better to not act via legislation to accomplish that positive goal..because you embolden those in power to continue down the slope.
You >hope< this guy is grandstanding. Indeed I also >hope< this guy is grandstanding...but if you read the comments...there are people praising this move. I would rather not be in the position to "hope" a politician is just doing something to get his name in the paper.
This, for me, is one of those areas that we should avoid legislating if at all possible. First was TF...which was a good thing. Salt, fat content, sugar content, oil types...all are now fair game (wisely or not) because its now "obvious" that people can't make their own decision on what they eat. Sooner or later they will hit one that you don't like..and it all started with that one "good" one.
This does not apply to all laws. There is an element here of informed consent. I know that tf, in quantity, is bad for me. But it tastes good. So let me decide. I know I like salt...and that in quantity its bad for me....let me decide. Labeling, enforced disclosure, etc...sure. Ban...thats where I take issue.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,794
3/12/10 3:28:32 PM
|

Horse's mouth.
http://assembly.stat...y=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To prohibit restaurants from using
salt when preparing customers' meals. Customers will have the discretion
to add salt to their own meal after it has been prepared.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: The general business law is amended by
adding a new section 399-bbb, which would prohibit the use of salt by
owner or operators of a restaurant when preparing food for consumption
by customers.
JUSTIFICATION: This legislation will give customers the option to add
salt after the meal has been prepared for them. In this way, consumers
have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given
the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles.
A report issued by the World Health Organization indicated that three
quarters or more of the sodium intake in the United States comes from
processed or restaurant foods, Studies have also proven that lowering
the amount of salt people eat, even by small amounts, could reduce cases
of heart disease, stroke, and heart attacks as much as reductions in
smoking, obesity, and cholesterol levels. The study also stated that if
everyone consumed half a teaspoon less per day, there would be between
54,000 and 99,000 fewer heart attacks each year and between 44,000 and
92,000 fewer deaths.
I don't read that as saying that salt cannot be used as an ingredient. Rather, it wouldn't be used to season "prepared customers' meals". (Presumably, if it were to become standard practice, then salt in cooking would be reduced as well.) IOW, salt in bread, baked goods, recipes, etc., would seemingly be fine. But salt on french fries would be applied by the customer.
It seems a reasonable recommendation to me. But, again, no I don't think it should be a law with fines attached (at this point).
YMMV.
A friend's kid has a kidney condition with a treatment that includes having a very low sodium diet. It's almost impossible for him to stick to it because there's so much salt in American food. Even a slice of Wonder bread (159 mg) has over 50% more sodium than he's supposed to eat during the day. He's an extreme case, but saying "it's a customer's choice" isn't really an option for an awful lot of people.
This seems to be the WHO report in question - http://www.who.int/d...alt/en/index.html (I haven't read it yet).
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #322,797
3/12/10 4:43:10 PM
|

What?
"I don't read that as saying that salt cannot be used as an ingredient. "
how about
"prohibit the use of salt by owner or operators of a restaurant when preparing food for consumption by customers."
No, it doesn't say customers can't add their own, it says it can't be used as an ingredient in prepping food.
Let's see...
Pancakes...whole wheat w/ apple
2 cups whole wheat flour
1/4 cup baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
2 eggs
2 cups milk
1/4 cup vegetable oil
2 large apple - peeled, cored and diced
how about bread...whole wheat oat...
2 cups 2% reduced fat milk
1 (.25 ounce) package active dry yeast
1 1/2 tablespoons white sugar
2 1/2 cups whole wheat flour
2 cups all-purpose flour, or as needed
1/2 cup oatmeal
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
How about base chicken stock
1 pound chicken parts
1 large onion
3 stalks celery, including some leaves
1 large carrot
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
3 whole cloves
6 cups water
Hrm...we get a WHO report that says "its bad" and hundreds of years of food prep has to be reworked because we are too stupid to manage it ourselves?
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,799
3/12/10 5:39:49 PM
|

Don't know where you got the recipe for the stock
Traditionally, stocks are made with herbs and spices. NO SALT. You usually reduce or dilute your stock to your purpose; you don't include salt which gets overpowering if you are reducing a stock for a sauce.
This does not take anything away from your original point (if I understood it); salt is in all standard cook books and it isn't going away. Cooks can play with recipes, especially if cooking for people with ailments. I got used to cooking without salt for my inlaws when they were still alive. They were both low sodium requirement and ethnic Italian with a huge craving for salt. Still, and all, salt is the cheapest flavor enhancer there is and it still remains a necessity for life.
When I was in cooking school, Loretta Paganini, constantly berated me for not using enough salt. If you want to pass the tests, you are required to use salt. Otherwise, corrupt gas bags should eat what they want and let the rest of us go to hell in our own way (If you are a Republicrat. you don' get to grouse about who pays for a pantleg statistical guess on who pays for it...)
|
Post #322,808
3/12/10 10:14:06 PM
|

It is worded a little clumsy. Excerpts from the WHO report.
If he didn't want any salt added as an ingredient, he could have simply said "no salt can be used as an ingredient". Instead, he said "when preparing food for consumption by consumers."
Be that as it may... http://thebrooklynin.../9300-ortiz-salt/
Perhaps stung by all the criticism, Ortiz has now released a statement clarifying what he meant. In it, he says he only wants to ban unnecessary levels of saltÂnot salt that is, as he says, Âa functional component of the recipe. That seems like something thatÂs a bit hard to prove. WhoÂs to say what level of salt is functional or not?
The WHO report has lots of evidence from published studies that excessive salt isn't good for lots of people. (It's reports on populations, not reports of what salt does to individual people.) Whether it's cherry picking the evidence, or obsolete, or whatever, I can't say. But it's from 2007 and worth looking at. http://www.who.int/e...ot-brown-2007.pdf (85 page .pdf):
Excerpts:
While sodium is an essential nutrient in man, physiological need in acclimatized adults is only of the order of 8Â10 mmol/d (184Â230 mg/d) (Dahl, 1972). In contrast to the present day, our predecessors during 70 million years of mammalian and primate evolution, and 4Â15 million years of hominoid and hominid evolution leading to Homo sapiens had no exposure to sodium (salt) as a food additive, only to sodium occurring naturally in foods and water (Denton, 1982). This was true also for Homo sapiens during tens of thousands of years of evolution as a nomadic food gatherer and hunter, until about 6000Â8000 years ago when agriculture and animal husbandry developed, and for the first time, the need to have a substantial reserve of food. Hence there developed a requirement to preserve food, i.e. by salting of meat, fish, vegetables and dairy products (Stamler, 1993). Our species evolved in the warm climate of Africa (Leakey, 1991), a salt-poor continent, on a low salt diet of no more than 20Â40 mmol sodium/day; it became  and remains  exquisitely adapted to the physiological retention and conservation of the limited salt naturally present in foods. We are not optimally adapted to the excretion (via the kidneys) of large quantities of sodium, many times physiological need, that has become necessary with the addition of salt to foods late in human evolution (Denton, 1982; Stamler, 1993).
[...]
Sodium intakes of different populations around the world were vividly brought to the attention of the research community by publication of Louis DahlÂs famous graph in 1960, showing a positive linear relationship between prevalence of hypertension and mean salt intake across five population groups (Dahl, 1960). He noted that daily intakes of sodium (salt) varied considerably across population groups from 4 g salt/d (1.56 g/d, 68 mmol/d sodium) among Alaskan Eskimos to 27 g salt/d (10.6 g/d, 460 mmol/d sodium) in Akita prefecture, north-east Japan (Figure 4). American men had intakes averaging 10 g salt/d (3.91 g/d, 170 mmol/d sodium). He also noted a strong northÂsouth trend in death rates from stroke in Japan. This coincided with differences in sodium intakes ranging from 14 g salt/d (5.47 g/d, 238 mmol/d sodium) in the south up to the 27 g/d salt (10.6 g/d, 459 mmol/d sodium) in the northeast region noted above (Figure 5). The extremely high sodium intakes in north-east Japan reflected the dietary practice of eating rice with miso soup and pickles, and the use of soy sauce as seasoning (Sasaki, 1962)
[...]
The extremely high sodium intakes recorded in some regions, notably northern Japan, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, are no longer apparent. These declines in sodium intakes coincided with public health awareness campaigns about the dangers associated with a high salt intake. More recent data from Japan and other countries suggest that salt intakes are no longer falling and may be on the rise, nor do there appear to be populations with the low sodium intakes previously found, including in the INTERSALT study. More recent data suggest that most populations appear to have mean sodium intakes well in excess of 100 mmol/d (2.30 g/d), and in many (especially the Asian countries) in excess of 200 mmol/d (4.60 g/d). Sodium intakes in men are greater than those in women, most likely reflecting the higher food consumption (energy intake) among men. Sodium intake in adults appears to be slightly lower above the age of 50 years than at younger ages.
An intake of 65 mmol/d (1500 mg/d) has been recommended as adequate intake (AI) in the USA to ensure that the diet provides adequate intakes of other nutrients, and to cover sodium sweat losses in unacclimatized individuals who are exposed to high temperatures, or who are physically active (Institute of Medicine, 2004). The current data suggest that the vast majority of individuals have sodium intakes well in excess of this level.
[...]
In developed country diets, a large proportion of the sodium ingested is added (as sodium chloride) in food manufacture and foods eaten away from the home. James, Ralph & Sanchez-Castillo (1987) and Mattes & Donnelly (1991) estimated that for the United Kingdom and USA, about 75% of sodium intake was from processed or restaurant foods, 10Â12% was naturally occurring in foods and the remaining 10Â15% was from the discretionary use of salt in home-cooking or at the table.
Figure 17 illustrates the difference in sodium content of two typical developed- country meals, comparing a takeaway or manufactured meal with a home-cooked meal without added salt. Sodium content of a takeaway cheeseburger and chips (French fries) is estimated at 1240 mg (54 mmol) compared with homemade steak and chips at 92 mg (4 mmol); sodium content of a Âready-meal risotto is estimated at 1200 mg (52 mmol), while that of its homemade equivalent at < 2 mg (< 0.1 mmol). Table 12 lists the sodium content of a number of foods in their natural state and after processing. In some cases, for example chick peas, sweetcorn and peas, which have a naturally very low sodium content, food processing increases the sodium content by 10Â100-fold; and foods such as corned beef, bran flakes or smoked salmon, have sodium intakes of 1Â2%, equivalent to, or more than, the sodium concentration of Atlantic seawater (MacGregor & de Wardener, 1998).
Table 13 lists the foods that contribute the largest proportions of sodium to the diet in the United Kingdom, based on National Food Survey data for 2000. Cereals and cereal products including bread, breakfast cereals, biscuits and cakes, contribute about 38% of estimated total intake, meat and meat products 21%, and other foods such as soups, pickles, sauces and baked beans a further 13%.
Similar data for the USA are shown in Table 14 (Cotton et al., 2004). Bread, ready-to-eat cereal and cakes, cookies, quick-breads and doughnuts contribute 16-17% of sodium intake; ham, beef, poultry, sausage and cold cuts about 13%; milk and cheese 8Â9%; condiments, salad dressing and mayonnaise about 5%; other foods including potato chips, popcorn, crackers and pretzels, margarine, hot dogs, pickles and bacon a further 23Â25%. Table 15 shows the sodium content of selected foods available in restaurants in the USA. All the products listed alone contain over 2.3 g (100 mmol) sodium, i.e. the recommended daily tolerable upper intake level (UL) for the USA (Institute of Medicine, 2004); some foods contain twice the recommended UL.
Some childrenÂs foods are extremely high in sodium. For example the estimated salt content of one large slice of pizza or two thin fried pork sausages is around 1 g (391 g, 17 mmol sodium) (Figure 18).
In the United Kingdom, cereals contribute 38Â40% of sodium present in the diets of children and young people ages 4Â18 years; meats 20Â24%; vegetables 14Â17%, and dairy products 7Â9% (Figure 19). In the USA, girls reporting that they ate fast foods at least four times per week had higher sodium intakes than girls having fast foods < 1Â3 times per week (Figure 20) (Schmidt et al., 2005).
A different picture with regard to dietary sources of sodium is apparent in some Asian countries. In China and Japan, a large proportion of sodium in the diet comes from sodium added in cooking and from various sauces, including soy sauce and (in Japan) miso. Table 16 shows the proportions of sodium from different sources contributing to the Chinese diet, based on data from the 2002 Chinese Health and Nutrition Survey (Zhao, personal communication). Overall, some 75% of dietary sodium comes from sodium added as salt in cooking, and a further 8% from soy sauce. The main sources of sodium in the diets of INTERMAP participants from China and Japan are shown in Table 17. Again, the predominant source in China was salt added during cooking (78%). In Japan, the main sources were soy sauce, fish and other sea food, soups and vegetables (66% in total) with a further 10% being contributed by salt added during cooking. Some foods commonly consumed in Malaysia are also very high in sodium (Table 18); for example a bowl of Mee curry and a bowl of Mee soup available from Âhawker markets contain about 2.5 g (109 mmol) and 1.7 g (74 mmol) sodium, respectively (Campbell et al., 2006).
Summary
The amount of sodium in diets in developed countries is dominated by salt added in food manufacture and in foods eaten away from home. Some childrenÂs foods are extremely high in sodium. In some Asian countries, a different pattern is evident, with salt added in cooking and in various sauces (e.g. soy) being predominant.
[...]
Reading through that, it's clear that the issue with American food isn't that bread or stews or whatever require grams of sodium per serving. They don't. It's that processed food manufacturers and restaurants put excessive salt in food. The evidence indicates there are health consequences to the population when excessive salt is used. But, yes, again, there shouldn't (at this time) be a fine for a restaurant adding unrequired salt to food.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #322,819
3/13/10 9:15:07 AM
|

I thought you only tried that semantic game with BO quotes
clumsy or not...it says what it says. No salt in the preparation of food. I don't think anyone but you reads that as allowing salt to be used to cook food.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,820
3/13/10 9:21:15 AM
|

Heh. It's moot.
I think his intent was clear, especially given his later statement. You think it's the 5th or 6th Horseman of the Apocalypse. Whatever. It's not going to be passed as a law. Fulminate all you want - you're entitled. But it doesn't matter. ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #322,822
3/13/10 9:54:18 AM
|

im with you, people should sell rotted food only :-)
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #322,801
3/12/10 6:23:49 PM
|

Trans fat doesn't taste better than butter, lard or bacon
That's why these are two different issues. Yes, unfortunately a lot of people don't know enough of the science to understand the difference. And yes, some of those people get to write laws. That's true of everything.
If no one is allowed to write or vote on a law when there is a possibility that someone may not understand what they're voting on, then yes, you are saying that there should be no laws.
--
Drew
|
Post #322,856
3/14/10 1:45:46 AM
|

I miss Brandioch!
His meta-Boolean skillz, when er, brandished amidst any semantically-convoluted propositions ...
like this thread ...
could slit you from your *guzzle to your zatch..
* Bonus points for Author / no lazy dbase searching.
Still think that 'Our" Finest Hour(s) occurred pre-IWE, at the 'accretion-point':
amidst the slings n'arrows of various excoriations on the InfoWorld NT-is-The-Futchah!/Sandy Reed tourneys;
believe the first God Depositions occurred there too, in the waning days of that (by then embattled) site.
The net was cast wide, as wide as the whole IW readership; most knew quite well what InfoWorld had originally been, something of an oasis from the Ad-speak distortions..
til Billy bought the IW Suits, lock, stock and Ballmer; then the OS/2 Vote-fixes and Sandy Reed-as-Cheney. Such lovely windmills to tilt-at.
Wasn't it Brandioch who came up with ~~ The [ambiguously-gay] Duo?
-- forget exact phrase, re. that columnist-pair of M$ shills and their specious reasoning on the IT koans of the day.
(Exchanged several e-mails with him after he abandoned IWE, but haven't talked to him in years;
recent quotes suggest that his brain hadn't caught afflenza during the turgid Eight Years of Nothingness.)
|
Post #322,867
3/14/10 10:40:49 AM
|

Archive.org doesn't have much of InfoWorld, unfortunatley.
My recollection is that it was the two fellows writing about "security". I want to say that he (as khasim?) called them the "security twins", but I thought it was more cutting than that.
E.g. http://web.archive.o...rity/security.htm
Google and Altavista seem to have purged old stuff like that, if they ever had it. :-/ Perhaps the 'net does forget over time after all....
Yeah, he still seems as sharp as ever.
Brandioch is still active out in the ether (on Schneier and he apparently has a Facebook page, among other stuff).
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #322,936
3/15/10 2:58:02 PM
|

Yep, that's the 'Duo'
and the image tends to evoke the suggestive tag, perhaps along with some of their replies in the Forum -- merely a bagatelle for repartee, and not your average bigoted entrée.
I looked, years back, at the once-called Wayback-machine; it was pretty empty even then, so Yesss -- mere mythos about the elephantine memory of the webvertainment industry.
Ashton's Law:
The probability of your finding an item is inverse to the degree of your interest and the inverse-square of the cruciality of the missing datum.
(There may also be a C-constant [Consternation] related to time-consumption of ultimately profitless searches:
those which are seen to be affected by the search-order of the verbless phrases, but along with AEinstein
-- I fear that including this Consternation Factor might lead an impressionable one closer to Super-String Theory, breaking thus many meta-connections among otherwise functional neurons.)
But I digress.
|
Post #322,811
3/13/10 2:21:16 AM
|

That faith is well-placed
These are reasonably simple laws passed with reasonable oversight, and lacking the kind of emotional heat that prevents repeal or refinement to correct unintended consequences.
This is the kind of boring crap that democracy is almost custom made to handle.
Not like drug laws where if you object it means you want kids to shoot heroin in the school playground.
Not like the Bushco moves to remove all checks and balances and repeal the Magna Charta. (Yep, that's a legal document in the US, by inclusion as part of pre-1776 British law, which is the default for US law. It tends to not get used much because there isn't much call for restricting the authority of American monarchs.)
---------------------------------------
Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
|
Post #322,704
3/11/10 2:04:47 PM
|

>>> If you let a 5-year-old point his finger ...
What if they were just 'unruly"?
http://www.nytimes.c...on/06herbert.html
[...]
"In January 2008, a 5-year-old kindergarten pupil became unruly at a public school in Queens. A public safety officer, seeing her duty, pounced. She handcuffed the boy who was then shipped off to a hospital psychiatric ward. A 5-year-old!
Was that child perhaps traumatized by the way he was treated? Hey, itÂs the price you pay if the city is to be defended against unruly 5-year-olds. After a few hours the boy was released into the arms of his mother."
Wouldn't handcuffs slip off their wrists?
|
Post #322,737
3/12/10 12:20:01 AM
|

Recent events suggest a question --
Recent.. since~~ Oh I don't know.. say, when you had to write a song .... about lynchings? ('Strange Fruit') to inform the populace who didn't receive any of the many postcard/photos of various and sundry of these events:
-- Kids! Collect the Whole Set Today !! --
Oh, the question:
Is Muricans Ready for Self-government ... any time soon?
|
Post #322,735
3/12/10 12:09:06 AM
|

strange, beep...
You were never anything like this worked up about the very real trespasses upon our ancient liberties undertaken by the Cheney Shogunate as you've been by these whiffs and rumors ginned up by Faux News against the Kenyan Usurper. Kind of undermines your (Ayn) Randian street cred, don't it?
cordially,
|
Post #322,741
3/12/10 7:34:34 AM
|

Oh, I dunno
I think I've been pretty consistent on local matters here. And also very consistent in not claiming objectivist status..your confusing Ashton's opinion of me with me.
ym obviously does v.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,748
3/12/10 8:28:48 AM
|

thats muslim kenya usurper to you
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #322,780
3/12/10 1:36:26 PM
|

There goes Pickles... or *ANYTHING* that's soaked in a Brine
Or salted pork dishes.
Pork Rinds, Doritos, Cheetos, Potato Chips
Salt-rubbed Brisket
Pretty much *ANY* "smoked" product.
Pretty much *ANY* "cured" product.
Pretty much *ANY* "marinaded" product.
Pretty much *ANY* "chemically cooked" product.
|
Post #322,784
3/12/10 2:03:08 PM
|

New! New!! . . . . . . Fresh Water Taffy !!!
('Course on your list -- eliminating many of those would make you live longer; you'd be expensive to maintain that much longer: Promote Salt!)
Hmmmm WHAT will junk-food corps DO?? Salt + Corn sugars + Fat ==> i/3 of their ingredients illegal, next.
Nope. 1/3 of doctors no longer needed to treat their addictions. Kill that.
Ashleigh was indeed Brilliant:
In the final analysis everything depends on everything else.
|
Post #322,791
3/12/10 2:31:19 PM
|

Bread. Canned goods. Oatmeal. Pasta
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #322,795
3/12/10 3:42:54 PM
|

This whole salt thing is ridiculous.
If salt was that deadly the Japanese would all be dead - and so would I.
Even some doctors are now saying the whole salt thing is unsettled - that some people are sensitive to salt and others can drink the salt shaker and be little effected.
Personally I think blood pressure rising with salt consumption is a symptom, salt is not the cause.
|
Post #322,809
3/12/10 10:15:17 PM
|

See #25948. :-)
|
Post #325,390
4/29/10 7:03:57 AM
|

NewScientist Opinion piece on salt.
http://www.newscient...gers-of-salt.html
SALT hidden in food kills millions of people worldwide. Reducing dietary salt is therefore important for public health; it is also one of the cheapest and easiest ways to save lives. So why are efforts to cut dietary salt being met with fierce resistance?
First the facts. Decreasing salt intake substantially reduces blood pressure, thus lowering the risk of heart attacks and strokes. An analysis of all the available evidence, published in 2007, suggested that reducing salt intake around the world by 15 per cent could prevent almost 9 million deaths by 2015. That is on par with the public health benefits of reducing cholesterol and stopping smoking (The Lancet, vol 370, p 2044).
Other analyses have concluded that cutting daily salt intake by 5 grams could reduce strokes by 23 per cent and cardiovascular disease by 14 per cent (BMJ, vol 339, p b4567; Journal of Human Hypertension, vol 23, p 363).
[...]
He's clearly talking about benefits to the population as a whole. I'm no expert, but have heard (as pointed out here and in the comments) that they cannot predict how an individual will be affected by changes in salt intake. The population benefits seem to be clear.
However, his tone is often a little conspiratorial, too (but one would expect a billion dollar industry in the US to be interested in protecting its market).
All-in-all, not as persuasive as it could be.
FWIW.
Some linkies here: http://en.wikipedia....lt#Health_effects
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #325,392
4/29/10 7:27:10 AM
|

Here's the problem
That is on par with the public health benefits of reducing cholesterol ...
Oh, so there's no benefit?
Yeah, see it turns out there's no benefit to reducing dietary cholesterol. None. Never was. That's been junk science for the better part of a century, with vegetable oil producers promoting it hard the whole time. Generations of doctors and researchers grew up with that assumption underlying everything they did.
I've heard similar things about salt. It looks like the only populations with universally high salt intake are getting it from processed food. ie: The Western Diet. And it's pretty clear now (to people who don't have a vested interest in not seeing it) that it's the refined carbohydrates that are the major problem. There are no populations that cook from scratch and also have universally high salt intake.
Does this mean salt is definitely off the hook? No, but the evidence against it isn't all that solid, IMO.
--
Drew
|
Post #325,394
4/29/10 7:50:21 AM
|

Maybe.
I get suspicious of categorical statements on either side. ;-)
I think the counterpoint is Japan. A/the leading cause of death was hemorrhagic (or is it ischemic?) stroke. In the 1960s, IIRC, the diet supposedly had huge levels of salt (mostly from the sauces?). When a concerted effort was made to cut salt intake, the incidence of stroke dropped.
A later study - http://stroke.ahajou...int/35/7/1543.pdf (6 page .pdf)
There seems to be a relationship between salts and stroke, but it may not be due to a simple increase in blood pressure. E.g. a study of rats - http://stroke.ahajou...bstract/20/9/1212
Recent studies seem to indicate that there may be a genetic component to risk in humans as well. http://stroke.ahajou...bstract/39/8/2211
I dunno.
The chemistry of a single person is complex. The chemistry of a huge population even more so. It makes sense to me, even if just from arguments from evolutionary grounds, that sodium levels should be reduced substantially. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the press reports and policy-maker comments on these health studies glosses over the nuances (as they do on almost everything else).
FWIW. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #325,399
4/29/10 8:48:56 AM
|

As long as we don't do a Pascal's Wager on salt
I've seen articles that cite the Japanese stroke statistics and conclude that even though we haven't identified causality, and neither the circumstances nor result have been replicated anywhere else, that we should act as though salt is uniformly dangerous for everyone.
We've spent decades demonizing saturated fat, and it turns out the human body needs some in the diet to work properly. We need salt, too, and the most compelling argument (IMO) against the amount of salt we use is the historical: We didn't evolve eating this much salt.
But are we sure of that? Salt is pretty durable, and light. We've found evidence that people were harvesting salt thousands of years ago from various sources. Maybe early humans would collect salt when they found it and carry it with them. What evidence would be left behind? Not much.
I'm definitely not saying there's no possible risk to eating too much salt. I just don't think there's really strong science saying how much we "should" be eating.
Like with every other recommendation based on nutritionism, simply avoiding processed foods seems to make the whole issue moot.
--
Drew
|
Post #325,396
4/29/10 8:17:22 AM
|

salt intake vs food poisoning, interesting dilemma
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #325,439
4/29/10 10:32:34 PM
|

There's a side issue.
Which may be confusing the issue: iodine. Iodine deficiency had been treated very effectively by making table salt iodised. However, most commercial food processing does not, and the lowering of general salt intake in the western world had raised the levels of iodine deficiency.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|