Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 23, 2010

Because salt is such a killer, it ought to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the Institute of Medicine.

After all, life is so delicate and precious.

Yet, destroying an unborn human life is somehow a woman’s absolute right; and her ability to do so, on demand, should be protected.

Salt can lead to strokes, high blood pressure and heart disease and should therefore be subjected to FDA restrictions (i.e., what the federal government says). Abortions, by contrast, are an act of homicide against the innocent … and government has no right to interfere with that choice.

Interesting logic.

So, if I own a food processing plant, or a restaurant, and I want to make my chicken francese to be on the salty side because I, and my customers, enjoy it that way, I won’t be able to prepare it without first checking to see if it passes the government smell test (or should I say “taste” test?). That’s because too much salt kills millions and millions of innocent people each and every day, and unless the government steps in, more will die. 

In fact, everyone will die.

As we’ve come to find out during the first fifteen months of the Messianic Age, government always knows best.

And yet, if I have a sixteen year old daughter who gets pregnant, she should have the right, without my permission, to have that baby scraped out of her uterus on demand. That, I’m told, is an issue of “reproductive rights” and “privacy” and “health care.”

Yeah, okay.

(I know it’s difficult to make heads or tails of these things without a Liberal/English dictionary).

And so, the war against salt moves forward.

From Fox News:

U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits.

The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources.

U.S. researchers said in a recent study that working with the food industry to cut salt intake by nearly 10 percent could prevent hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and strokes over several decades and save the U.S. government $32 billion in healthcare costs.

… and banning automobiles will prevent 45,000 deaths on America’s roadways. And regulating Twinkies, Ring Dings and other packaged snack cakes will contribute to slimming down America’s waistlines. And restricting loud music through headphones will cut back on the number of people who wind up hearing impaired. And banning sex for people with arrhythmias will help cut back the number of people who come and go at the same time. And banning swimming pools will dramatically cut down on the number of accidental drownings. And placing an embargo on stepladders will keep the number of cranium-crunching spills to a minimum. And restricting sleep will significantly reduce the number of sleep-apnea deaths. And doing away with electricity will prevent an incalculable number of bathtub electrocutions.

The beat goes on …

And while this may not be the time to go debunking long-held beliefs, there are credible studies that suggest salt is not the killer it is cracked up to be.

In 2008, the Journal of General Internal Medicine published a study called “Sodium Intake and Mortality Follow-Up in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.”

As summarized at Scientific Blogging:

High-salt diets may not increase the risk of death, contrary to long-held medical beliefs, according to investigators from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.

They reached their conclusion after examining dietary intake among a nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. The Einstein researchers actually observed a significantly increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with lower sodium diets.

“Our findings suggest that for the general adult population, higher sodium is very unlikely to be independently associated with higher risk of death from CVD or all other causes of death,” says Dr. Hillel W. Cohen, associate professor of epidemiology and population health at Einstein.

The ultimate goal of nanny-staters, big-government meddlers and thwarters of liberty, presumably, is to do away with death altogether.

For many human beings, “life” isn’t simply the act of being physically alive. The ability for one to choose how to live their own life – to make decisions for themselves, to enjoy their own little pleasures, such as eating what they want – is “life.” Indeed, there are big-government nanny-staters who prize their own versions of “life” so much – free of risk, free of salt, free of fat, free of God, free of smoke, whatever – that they feel their choices should be everyone’s choices. Sure, they insist that the freedom to choose is a good thing … as long as the all-knowing, all-feeling, all-sensing federal government sets the parameters.

That isn’t life.

My father-in-law, as an example, dropped dead at the age of 61 of a heart attack. He was hard-working farmer who called himself an unabashed steak and potatoes man. He enjoyed “real” food. He was not a pâté and crackers kind of guy. He didn’t do salads and fruit cups. He liked meat. And if given the option of living another twenty years on a diet of low-sodium baked salmon, spinach salads and sugar-free lemon jello, he’d have taken the steak and the 61 years without blinking an eye. To him, life wasn’t life if he couldn’t enjoy the little things that gave him pleasure – like food. He made his choices. For him, eighty unhappy years would not have been more desirable than sixty happy ones.

We are all free to make such choices … or we should be.

Besides, knowing that smokers generally don’t live as long as non-smokers, and taking into account that obese people generally live shorter lives than thinner people, and understanding that the overwhelming vast majority of human beings who do live long lives – including the most healthy among us – will eventually require health care and medications toward the end of their days (and will collect more social security than those who die younger), what exactly is the real benefit of having the heavy hand of government telling people how much salt they can use in their pasta sauces?

Why is all this necessary? And what is next? Does anyone honestly believe that government will stop with salt?

Remember, the loss of liberty is incremental .. and getting it back once it’s gone is a bitch.

Informing the public is one thing – and I’m all for that.

Controlling it is another.

wordpress statistics


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: