|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2010 : 12:47:27 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Originally posted by Farseeker
I did not say equal amounts of potassium and sodium, I said "if you balance it with potassium in the correct amount".
the following is an excerpt proving my point.
Its from http://www.scientistlive.com/European-Science-News/Medical/Potassium_lowers_blood_pressure/21618/
You should really read these things before posting cut-and-pastes from popular-press articles about the studies. That particular study didn't measure intake at all, but instead measured urinary output:
CONCLUSION: A higher sodium to potassium excretion ratio is associated with increased risk of subsequent CVD, with an effect stronger than that of sodium or potassium alone.[quote]
Ok, I did assume that to get a higher potassium output in the urine, it actually had to come from something ingested. Potassium does not come out of the air like magic. While rare conditions cause excretion of prior ingested potassium, if that goes on long enough you just die. Seems reasonable to me in the context of this discussion, especially when a large enough sample is taken, that the potassium was part of the intake.
The researcher did point out that he considered his measurement methods to be superior to prior studies, many of which relied on the participant's memory of food eaten..
Their conclusion, that more potassium in needed in the typical diet to cut CVD risk most effectively (not just sodium reduction)is my point. If you are going to bother regulating, may as well add a little potassium chloride (also a salt, also cheap) while you are at it.
It seems to me the burden of proof of those who want to create new laws should be on those proposing the new laws. My only contribution is, Salt (sodium chloride) reduction alone does not get you the optimum results.
And while it is true one can not force behavior very easily, one can provide incentives and disincentives. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2010 : 15:01:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
If you are going to bother regulating, may as well add a little potassium chloride (also a salt, also cheap) while you are at it.
It seems to me the burden of proof of those who want to create new laws should be on those proposing the new laws. |
What burden of proof would that be? You already know that reducing dietary sodium reduces risk of disease. It may not do it as well as adding potassium, but that doesn't mean salt reduction makes no difference. All of that you know, so what burden of proof are you talking about?| My only contribution is, Salt (sodium chloride) reduction alone does not get you the optimum results. |
Nobody can get optimal results through legislation. Anyone can eat raw salt packets if they want to. Nobody can be forced to eat high-potassium fruits and veggies.
In fact, advocating for the mandatory inclusion of a particular chemical in foods may be unprecedented. As we've already argued here, once the salt is in the food, it's really impossible to get it out, so it's better to start with little and allow consumers to add salt to taste, rather than start with a lot and rip the choice out of consumer's hands.
Why should potassium be any different?
Reducing sodium may not be optimal, but that doesn't mean it'll do no good at all, and mandating upper limits on things in foods has a long legislative history and gives consumers more freedom. Mandating the addition of potassium removes choice and has little (if any) precedent in food regulatory actions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2010 : 15:53:46 [Permalink]
|
| In fact, advocating for the mandatory inclusion of a particular chemical in foods may be unprecedented. As we've already argued here, once the salt is in the food, it's really impossible to get it out, so it's better to start with little and allow consumers to add salt to taste, rather than start with a lot and rip the choice out of consumer's hands. |
oh come on! Iodine in salt? Floride in water? That's just off the top of my head, do you believe me or do I have to find "studies" to prove this?
My point is, if you write legislation, do as good a job as possible, based on the science.
Sodium nitrate in hot dogs? Not sure if it's legislated in the USA, but they seem to have it in all the hot dogs I buy.
Vitamin D in milk? It is legislated where I live.
They are thinking of legislating trans fats in some jurisdictions. Do I need to go on about the "unprecedented inclusion of chemicals"?
Strangely enough, I agree that processed foods are bad, especially the ones containing too much salt. So, my point is, IF you are going to piss of part of the people in your democracy with regulation, at least do it as well as you can, based on the relevant science.
Ted
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2010 : 16:49:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
Their conclusion, that more potassium in needed in the typical diet to cut CVD risk most effectively (not just sodium reduction)is my point. If you are going to bother regulating, may as well add a little potassium chloride (also a salt, also cheap) while you are at it.
|
Well, the study you link to was published in 2009. I would have thought that it takes a while to pass new laws and I doubt that it is feasible to include all the latest research in your decision-making process. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2010 : 18:30:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
oh come on! Iodine in salt? |
Show me the law. My wife buys uniodized salt all the time.Water is a food?| That's just off the top of my head, do you believe me or do I have to find "studies" to prove this? |
No, you need to show the laws.| My point is, if you write legislation, do as good a job as possible, based on the science. |
And my point is that you haven't made a case that they have not done the best job possible, given the entirety of the political process and the science, both.| Sodium nitrate in hot dogs? Not sure if it's legislated in the USA, but they seem to have it in all the hot dogs I buy. |
Sodium nitrate is a common and cheap food preservative. No laws were needed to get food producers to use it, since it makes their products last longer. If anything, you might find laws limiting its amounts in foods, because cooking and eating sodium-nitrate laden foods can lead to cancer.| Vitamin D in milk? It is legislated where I live. |
Canada, apparently. In the U.S., a manufacturer is only required to add vitamin D to milk if the manufacturer wants to label the milk "fortified." This article includes a review of the laws.| They are thinking of legislating trans fats in some jurisdictions. |
Someone is thinking of mandating adding trans fats to some foods?!| Do I need to go on about the "unprecedented inclusion of chemicals"? |
I don't know why you started. We were talking about elimination of a chemical from foods, and you're talking about including more of another, instead.| Strangely enough, I agree that processed foods are bad, especially the ones containing too much salt. So, my point is, IF you are going to piss of part of the people in your democracy with regulation, at least do it as well as you can, based on the relevant science. |
Yes, of course: mandating the elimination of salt would piss off everyone.  It would piss off the TV-dinner makers most of all, I think. Adding more chemicals that can't be removed at home would piss me off more than getting rid of one which I can add back in myself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 01:17:26 [Permalink]
|
Well, this started when I pointed out that the studies on salt were incomplete. I do not like legislating choice. Rather, I am all for more labeling laws and that providing incentives and disincentives is my preferred way to go. Since processed foods are bad for your health, it is fair to add a tax so as to fund health care.
If a processed food has a potassium - sodium balance, low tax. Raise the tax as the proportion of sodium goes up.
Simple.
The principle is already used with taxes on tobacco products, alcohol, and so on. I hear they are considering a tax on soda pop in, ...was it New York?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 11:30:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
Well, this started when I pointed out that the studies on salt were incomplete. |
Well, the question on that is whether the people who were recommending limiting added salt were aware of the latest research. There's no evidence that they're not completely up-to-date.| I do not like legislating choice. |
As I said before, limiting added sodium gives people more choice. And some will choose not to add any at home, which will lower health-care costs for everyone. I'd much rather that people not need health care than to fund it with a salt tax.| I hear they are considering a tax on soda pop in, ...was it New York? |
"Was" is the key word, there. Every attempt to tax soda has failed in the U.S. due to intense lobbying by soda makers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 13:36:48 [Permalink]
|
| I do not like legislating choice. |
As I said before, limiting added sodium gives people more choice. And some will choose not to add any at home, which will lower health-care costs for everyone. I'd much rather that people not need health care than to fund it with a salt tax. |
Lets see if I got this straight.
Foods that are over processed and over-salted are being selected by the vast majority of people that buy that kind of bad food (ie: over processed). This would seem a self selecting group.
Those who make their own foods from fresh, wholesome and/or raw ingredients are not affected, as they add salt to their own taste, possibly even sea salt.
So, when you say people will have more choice, I guess you are talking about that small group that wants to buy food that is reputedly making them sick, but they would like less salt for either taste or health reasons. (remember, you believe the salt is making them sick, but that does not mean it is the only thing doing so, for example sodium nitrate).
As only 10% of the population is salt sensitive {more accurately, sodium sensitive) (I believe I saw that in the study I had earlier referenced), meaning that 10% of the small (I hope) group that buys processed foods but wants less salt, are the only ones who will benefit in any statistically significant way.
Those who hardly buy any processed foods (like me) will hardly be affected. Those who will add the salt themselves because of their preference, will not be affected from a health viewpoint, since they added their own salt to their own taste. I have seen many people pick up a salt shaker at a meal and put salt on it without even tasting it first. Perhaps you have seen this strange phenomenon too.
Now, I fully agree salt reduction is good for those who have too much.
But truth be told, salt is a preservative (especially in dill pickles, sauerkraut, pickled fish, processed meats, relish, salsa, etc. So some other preservative must be increased, or the product refrigerated (thus raising cost and CO2 footprint and/or increasing heath risk from bacterial contamination.
Will bread go moldy faster? Will buns get stale sooner? Will cheese spoil more easily? Will mayonnaise at picnics cause more illness than it does now due to spoilage?
Unintended consequences.
Low sodium bacon has less saltpeter (a preservative preventing botulism) in it, since saltpeter contains sodium. Which brings up the point, to lower salt in a product is not enough, you have to lower the sodium. In other words, if you regulate salt, then the manufacturer may just add mono-sodium glutamate (MSG, Accent)or some other flavor enhancer or some other preservative.
Bacon and other processed meat makers may reduce salt but offset it with increased sodium nitrate in order to keep shelf life and danger of spoilage consistent with current products. So, we trade a small difference in CVD for increased cancer rates. In my mind, not a good choice.
But lets say, a processed meat maker does reduce salt and does not increase other preservatives. Then there is an increased risk of botulism, cause by bacteria producing botulin, which is one of the most toxic natural substances known. Without timely intervention, the death rate is 50%. With timely intervention, the death rate is around 8% (wikipedia)
Is it not reasonable to project that some people will not improve their food handling hygiene or timing, and thus it is reasonable to expect some will die.
unintended consequences...
If you have the political clout to ban salt in a product, then you might have the political clout to just tax it more. Is it not at least worth a try?
T. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 18:29:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
Unintended consequences. |
As I said in another thread, this sword cuts both ways. Or is killing people through heart attacks an intended consequence of adding salt to food products?
I'll reply more fully, sometime later. But just let me point out that saltpeter is potassium nitrate, with no sodium at all. Sodium nitrate is a different preservative. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 18:44:39 [Permalink]
|
Wow, you impress me.
From wikidpedia"Sodium nitrate is the chemical compound with the formula NaNO3. This salt, also known as Chile saltpeter...
Yes, you are right.
But my point about MSG... was I right about that?
It is Mono sodium glutamate?
T. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 18:53:39 [Permalink]
|
wait a minute... I may have gotten saltpeter(potassium nitrate) and Chile saltpeter(sodium nitrate) mixed up for a moment, but the discussion was about "sodium" in the diet.
Is it not true that the preservative generally used in hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats is Sodium nitrate?
I may have slipped up on a detail, but was not my point valid?
Of course, that does not excuse my boo boo. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 19:13:17 [Permalink]
|
[quote]As I said in another thread, this sword cuts both ways. Or is killing people through heart attacks an intended consequence of adding salt to food products?[p/quote]
Was it not you who said, in relation to drugs, that is... and here I take the liberty of trying to extract the essence of what you were saying... correct me if I missed.. that is is all about the cost/benefit? That is, if drug A saves 20 people (statistically, as we can not know for sure) and kills, statistically, maybe 2 people who would not otherwise have died, then we should use that drug.
Well, lets not have a double standard.
If legislation can maybe, based on POSSIBLY correct science, save some people (who could also have been saved by NOT EATING JUNK), then by all means, let's legislate that scenario. Then let's legislate all other scenarios with a similar cost / benefit ratio, just to be fair.
For example, Ban high fructose corn syrup. Ban MSG. Ban alcohol. Ban high mercury fish. Ban MSG (oops, I already said that). Ban butter and make people eat margarine. Ban ... oh, well, anything I don't like. Ban anything that inconveniences me. I love being the king of the world!
Sorry for the slight digression. I guess my point is,... pick you fights for maximum effect.
Personally, I would fight heavy metal pollution (from China in our kids toys, or from the people who poison our rivers so we can not eat the fish, or from ... well I hope you see my point. Prioritize your fights.
T. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 22:24:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
Was it not you who said, in relation to drugs, that is... and here I take the liberty of trying to extract the essence of what you were saying... correct me if I missed.. that is is all about the cost/benefit? That is, if drug A saves 20 people (statistically, as we can not know for sure) and kills, statistically, maybe 2 people who would not otherwise have died, then we should use that drug. |
Well, to do the proper cost/benefit analysis, we'd have to know how many people would die without the drug, and/or the numbers you've used would have to be expressed as ratios.
If some public health mandate saves 50% of the population from some threat, but kills 1% who wouldn't have died, I'd have little problem saying, "yes, let's do that." If only 5% would be saved, I might have to think about it some more (add in other details, such as the relative gruesomeness of the deaths).
But we're talking about unintended consequences, which simply can't be known before implementing (or not implementing) any policy. If the 50% of the population who get saved in my first example are all genetically insufferable assholes who'd go on to have lots of jerk-wad kids who'd do horrible things when they grew up, then we might be dumb to save them. On the other hand, if in the second example, the 5% who'd be saved would have super-immunity genes that would rapidly spread over the whole world, we'd be idiots to not save them.
Calling on unintended consequences is to argue from ignorance. By definition, there's no way to predict unintended consequences, and they're not all bad.
A simpler example: if I get out of bed and go to work, I might get hit by a bus. If I stay in bed, my house might get hit by a bus and I'll get crushed in the collapse. Giving serious consideration to unknown and unpredictable unintended consequences leads nowhere but to a paralyzing uncertainty. We certainly can't build sound policy on "maybe something bad will happen."| If legislation can maybe, based on POSSIBLY correct science... |
Do you deny that reducing added salt, by itself, would save lives? Again: it may not be optimal, but it does work.| ...save some people (who could also have been saved by NOT EATING JUNK)... |
Again: we cannot mandate that people eat only healthy diets. The lesson of Prohibition is clear....then by all means, let's legislate that scenario. Then let's legislate all other scenarios with a similar cost / benefit ratio, just to be fair.
For example, Ban high fructose corn syrup. Ban MSG. Ban alcohol. Ban high mercury fish. Ban MSG (oops, I already said that). Ban butter and make people eat margarine. Ban ... oh, well, anything I don't like. Ban anything that inconveniences me. I love being the king of the world! |
Yes, hyperbole is the best thing ever!| Sorry for the slight digression. I guess my point is,... pick you fights for maximum effect. |
Actually, we have a lot of people who are interested in a lot of different things, so why not have all the fights? Seriously. You work on advocating for legislation that adds potassium to foods, and I'll work on advocating for policies that eliminate unneeded sodium. As I've already said, I think my method will bear fruit more easily in the political climate we've got right now.| Personally, I would fight heavy metal pollution (from China in our kids toys, or from the people who poison our rivers so we can not eat the fish, or from ... well I hope you see my point. Prioritize your fights. |
Yes, but we already have laws against poisoning our children and our rivers. The only way to prioritize those things is to dole out more tax money for better enforcement. And I, for one, would be quite willing to pay more in taxes if it meant that the FDA, FTC, EPA, CDC and other regulatory and policing agencies could actually meet their mandates without having to take money from those they are supposedly regulating. But that, of course, wouldn't make the other fights become less important. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 06:47:50 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, but we already have laws against poisoning our children and our rivers. The only way to prioritize those things is to dole out more tax money for better enforcement. And I, for one, would be quite willing to pay more in taxes if it meant that the FDA, FTC, EPA, CDC and other regulatory and policing agencies could actually meet their mandates without having to take money from those they are supposedly regulating. But that, of course, wouldn't make the other fights become less important. |
More laws, more people to provide enforcement. Will these people stop checking for fish in mercury? Will these be new people be hired at tax payer's expense? If so, could we hire people to enforce out heavy metal anti-pollution laws instead please?
By unintended consequences, I meant unintended by the original people who made the proposals. That is why democracy sometimes works, because when other people think on a problem, they see it from a different viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 06:55:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
wait a minute... I may have gotten saltpeter(potassium nitrate) and Chile saltpeter(sodium nitrate) mixed up for a moment, but the discussion was about "sodium" in the diet.
Is it not true that the preservative generally used in hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats is Sodium nitrate?
I may have slipped up on a detail, but was not my point valid?
Of course, that does not excuse my boo boo.
|
Are they talking about regulating "salt" or sodium?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
So it starts
