Re: FDA plans to limit amount of salt allowed in processed foods for

[Guest guest]

I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible for what he consumes.

 

S.M. Albers

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10

06:09:00

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

I wrote similar emails and SENT them. And I suspect I feel exactly the way you

do.

The plain fact is that food manufacturers spend a fortune figuring out what

people WANT TO BUY.

They want, in the case of food, inexpensive and tasty products.

So THEY PROVIDE inexpensive and tasty products. The products the average

consumer finds tasty are those that contain salt, sugar and fat. Because, as

surely we all know here, salt, sugar and fat make things tasty. And the average

consumer doesn't care about the ingredients. Indeed, I have quoted my GP here

several times that: " You cannot persuade anyone to change their lifestyle in

order to improve their health. " Any company that produced foods low in sugar,

salt and fat would be selling only to a microscopically small proportion of the

population and would quickly go broke. Sorry. REALITY. It is RIDICULOUS to

suggest they do otherwise.

And as for 'inexpensive', people show by their buying actions that they WANT to

buy products containing, for example, hydrogenated fats because they don't go

mouldy as quick, have a better mouth feel than other fats and because

hydrogenated vegetable oils are INEXPENSIVE. Again, if these producers used

more expensive ingredients and had to charge a higher price PEOPLE WOULD NOT BUY

THEIR PRODUCTS. The vast majority show by voting with their feet that they WANT

cheap products containing what most of us here regard as junk food. How else

could Mc's be so successful?

In order to survive, food manufacturers must produce and sell what people show,

by their purchasing habits, they want to buy. PERIOD. END OF STORY. So place

100% of the blame on consumers. People on the loony left love to suggest

otherwise, but they are light years displaced from reality. Sorry.

Rodney.

> >

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system.

The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide

it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are

habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit

them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them.

Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of

addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each

individual is responsible for what he consumes.

> >>

> >>

> >> S.M. Albers

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

> >> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10

06:09:00

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Since you seem to want to continue this discussion (as below), let me review the

posts which led up to my " Loony Left " remark.

The first post in this series (28894) was by you about an article regarding the

FDA plan to try to regulate salt. No problem. Useful information. Thank you.

This was followed by a post (28904) by 'fasjroew...' which said that the idea

was retarded because it was unlikely to do much to reduce salt intake as people

who liked salt would continue to add it to their foods. That post also included

the phrase " ..... ever increasing cost of government intrusion .... " .

You, apparently, went ballistic at this rather simple explanation why it might

be better not to regulate salt (I do not have an opinion as to whether it should

be regulated or not). In your next post (28905) you said all of the following:

1. " I welcome government intrusion. "

2. " Rein in Wall Street " .

3. " Corporations interested in profits only "

4. " I'll take higher taxes "

5. " Your personal political opinions are inappropriate here. "

6. " We like to deal in facts here, not opinions. "

Point 1. above was political but a perfectly appropriate response to the post it

was replying to, IMO.

But point 2. was overtly political.

Point 3. was also overtly political.

Point 4. was also political, but not more so than post 28904.

Point 5. above *sounds* to me like a Freudian slip. The " YOUR " - addressed to

fasjroew - (my capitalization) sounds to me like you believe that political

opinions that do not agree with Francesca's are inappropriate. But " mine "

(Francesca's or those Francesca agrees with) are OK.

Point 6. is comical. You had just dumped a ton of your own personal political

opinion on us earlier in the same post, then you say personal opinions are

inappropriate.

But you weren't even able to stop there. You then posted another left wing

political rant (28912), where you said:

1. " Workers treated inhumanely "

2. " All in the name of profits "

3. " Small farmers forced out "

4. " Big corporations "

5. " Fast=food giants "

All of these are, quite obviously to any reasonable observer, overtly political

statements. And you made them shortly after you had stated that: " ....

political opinions are inappropriate here " .

ly I found this ridiculous. And that is why I made my " Loony Left " remark.

That post was a mild attempt to alert you to the fact that your knowledge of how

the economy functions is severely limited, especially in respect to how it is

western civilization economies - largely free markets - have functioned to

generate the highest living standards the world has ever known.

---------------

The above said, I realize that is YOUR site. And that you have

worked long and hard over many years to maintain it as a top rate provider of

serious health information. And, since it is your site, you are entitled to set

whatever rules you want. If it is your intention that your political opinions -

or those you agree with - may be freely expressed but those you do not agree

with may not be, then perhaps that should be stated at the outset in the rules.

I would prefer no political input at this site. But I am beginning to wonder if

you realize just how far to the left of centre the views you have expressed here

are located. Indeed, that you continue to express them even after you have

clearly stated that political posts are not appropriate, seems to suggest that

you do not believe the views you are expressing are even political.

So, Francesca, tell us what the rules are with regard to political views, and

whether you consider yourself also to be bound by them. Then we will all know

where we stand. But I have to say that if I see further political rants like

those of yours noted above, then you should not be surpised to find me

explaining why the view makes no sense, by providing the opposite side of the

argument, as I did for one small aspect of the matter at hand in all but the

final paragraph of my " Loony Left " post(28917, I think).

Thank you.

Rodney.

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food

> >>>>> system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market

> >>>>> place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with

> >>>>> additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food

> >>>>> companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if

the

> >>>>> consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in

> >>>>> advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does

> >>>>> with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible

> >>>>> for what he consumes.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> S.M. Albers

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com>

> >>>>> <http://www.avg.com/>

> >>>>> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10

> >>>>> 06:09:00

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>