• I’ve been on a low-sodium diet for legitimate, diagnosed medical reasons since I was a very young child. I’ve never found it particularly difficult or onerous and I don’t believe that a ban would have made a difference for me either way. People that can safely consume greater amounts of sodium should be permitted to do so without interference, and those that should avoid it will not be motivated to increase their regard for their diet by placing the onus of compliance on restaurants and manufacturers. On the flip side of that particular coin, people that don’t care to regulate their sodium intake but probably should will not be spurred into action by behind-the-scenes sodium reductions. In total, this seems like a futile effort that will trade greatly increased spending by government and manufacturers for little measurable benefit. The Times article suggests that industry research is progressing, and while most reasonable people would welcome the effort to mitigate the health effects of processed foods, the presence of processed food on shelves is no bar to making better decisions. Contrary to popular thinking among some sections of the population, human intelligence is not subservient to human taste buds.

  • “Discretion is the salt, and fancy the sugar of life; the one preserves, the other sweetens it. –”

    Mayor Bloomberg could use some discretion. He certainly is not a man worthy of his salt.

    I like salt. Without it some food is palatable. I will smuggle it into restaurants before I go without.

  • It’s unbelievable that we are even considering this level of interference in our lives.

    Too many lawyers and not enough people pushing back.

    Your readers may be interested in our views


  • Around the web, January 30…

    Just when you think Mayor Bloomberg might be over his nanny phase, here comes Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden wanting to regulate salt in food [NY Times, Overlawyered] “Glitches” in trial preparation led to Seroquel suit dismissal? Hey, reporters…