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.
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.
|
|
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 |
|
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.
|
|
Horse's mouth.
http://assembly.stat...y=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To prohibit restaurants from using 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. |
|
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.
|
|
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...) |
|
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). 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. |
|
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.
|
|
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. |
|
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)
|
|
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 |
|
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.) |
|
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. |
|
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. |