New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, fresh from the front lines of the trans fats and calorie-counting wars
is turning to face a new foe: salt. As the health crusader aims to reduce salt in packaged and restaurant foods
measures, old opponents and familiar allies are turning out: vexed
restaurateurs, anti-nanny staters, public health fans, and study-wielding skeptics.
- Hooray for Nannies Calling Bloomberg "New York City's Yenta-in Chief," David Kramer blogs that "now my surrogate
Jewish mother has decided that the 'high' salt content in my food is
not good for me either--so he's about to start one of his Soviet-style
campaigns to lower the salt content in food served in privately-owned
- Not Even Scientific "Never mind," gripes the New York Post, "that salt has important properties that preserve and stabilize food, and its sodium
ions help maintain the fluid in human blood cells.
Forget that the body does not manufacture its own sodium ions so there
has to be some salt in everyone's diet." Across a number of sites,
folks on the comments boards have been complaining about the questionable science of salt intake activism. Dan Mitchell at The Big Money adds that "there are potential hazards with a program like this, voluntary
or not. Just for starters, some people react badly to a reduction in
their salt intake." He thinks "a better approach with salt would be a public-education campaign." Meanwhile New York Magazine's Daniel Maurer highlights the opinion of the American Journal of Hypertension: "They want to do an experiment on a whole population without a good control ... That's not science."
- Great Idea, says The American Prospect's Monica Potts, who argues that, in fact, "this is a far more straightforward way of reducing the dangerously high amounts of sodium Americans now consume than launching a massive public education campaign. It also highlights the real problem: People aren't consuming too much
salt because they're lazy or stupid, but because there's too much salt
in the food available."
- Quit Complaining "You can support these efforts or oppose them as paternalist overreach," says The Washington Post's Ezra Klein,
"but Bloomberg is one of the few politicians in the country who has
decided to make public health--as opposed to health-care coverage, or
health-care costs--a major feature of his administration." Adds Dan Mitchell: "Unless you are a wild-eyed libertarian, it's hard to dispute that
diet-caused illnesses like heart disease and diabetes are public-health
issues that can legitimately be addressed by government."
- Pretty Reasonable "We view these as achievable goals," says a Subway representative as reported by Daniel Maurer,
who also chronicles restaurant associations' skepticism. "A very
realistic set of criteria," responds an A&P food stores
representative.For The Atlantic, nutritionist Marion Nestle calls this "actually a modest proposal. We still have a long way to go."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
hhorn at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.