# New candidate for dumbest law ever...



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

New York Assembly bill proposal A10129 states:



> 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 "in any form" part can be construed to include any ingredient that already contains salt, such as soy or hot sauce, eggs, cured meat, etc... And to make things worse, it's a crime against the state, rather than a person, so a proprietor could be convicted/punished *even if no one ever complained*.


----------



## Richard in W.Orange (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm not sure dumbest is right...its more like WORST WRITTEN


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

I went to the link hoping that the quote was just a small part of the proposal, but it actually is a bill to prohibit the use of salt in restaurant food.

I assume from the wording that customers will still be allowed to use salt from containers on the table.

I wonder what the impetus of this was? Peanuts I can understand, but salt?

Mike


----------



## loca (Jan 3, 2010)

Too many of these in our world.


----------



## vermontcathy (Feb 18, 2009)

So.... no bread? (most bread has salt in it)

Must be a legislator trying to make a point. There's no way this will pass, and they know it. Many many recipes will taste awful with zero salt.


----------



## austenfiend (Nov 17, 2009)

Government at work....


----------



## Jen (Oct 28, 2008)

I think it's probably based on the fact that Americans eat too much salt, and it leads to blood presure issues, heart problems, obesity, etc - they're probably just trying to limit the amount of salt put into the food before it hits our plates. I doubt it means _no_ salt, just added salt. 
I personally think this is a great idea. It'll make them be more creative about how to season food if they can't just dump a gallon of salt into it!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

This would be great for my sister-in-law who is on a no-salt diet, but is definitely poorly written.

Betsy


----------



## Neo (Mar 30, 2009)

No more bacon for breakfast/brunch?


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Jen said:


> I think it's probably based on the fact that Americans eat too much salt, and it leads to blood presure issues, heart problems, obesity, etc


The only danger in eating too much salt is for people who have sodium-induced hypertension, which is an infinitesimally small portion of the population, and the minority among all those who have some type of hypertension. Normal healthy people could chop up and eat an entire salt lick with no ill effects (though they'd be damn thirsty! )



Jen said:


> I doubt it means _no_ salt, just added salt.


How can "No salt...in any form" be interpreted as "just use less"?



Jen said:


> I personally think this is a great idea. It'll make them be more creative about how to season food if they can't just dump a gallon of salt into it!


Then pick restaurants that don't use salt. Don't make the rest of us suffer. Have you ever tasted food prepared with zero salt? Below is a short list of the literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of foods that literally cannot be properly prepared without "added" salt:

Bread
Ice Cream
Cookies
Pasta
Soup
cured meat of any kind
smoked salmon

It's fine if some people want to eat less salt. But banning a REQUIRED NUTRIENT (two actually, since most of us only get iodine through table salt) because a few people don't like it is beyond stupid.


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

Thinking up laws like this? Your tax dollars at work.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

geko29 said:


> Below is a short list of the literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of foods that literally cannot be properly prepared without "added" salt:
> 
> Bread
> Ice Cream
> ...


I guess "properly prepared" is a matter of taste. I can't remember the last time I used salt in my cookies or in preparing the pasta. My husband and I don't cook much with salt unless it's already in the items we're using and I seldom salt my food, except popcorn and hardboiled eggs. Most things we eat out taste way too salty to us. Not saying I think it needs a law, mind you....

Betsy


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I guess "properly prepared" is a matter of taste. I can't remember the last time I used salt in my cookies or in preparing the pasta.


Taste is part of it, but not everything. They need it for different reasons. Pasta dough can quite easily be made without salt (in fact, most recipes don't call for it at all), but it's almost impossible to cook it properly without salt, because the boiling temperature of water is too low. You could add antifreeze to the water and achieve the same result as salting it, but that might change the taste a little bit. 

As for cookies, I think Macaroons are about the only ones I've seen that don't require salt as a basic part of the recipe (some call for a "pinch", but I haven't seen one with a measure). You don't need a lot, but it performs several duties--its usual one of enhancing existing flavors, as well as taking the edge off the sweetness. And it tightens the dough so it's not so mushy and difficult to work with/bake properly.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

All I can say is, my cookies and pasta taste fine to me and seem to cook fine!    I guess I'm not particular enough....

Betsy


----------



## JennaAnderson (Dec 25, 2009)

No margaritas too! The customer would have a very hard time putting salt on the rim after the glass is full. 

Jenna


----------



## Jen (Oct 28, 2008)

WOW geko, you really did not need to be such a jerk about it!  I didn't realize this was so personal to you.  Actually, an abundance of salt is bad for ALL diets.  Unless you're a dietician - which is who told me this - I think I'll take her word for it instead of yours.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

I wasn't intending to be a jerk about it, so I apologize if you were offended.  I do admittedly take it personally when people attempt to pass laws to make others conform to their own choices, especially when other people's decisions in that same arena have zero effect on them.  Whether it's banning fat, salt, alcohol, guns, or gay marriage; or requiring health insurance, helmets, or any other thing, it's none of the government's business.  That's the source of my problem.  But again, I apologize for any offense.

FWIW, I am not a dietician myself, but my best friend's wife is.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Wasn't this in the movie Judge Dread or soemthing? I seem to recall some movie set in the future, where one of the new laws (to the guy who had been in stasis of some sort) was a no salt law.


----------



## Sariy (Jan 18, 2009)

I would think if there is no salt used in the prep of the food, most people will over use the salt on the table to make it taste the way the like it/think it should taste.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

geko29 said:


> New York Assembly bill proposal A10129 states:
> 
> the "in any form" part can be construed to include any ingredient that already contains salt, such as soy or hot sauce, eggs, cured meat, etc... And to make things worse, it's a crime against the state, rather than a person, so a proprietor could be convicted/punished *even if no one ever complained*.


Actually as the "letter" of this law, as written, would outlaw most foods. It does not say "added salt". Most chemicals (everthing you can touch is a chemical, by the way*) occur naturally in "salt forms". Salt means negative and positive charged ions combined into a molecule that is then neutral. If you break down your food into its component chemicals it will be made of various salts.

Sodium glutamate, tyrosine phosphate, etc.

You cannot sell much food that is not made of salts. They will need to specify "sodium chloride salt" or table salt. If not they may inadvertently make food illegal.

Nevertheless I think its a stupid rule. I'm a physician, and the idea is moderation. If I want to go out to eat and have a salty meal once in a while and I don't have hypertension or CHF, then that should not be a crime. I don't want to go out to a restaurant and pay for an expensive meal that tastes like what I make at home, or worse. This is Nanny state thinking to the extreme. Teach people moderation and overall healthy diets....don't outlaw salt.

ridiculous.

* I had a chem professor with a standing $100 offer to any student who could physically place something in her hand that was not composed of chemicals. She never paid...


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

Jen said:


> I think it's probably based on the fact that Americans eat too much salt, and it leads to blood presure issues, heart problems, obesity, etc - they're probably just trying to limit the amount of salt put into the food before it hits our plates. I doubt it means _no_ salt, just added salt.
> I personally think this is a great idea. It'll make them be more creative about how to season food if they can't just dump a gallon of salt into it!


I have to disagree. I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't eat. We need LESS government, not more.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

BTackitt said:


> Wasn't this in the movie Judge Dread or soemthing? I seem to recall some movie set in the future, where one of the new laws (to the guy who had been in stasis of some sort) was a no salt law.


I think that was Demolition Man, the exact quote being something like "Anything not good for you is bad, and hence, illegal."


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

geko29 said:


> I think that was Demolition Man, the exact quote being something like "Anything not good for you is bad, and hence, illegal."


ok, another movie I have only seen once.. I knew I had seen it.. I just remember the guy sitting down to eat something, looking for the salt and being told salt was illegal.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Jen said:


> I doubt it means _no_ salt, just added salt.


That's the difficulty with drafting laws. You can't assume people will know what you meant to say when you wrote it.

As written that law would clearly outlaw any salt in the food the cook put on your plate, whether it occured naturally in the plant or animal or was added later. 1 picogram of salt = illegal?


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

Hmmm...if a law like this passed in CA, could I then sue the state for discrimination, since I actually NEED extra salt? Hmmm...


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Since you live in the Land of the Illogical....that would probably work


----------



## loca (Jan 3, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Since you live in the Land of the Illogical....that would probably work


Don't we all live in the land of illogical? The whole world is backwards.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

true...but I usually think California leads the way....no offense, of course.   The weather on the other hand is way better there!


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Salt is used in Australia to combat iodine deficiency.  There are many foods that require salt. Let alone foods in which salt is naturally occurring.  We need some "salt" for naturally occurring biological process to occur in our bodies. I wonder when people will work it out that it is the amount of food that people eat.

When we travelled to the US we were gobsmacked at the amount of food that comprised a meal.  And chips or hashbrowns, even for breakfast.  We just werent made to eat such huge portions.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> * I had a chem professor with a standing $100 offer to any student who could physically place something in her hand that was not composed of chemicals. She never paid...


This is actually relatively easy, trivially so if she would permit the students to visit the supply closet first. A block of sodium or lithium metal would work, and any chem lab should have that. If the student had a gold coin, that would do the trick, as would breaking and old-school thermometer and pouring the contents in her hand. Or a block of iron with no rust on it. There are actually several dozen choices.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm not sure I understand. Elements are still chemicals. Compounds are mixtures of different chemical elements.

"Chemical element
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A chemical element is a pure chemical substance consisting of one type of atom distinguished by its atomic number, which is the number of protons in its nucleus. The term is also used to refer to a pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons.[1] Common examples of elements are iron, copper, silver, gold, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. In total, 118 elements have been observed as of March 2010, of which 94 occur naturally on Earth. 80 elements have stable isotopes, namely all elements with atomic numbers 1 to 82, except elements 43 and 61 (technetium and promethium). Elements with atomic numbers 83 or higher (bismuth and above) are inherently unstable, and undergo radioactive decay. The elements from atomic number 83 to 94 have no stable nuclei, but are nevertheless found in nature, either surviving as remnants of the primordial stellar nucleosynthesis that produced the elements in the solar system, or else produced as short-lived daughter-isotopes through the natural decay of uranium and thorium.[2]

All chemical matter consists of these elements. New elements of higher atomic number are discovered from time to time, as products of artificial nuclear reactions."


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

I stand corrected. I was going on the basis of the definition of Chemical Substance:



> In chemistry, a chemical substance is a material with a specific chemical composition.


And then following the link to the definition of chemical composition:



> A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions.


That led me to elements just being elements, rather than with the "chemical" prefix.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Its a good conversation with people who were raised on Breyer's Commercials. "All chemicals are bad. All Natural products do not contain chemicals and are automatically good for you"

I like to point out that that arsenic, lead, uranium, botulinim toxin.....and many other unsafe products all occur naturally. The Nature aisle in the grocery store drives me bonkers. Slap "All Natural" on the label and it must be good for you!


----------



## SimonWood (Nov 13, 2009)

The war on salt begins.


----------



## rho (Feb 12, 2009)

I'm often amazed that I managed to make it to 56 before all these laws were enacted -


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

Jen said:


> I think it's probably based on the fact that Americans eat too much salt, and it leads to blood presure issues, heart problems, obesity, etc - they're probably just trying to limit the amount of salt put into the food before it hits our plates. I doubt it means _no_ salt, just added salt.
> I personally think this is a great idea. It'll make them be more creative about how to season food if they can't just dump a gallon of salt into it!


From a health point of view, there are also other perspectives. My daughter has a life threatening medical condition - part of which is her body's inability to retain salt. As an infant, I had to add salt to her bottles. As a child I had to encourage salty snacks. The school kept chips or chicken broth available for her for days when she needed it. As she got older the amount of salt used in most foods she could eat made the added salt not as necessary, but she's still required to take medicine twice a day specifically for this problem and she still needs salty snacks on occasion. She's 19 years old now, and has had to take medicine from the day she was born and she'll continue until the day that she dies. Inasmuch as salt can be dangerous to many people, it also has a purpose. Banning all salt may be good for the majority, but that doesn't make it a good decision. People have to make their own health decisions.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Actually as the "letter" of this law, as written, would outlaw most foods.


That would be AWESOME! Just imagine how much healthier we'd all be without food! Way to go New York!!! Er... would calling New York "The Big Apple" then become illegal too?


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

If you cook without salt then you're not cooking.  You shouldn't use it overly much and I prefer my food to be prepared with as little extraneous salt as possible, but salt is absolutely necessary to prepare a lot of food and recipes at a very basic level.  I don't even want to try to list them all, but a big one is pasta and forget about pasta being any good in restaurants without salt.  The water you boil it in should be salted or it just won't taste right.  Looks like geko beat me to it with a small list, but yes, pasta water should taste like sea water if you want to prepare your pasta correctly.

Salt is a seasoning and food needs to be seasoned.  Anyone who watches Food Network will be able to tell you how often the judges in food contests complain about salt... and they are complaining about there not being enough.  It's rare that the food is too salty, almost always they're saying there needs to be more for the food to be properly prepared.

I can see people now, selling rocks of salt on the streets of New York and being caught with paraphernalia like salt shakers and mills.


----------

