Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the salty-tale dept.

The FDA is asking food makers and eating establishments to voluntarily reduce salt levels in their products to help reduce Americans' high salt intake.

The draft guidelines target these sources of salt with the goal of reducing Americans' average daily salt intake from 3,400 milligrams (mg) a day to 2,300 mg a day.

[...] Currently, 90 percent of American adults consume more salt than recommended, the FDA pointed out.

[...] The public has until the fall to comment on the FDA's voluntary salt guidelines for food manufacturers and restaurants.

The FDA claims that people can always add more salt to their food, which is true, but they ignore that salt changes how food is cooked and adding salt to the surface of food affects taste differently than when it is evenly distributed.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=197193

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_salt


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:59AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:59AM (#380646) Journal

    Scientific consensus changes with further research. Doesn't mean all research is "different" or that the scientific consensus is a "fad". All I am asking for is specifics, not some kind of vaxxer argument!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:31AM (#380654)

    Doesn't mean all research is "different" or that the scientific consensus is a "fad".

    Too bad that scientific consensus of a time may end indistinguishable from as a fad, however amount of honest work is poured in that research - that's inherently linked with the human limitations, can't get around them.

    And it's also true that some sciences are more prone to quasi-fads, especially those sciences which need to rely mainly on observations rather the experiments (astrophysics, weather, anything that relates with socials).
    I'll let this [xkcd.com] for you as an exercise in grokking - set aside the humour and feel the reason there's a grain of truth in there

    (epistemology - by no means a science itself, you already know that, but at least it organizes a bit the view over science).