The Way I See It - Don’t Eat That!

Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 4:59 am  //  Ham Hayes

I have been unable to verify that Texas’ famous Salt Lick BBQ restaurant in Dripping Springs has been closed by a government agency. This totally unfounded story comes quickly on the heels of fabricated rumors about New York restaurants. Travelers to Chicago, D.C. and Atlanta are unlikely to have heard that New York’s fine dining establishments may begin issuing off-the-menu salt options. Patrons could be asked to call ahead to specify their preferred entrée. Maitres d could then give verbal instructions on how many additional grams of salt the patron would need to bring with them to elevate their meal to culinary standards. These salt options would not be available by mail or Internet for fear they would violate New York's newly passed dietary laws. Calling ahead would also avoid embarrassing high-profile salt offenders who might otherwise use the table salt shaker too liberally.

We humans need salt, but not too much. Government officials and public health professionals have stated that excessive salt intake is hazardous to our health.

Stealth salt reduction programs in the United Kingdom and the United States have existed for a number of years. Government-corporate combinations have been gradually reducing the levels of salt in our food without publicity, obviously afraid of consumer overreaction and even, of all things, possible Salt Parties. Let’s face it, S**t is now a four letter word, where ** stands for "al" of course.

Social consequences of secret government and corporate programs can be high. These consequences can even have cultural impacts. So far, there isn’t a drum beat to rename S**t Lake City to “Crossroads to the West." Merriam Webster and Wikipedia haven’t declared plans to change their entries for “S**t” to “Sodium Chloride” or “NaCl.” But only time will tell. Even our language is in danger of major impact. Phrases such as “Worth one’s s**t,” and “Old S**t” (an ancient mariner), and the more esoteric “Not worth a lick,” could be expunged from everyday conversation. And considering other social impacts, is New York City moving toward a ban of the famous gin (or vodka) drink, the “S**ty Dog” because of its extremely high “NaCl” content?

Industry and media reactions are also predictable. Media headlines already include “S**t Reduction Creates Game of Chicken,” and “The New Enemy: S**t.” Food giants such as Campbell Soup and ConAgra are cautious in their response, while the S**t Institute says “absurd” and questions the science behind the s**t policies and benefits of government mandated programs. We should expect to see s**t lobbyists appear in Washington’s corridors. Will the “s**t crisis” in New York move healthcare off the front page?

Other fears are that the government may go beyond control or elimination of certain foods such as transfats and s**t. Our favorite taxpayer-owned agencies may go so far as to insert additives. This might be favored by the hemp industry, but certainly is not true otherwise, or is it? As a result of food additive disclosure laws, we know lots of substances are added by food producers. But what about the government itself? Would it, for example, go so far as to insert mood stabilizers into our diet?

Other possible effects of s**t regulation could include the development of whole new industries. Tourist flights to s**t spas could flourish. If the government decides to crack down on s**t shakers, new businesses, some likely to be run by anarchists and organized crime, would move to produce personal items with hidden s**t chambers. The new “white gold” might become s**t. You know, it once was.

In truth, stay away from excessive s**t. It can be very hazardous to your health. But how far do we want our governent to further control what we eat? Public health policy can be tremendously beneficial to us and mandatory programs may be required in emergencies. On the other hand, I suggest meaningful education programs and truth-in-content labeling as a better approach to mandatory regulation, especially over the long term. Imagine what it would do for your sense of well-being, and the changes it would make in the food industry, if that piece of beef or chicken had to be labeled with its level of antibiotics. If we want our population to become totally dependent on the government for what we put into our stomachs, why not just institute feeding stations? Walk up, plug in and get your rations. I don’t think it is a good idea for our citizens to give up the responsibility for watching what they eat. In fact, it would probably be better if they took more responsibility. That would be good for their bodies and their souls.

Related Links: