Nanny State Run Amok in NY

At first I thought this had to be an Onion headline. Sadly it is not.

Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking.

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

Felix Ortiz is a officious prig and an ass. Not surprisingly, he's also a Democrat. 

Steve Verdon explains:

[I]s salt necessary for some cooking? Yes.

Salt is probably the most important seasoning in cooking. On its own, or when used to deliberately make something taste salty, salt’s flavor is quite distinct. But salt can also enhance the flavors of other ingredients without calling attention to itself. A light seasoning with salt can bring out flavor, smooth out bitterness, and make foods taste not salty, but more like themselves.

Salt also affects the way foods look and smell. Salt will help to preserve the green color in cooked vegetables when added to the cooking water. It has the same effect on cauliflower, keeping it from yellowing. Salt intensifies aromas, making them more apparent.

Pickling salt is used to enhance the flavor of pickles. It is simply table salt without the additives that can turn a pickling liquid cloudy. If you can’t find it, you can use table salt or sea salt, as long as it doesn’t have any additives.

Adding a pinch of salt to eggs is standard culinary practice, because the chemical reaction of salt with the fats and emulsifiers causes the egg to break down and smooth out quickly, making it more apt to combine with other ingredients.

Salt is an important ingredient in bread making. It adds taste, and inhibits yeast production, thus preserving the bread. It also contributes to the texture, having a toughening effect on gluten. However, salt, being a yeast inhibitor should never be added directly to the dissolved yeast.

Salt is an important ingredient in marinades. It draws the water out of the food being marinated, helping to concentrate the flavor of the food.

In other words, you will no longer be able to eat fresh baked bread in your favorite restaurant. No more pizza dough where the dough is made on the premises. The vegetables will look less appealing as well. And taste will likely be adversely impacted and I’m willing to bet that the typical response by most people will be to…add salt.

This article demonstrates what a blithering idiot Ortiz is, by the way, in Ortiz’ case does the D stand for Dimwit? If I were a Democrat I’d want this guy booted from the party.

Ortiz admits that prior to introducing the bill he did not research salt’s role in food chemistry, its effect on flavor or his bill’s ramifications for the restaurant industry. He tells me he was prompted to introduce the bill because his father used salt excessively for many years, developed high blood pressure and had a heart attack.

“I think salt should be banned in restaurants. I ask if a dish has salt in it, and if I does, I get something else that doesn’t have salt,” Ortiz tells me, before going on to say that he has eaten, and expects he will continue to eat, among other things, ham, cheese and bread in restaurants, all of which contain salt.

How about baking soda or baking powder? Those are types of salt, unless I’m mistaken. And what about MSG, no more Chinese restaurants either.

“That [bill is] insane,” says Christopher Allen Tanner, a culinary professor at Schenectady County Community College in Schenectady. “You can’t make hams without salt, you can’t make bacon without salt,” he tells me. “There would be no pickles, no relishes, no — no just about everything.”

Comments

[Allan]

Apparently, Assemblyman Ortiz has or knows someone who has hypertension and he is trying to pass the condition on to you.

[Carlos]

The NYS Assembly looks like the one you will find in a third world country. Who to blame? I don't know perhaps the lack of involvment of honest, decent, educated people with principles. Impossible to fix it unless there is some military coup.

[Brian The Adequate]

Salt is not just a flavoring agent in many recipes it is also required chemically, particularly for baking. The upshot of this (if passed) would make fresh baked bread illegal in restuarants. Possibly (though unlikely) even make bread illegal in the whole state, depending on how the law interprets what constitues a "restaurant".

You should add that Assemblyman Ortiz is a moron as well as a prig-n-ass.

[David Welker]

Professor Bainbridge,

(1) The bill, if the portion you quoted is the essential core of it, is obviously overkill. Especially since some level of sodium and chloride, the components of table salt, are actually necessary for survival.

(2) Americans consume more salt than is healthy. Over consumption of salt increases the risk of heart disease, which kills more than 450,000 Americans a year. These are real people. My mother died of heart disease at the age of 42 when I was 11. She was a real person, and not merely a statistic.

It seems to me, that there are potentially huge benefits to taking actions that reduce the incidence of heart disease.

(3) That a complete ban is overkill does not imply that regulating the level of salt that restaurants use would be overkill. Here in America, we love salt. I remember on my trip to Spain, the food they served tasted positively bland to me. I am not sure why that is; perhaps they do not use as much salt. I really did not like it. However, it is likely my tastes would change if the food I was accustomed to eating was different. After all, people in Spain obviously like the food that they voluntarily choose to make for themselves. That is. my love for salty food is likely large a function of what I am accustomed to eating based on the culture I grew up in, rather than a fixed preference. If that is right, the costs of reducing the level of salt that restaurants use might have the positive effect of helping shape short-term impulsive desires into greater alignment with long-term interests. Sounds like a good thing to me.

(4) I do not think it counts as a serious argument to call someone you disagree with names. One can and should express strong disagreement in a respectful manner. Reflecting on my own actions, I haven't always been as civil as I should have been. I think you also could reflect on whether you really should be calling people "officious prigs," "asses," or, in the case of students concerned about their own and others educations, "whiners."

(5) There is a long tradition of calling people who want to take actions to protect people "paternalists" or "officious prigs." I have a few responses to this.

First, recognizing the limitations of human nature does not make you a "paternalist." I know I should eat in a more healthful manner. I believe this very firmly. However, I often fail. I am determined to keep on trying, but it is never going to be easy. Now this may be partially an individual responsibility, but my efforts to be disciplined are not helped by commercials that make me crave fast food, which is positively delicious or by restaurants loading up on salts or fatty foods, which have the effect of making me crave these things further. Basically, my diet is partially affected by the decisions of those around me. If I were a perfect person, this would not be true. But I am not a perfect person. And either are you. I happen to believe we should make public policy for how people actually are, not how we wish them to be.

Second, calling someone "paternalistic," or an "officious prig," or "whiners" isn't really a rational argument is it? Aren't such statements really more emotional attacks, designed to marginalize those with whom you disagree with rather than engage in rational discourse? I think people can rationally disagree about the question of the extent to which we should design policy that takes into account how people really are rather than how we wish they were. I will even say that there is a respectable argument that should sometimes win that we should design policies that reflect how we want people to be, rather than accommodate their flaws, in order to encourage people to be more disciplined, more effective, and better. But that argument shouldn't always win, should it? Some people think communism is a great idea, except for the fact that it fails to take into account how people really are. Sometimes policy is just going to have to take into account that people are not perfect.

Wouldn't a rational discourse engage these sorts of questions, rather than engage in name-calling designed to marginalize those you disagree with?

[Marco]

That's odd, David. My wife and I actually liked Spanish food but found it a bit more salty than we were used to. We visited Madrid, Cordoba, Sevilla, Granada, and nearby areas. Perhaps you visited other parts of Spain and this is due to regional differences?

Marco

[Mauro Mello Jr.]

David said:

1. "I happen to believe we should make public policy for how people actually are, not how we wish them to be."

What the assemblyman is attempting to do is to make people like he wish them to be.

2. People in Spain "like the food that they voluntarily choose to make for themselves".

'Voluntarily' is the operative word. No one is attempting to tell them how to prepare their paellas. Those who don't like the way they are prepared can always find options elsewhere. I think this would be the case, too, in New York and just about anywhere else (at least where people are free to choose).

3. "the costs of reducing the level of salt that restaurants use might have the positive effect of helping shape short-term impulsive desires into greater alignment with long-term interests"

Whose or what 'long-term interests'? It is convenient to refer to the notion of the welfare or the greater interest of society at large - or altruism - when pushing one's own interests or - very likely - exercising the power to order others around.

4. "Basically, my diet is partially affected by the decisions of those around me."

a) It is ultimately your decision.

b) Your inability to choose without being impacted by the choices others make is not an excuse to remove everyone else's ability to choose how they eat.

We could go on...

[David Welker]

Hi Marco,

That may be the case. We did not spend a huge amount of time in cities, as we were hiking along the Spanish portion of the Camino de Santiago. So, a lot of the time, we were in the country side. But if I recall correctly, even the food in the cities we did go to (with the exception of Barcelona) tended toward the bland side for my tastes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_St._James

One thing I remember is that, with the exception of one restaurant in Barcelona (that was run by a Mexican American) they did not do Mexican food very well in Spain, as it was much too bland for my taste.

[David Welker]

Mauro Mello Jr.,

A few quick responses:

(1) I do not agree with a policy of banning salts. I would agree with a policy of limiting them in restaurants. And, it is not about changing human nature, it is about acknowledging human nature and enabling people to eat healthily according to their long-term interests. It is within the bounds of human nature for people to eat healthily; it is not within it for them to be perfect.

(2) "Voluntary" is not the operative word. Individuals in Spain did not choose their culture, they were born into it. I am talking about taking actions to shape our culture, something I have a right to advocate for. I am not advocating banning salt. If you want to take buckets of salt and eat it, go right ahead.

(3) Whose long-term interests? Please. This is not a hard concept. If you die of heart disease at a young age because you eat too much salt, your short-term impulse to eat too much salt is in conflict with our long-term interest to have a normal lifespan. It doesn't get much more basic than that. You sound like some sort of post-modern nihilist to me, if you do not think we can talk about living a healthy life for a normal modern lifespan as a nearly universal long-term interest.

(4) It is not MY inability to make decisions about what to eat without being partially influenced by others. It is OUR inability to make decisions without being partially influenced. Look around. Do you see an increase in obesity? There is one, and it is quite serious. Maybe you are some extraordinary individual who happens to live in a bubble, but for the rest of us, we are susceptible to being influenced by others. And public policy should emphatically be made to benefit the vast majority of individuals, not bizarre outliers.

(5) You may be able to go on. But the question is, could you make any halfway decent arguments?

[Mauro Mello Jr.]

The conversation is not about an individual's culture, outliers or attaining perfection.

The matter of this debate was much more eloquently exposed a long time ago, although, very unfortunately, we have not heeded the warning it contained...

"The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder."—Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiment, 1759, paragraph VI.II.42.

Over and out.

[David Welker]

Mauro Mello,

You think you can use that quote from Adam Smith to argue against regulating salt intake. Consider this quote from the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I:

"But a coward, a man incapable either of defending or of revenging himself, evidently wants one of the most essential parts of the character of a man. He is as much mutilated and deformed in his mind as another is in his body, who is either deprived of some of its most essential members, or has lost the use of them. He is evidently the more wretched and miserable of the two; because happiness and misery, which reside altogether in the mind, must necessarily depend more upon the healthful or unhealthful, the mutilated or entire state of the mind, than upon that of the body. Even though the martial spirit of the people were of no use towards the defence of the society, yet, to prevent that sort of mental mutilation, deformity, and wretchedness, which cowardice necessarily involves in it, from spreading themselves through the great body of the people, would still deserve the most serious attention of government; in the same manner as it would deserve its most serious attention to prevent a leprosy, or any other loathsome and offensive disease, though neither mortal nor dangerous, from spreading itself among them; though, perhaps, no other public good might result from such attention, besides the prevention of so great a public evil."

So, what is Adam Smith saying here. The the government should pay "serious attention" to fostering the attribute of courage in individuals, EVEN IF this does not contribute to the national defense. Preventing the "great evil" of cowardice itself from spreading amongst the population is justification enough for "serious attention" to that problem.

Lets thing logically for a moment. If cowardice is a "great evil" then surely so is heart disease or unhealthy levels of salt consumption that leads to heart disease.

It seems quite clear that the principles that Adam Smith advocated would leave plenty of room for government to direct "serious attention" to prevent the "great evil" of heart disease (which kills over 450,000 Americans per year) from spreading amongst society, even though NO OTHER PUBLIC GOOD arises or results.

What this means is just this. If you are actually going to make a serious argument against actions intended to make it easier for people to make wiser dietary choices, you are going to have to address the specifics of the policy. If you want to go by the principles of Adam Smith, this is certainly a playing field where you will be defeated. To regulate salt intake in restaurants is not to try to comprehensively regulate the lives of individuals (you can eat buckets and buckets of salt if you want to -- I would even be fine if you poured the whole salt shaker on a meal that you ate in the restaurant) nor is it going to create "the highest degree of disorder" in society.

As a compromise, I would even go so far as to allow the restaurant to serve high salt versions of its dishes. But this should be only done if SPECIFICALLY requested by the consumer. If the consumer does not make a specific request for an unhealthy level of salt, then restaurants should be required to prepare their meals with a healthy level of salt.

If you are going to argue that encouraging individuals to consume salt at healthy levels (and requiring restaurants to change their behavior to help with that goal) is an inappropriate action for government, you aren't going to get any help from Adam Smith. Maybe you should choose a different political philosopher?

[Choir de Law Pvt. Ltd.]

Salt does not only help enhance the taste of food but it also has a lot of other properties. It also is essential for preservation of food. If we trace history the importance of salt can be realized from the fact that trade in salt was was always a very important, and salt was valuable enough to be used as currency in some areas. Salt was taxed by governments from the ancient Chinese and Romans to late medieval Burgundy, where salt was taxed at more than 100% as it came from the salt-work
Importance of salt in history was much greater in the past than it is today, when salt is cheap and ubiquitous. Salt was often as important for food storage as it was as a direct nutrient.
The sodium contained in salt is an essential nutrient that allows an organism to maintain it's ionic balance and to retain water to keep hydrated. Without salt we would dehydrate.

[Duracomm]

David Welker is such a magnanimous wanna be tyrant.

As a compromise, I would even go so far as to allow the restaurant to serve high salt versions of its dishes.

So who defines high salt content? And how does that get expressed in regulatory language?

It doesn't in any kind of common sense way.

[David Welker]

Choir de Law Pvt. Ltd.,

I agree that salt is essential for life and was once an essential preservative. Interestingly, salt historically was traded for gold.

I think I already mentioned that both Sodium and Chloride, the contents of common table salt, are essential to life.

Notwithstanding that, in America, the problem for the vast majority is not too little salt in their diets, but too much. Banning salt altogether is ridiculous. Reducing intake is brilliant.

Duracomm,

Calling someone a tyrant is an ad hominen attack, not an argument. You can disagree without being disagreeable, right?

To answer your substantive question, the "how much" question is a scientific question that can be answered by those who devote their careers to public health.

[Duracomm]

David Welker,

My comment was not an ad hominen it was an accurate description of your position.

Your follow up sentence shows you are clueless regarding the difficulty in developing reasonable science based salt rules and the inevitable negative unintended consequences that will result from these rules.

[David Welker]

Duracomm,

(1)
We will have to agree to disagree about what is an ad hominen attack. It doesn't really bother me. Sticks and stones and all that. If it provides some sort of emotional release to call me names, go ahead. It isn't going to change my opinion though.

(2)
Saying the magical phrase "unintended consequences" isn't an argument unless you get more specific. Every action and inaction has unintended consequences, positive and negative. Putting up a traffic light (or not putting up a traffic light) on the corner of 3rd St. and 6th Ave. is going to have unintended consequences. The question from a policy perspective is what those are likely to be.

(3)
I am glad that you care about public policy. It sure beats apathy. I think you could be a little more polite to those you disagree with though. This will be the last thing I say in this thread. I hope you have a good day.