Ignore the health issue for a minute. This is a constitutional issue. What is the constitutional basis for for the federal government regulating how much salt is in my food? The commerce clause? If my salt intake is deemed to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, then what isn’t interstate commerce (and, conversely, what can’t the federal government do)?

The Constitution supposedly set up a federal system of limited centralized government. It did so out of a recognition that centralized power is too easily abused. If you disagree with that and think that the federal government should have unlimited reach, then be honest about it and repeal the commerce clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the specific delimitation of federal power in Article I, Section 8. Let’s have that debate openly and honestly.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments, responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), veterinary products, and cosmetics.

Most federal laws concerning the FDA are part of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,[7] (first passed in 1938 and extensively amended since) and are codified in Title 21, Chapter 9 of the United States Code. Other significant laws enforced by the FDA include the Public Health Service Act, parts of the Controlled Substances Act, the Federal Anti-Tampering Act, as well as many others. In many cases these responsibilities are shared with other federal agencies.

Please stop with the theatrics about the constitution!

It’s not “theatrics.” It’s basic constitutional law, the highest law in the land. If you think the constitution is or should be irrelevant, say so explicitly. But I would like to hear why you think so.

“So, while I essentially agree with Ed and Moe that the government shouldn’t impose legal limits on salt content, I think you can make the case without junk science and fear-mongering.”

Thanks for the reasonable response. I would add, though, that there is no constitutional authority for much of what federal agencies do (if “elastic” clauses aren’t stretched well beyond intended purposes). Reasonable arguments can be (and have been) made for granting such authority, but I really think constitutional amendments should be (or have been) used to do so. I believe that if we haven’t already reached it, we are approaching a time when the constitution can be interpreted to grant just about any authority the federal government desires. (I’m aware, of course, that no particular party is solely at fault for obverting, subverting, and perverting the rule of constitutional law.)

What’s really amazing is how often the “right wing” gets headlines here on Mediaite, while the “left wing” never seems to get much attention. What’s the matter, is the “left wing” just not doing much these days? Are they in hiding? Why is it that the “left wing” just never seems to be able to get the headlines here? Hmm….

Better question: why do “new” (outside of the traditional main stream) media supinely perpetuate the uninformative and often misleading terms “right wing” and “left wing”?

Funky Dung:

“I would add, though, that there is no constitutional authority for much of what federal agencies do” um that is not a reasonable thing to say!

Clearly you have one view of how our constitution should be interrupted, and many other people have other views! The great thing about American is that we can have different views on things and vote it out in elections or settle it in the courts!

While I haven’t formulated an opinion about any proposed salt regulations, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out a couple of misconceptions in the post.

1) There’s really only a couple brands of canned soup: Campbell’s, Progresso and store. So, if they all are high in sodium, the consumer really has no choice.

2) A shortage of fresh ingredients isn’t only limited to the poor, but location is also a factor.

I’ve spent most of my adult life living in very rural areas throughout the country. Sure, if you’re willing to drive a hundred miles or so and if the food will keep, you could get better ingredients, but a lot of this country’s landmass are areas where a variety of fresh foods aren’t available. Simply put, if the store were to stock up on something and if it doesn’t sell, then they’re stuck with the overage and the lack of sales only drives up the price, if the store decides to stock it again. Not to mention that in a lot of places, the grocery truck only comes once a week, so if you’re not there on the first couple of days, the picked-over remainders look like crap.

Magister,

2 fine points, but I don’t see the corresponding “misconceptions” in my post.

@Tommy Christopher: That’s fair and perhaps “misconception” wasn’t the precise word, especially as it applies to your soup portion (the low sodium Campbell’s is nasty, btw). Though, once again, it may not be precise, but the reliance on canned and processed foods isn’t just limited to the poor and their children.

For instance on the island depicted with my avatar, the folks are pretty darn rich on a comparative basis, but there’s only about 700 of them in the off-season.

The local store stocks a very limited amount of meat and produce and it’s three hours (one way) to the closest place that would have a better and fresher selection. The situation is somewhat similar in Bar Harbor, one of the richest places in the country and it’s probably been a decade since I lived in Ptown, so things may have gotten better, but back then, you had to drive back down to the rotary to find a decent grocery.

I could just keep going on and on, but a thing I saw years ago (which I believe was from John Stossel) was about the poor diets in the inner cities because grocery stores wouldn’t locate there and speaking as someone who has enough money and who has a family of vegetarians, location and the general lack of variety in both produce and processed foods also has to be considered.

I mean, if the store only sells high-sodium Campbell’s and no fresh mushrooms whatsoever, you have to take what you can get, if you’d like soup.

Magister, you’ve brought up some interesting points and facts.

Please, I don’t mean this in a nasty way but it is the pithiest way to make my point: SO WHAT?

At what point do we say the problems that a small group of the population face, such as the amount of sodium and lack of access to alternatives, is not the Federal government’s problem nor should it be. We keep sliding faster and faster into the realm of the Feds being our Doting mama and Grammie who will move heaven and earth to make every little thing all better.

If the sodium content of prepared foods coupled with a lack of easy affordable alternatives is that important to anyone let them alter their location or food uses rather than unleash the weight of the Federal government to “solve” their problem with a sledgehammer to the system.

I skipped right by this thread at first b/c I figured none of it was my business except for myself.

Institute all the sodium regs and the next crusade will be even low sodium varieties are not as good for us as fresh, frozen or dried and we need the Feds to solve that problem. Where does it end?

@Grammie: As I said in my initial comment, I really haven’t formed an opinion, but out of respect for you, I’ve now read the linked articles and blogposts.

Primarily, I hadn’t formed an opinion because I just don’t care. Now, a few years ago, I started thinking about how we could devise a complex tax system based on the relative unhealthiness of processed foods to fund health care reform, but I forgot about it after a while and it would’ve proven to be regressive.

Still, I haven’t thought any more about potential salt regulations because I just don’t care. I’m not currently in any aspect of the food or food production business, so it wouldn’t directly affect me and now that I see the FDA is only considering embarking on a study in conjunction with industry, who apparently haven’t complained, I just see it as another government commission that may or may not actually produce any regulations. Though in the meantime and through study, they might give the industry some political cover.

As I said earlier, a lot of the low sodium products don’t taste as good and the Kraft guy says the same to the WaPo. Perhaps, if everyone reduces their sodium across the board, through voluntarily or satisfactory regulation, then all soups will be equally bad. And a quick Google, plus a run to my cupboard shows that mushroom soup has a shelflife of at least two years. Do we need that much backlog in the system or could it be reduced, which may add a little cost and would it be more palatable, if done industrywide?

Nonetheless, there’s no actual regulations proposed and they’re really just putting together a task force that will include industry, who will take years to develop some kind of plan.

IOW: Apparently the conservative blogs think they can make hay from the “Obama-overstepping” meme and though industry isn’t complaining and there’s nothing on the table except maybe naming the commission, budgeting for a couple of grants and a conference call before the end of the year… they needed a post and there’s a reliable audience to react.

@AnonymousFinch: I’ve expressed my opinion about this matter in my previous comments, but I’d like to add that if there’s a multi-year , national Eggo shortage because of planned upgrades to a plant in Tennessee and a surprise flood in Atlanta, then what constitutes interstate commerce, if not the production and distribution of packaged food?

Welcome to Codex Alimentarius! Stock up on your Flintsone vitamins, kiddies:)

This writer belongs well on the right of our polity, on the rational, enlightened, sensible right. The FDA policy has zero to do with politics, however: it is reasonable and in accord with government safety regulations, e.g., for power tool safety, the installation of electric wiring, or the ban on thalidomide.

How much sodium do many processed foods need for continuing preservation? How much sodium is added to suit the makers’ judgment of consumer taste preferences?. Apparently, the FDA believes the sodium levels are higher than required for safety, taste appeal. I believe the FDA plans call for a gradual lowering of sodium levels. Consumers’ taste preferences would change over time..

As this layman understands the matter, a healthy heart squeezes enough blood to the kidneys to enable them to process excess sodium; with a weaker heart, the sodium remains, tissues fill with water, the body swells, and the weak heart has to work harder. So cutting sodium levels would be good not only for people with heart failure, but also for many other people. If my understanding above is correct, then it rational that high sodium levels make the kidneys work harder than perhaps they should.

Americans have way too much salt and sodium in their diets and in heir processed foods. And that’s a fact one doesn’t need a specialized degree to discover or evaluate.

Beside rudeness and stupidity in dealings with the leaders of friendly foreign nations, especially Israel, or closing his eyes and abdicating responsibility for protecting the Arizona border from invasion (albeit mostly peaceful) from the south, our demagogic President has pursued many an injurious policy. So has his government and its agencies, notably the EPA.

But this FDA decision is sound and stands apart from the government’s many appalling blunders, failures, and errors. I am antigovernment only in the sense that this government is dirigiste (more than socialist, though it’s that, too) , incompetent, and irresponsible and must be replaced at the ballot box for the sake of the children, and everyone else, too. The FDA decision would be an instance of government working properly on behalf of the people.

Hmmm . . . as I and a friend of mine have found – we suffer from low blood pressure – we can’t get enough salt. As for the original article, yes, canning anything requires huge amounts of sodium as a preservative, and as others have implied, people prefer salty products. As for low-income purchasers of canned products, yes, they could buy fresh, but having been “low-income” at times (including now), fresh veggies go bad too quickly, so I end up wasting what little money I have for vegetables to begin with. Frozen? Well, that works – unless you periodically have your electricity cut off due to non-payment of the bill. Canned food keeps. Why is it that people seem to assume that companies engaging in food production want to kill their customers? I remember a Frontline episode about beef – grass-fed vs. corn-fed – in which one of the interviewees actually said that corn-fed beef producers were knowingly killing their product’s consumers . . . not a good business plan. And I wouldn’t assume the FDA bureaucrats’ wisdom as someone above does given that a NYC legislator is trying to ban all salt use at restaurants through legislation (and yes, the chefs were complaining). It isn’t right-wing or left-wing to wonder at what point well-meaning government regulation becomes too much. If you believe that commercial interests pervert our governance, while the “good guys” may be in charge at the moment, eventually there will also be a “bad guy”, and when that person is given access to levers to control what we do at such a personal level, will you really be glad that the full weight and force of the federal government was given this kind of power?

Why is this even a discussion? Oh, wait, the phonies at FOX have decided it’s an issue and we all must follow.

The feds have food inspectors that try to keep us from dying. Apparently this offends conservatives.

That’s the reason they want to regulate the amount of salt in processed foods – to save our lives. It is what the FDA does (or tries to do).

Now please, conservatives, go back to being hypocrites by asking the gov’t to militarize the US borders.