NRT: Response paper 2
In favor of:
• Strengths- There is enough conclusive evidence that a reduced salt diet will help decrease future health risks. This shows that over time people that they studied that had a diet that contained less salt showed a decrease risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The fact that they have a few large companies on their side somewhat trying to reduce the amount of salt in their food works well to try and get others to follow. This shows that the companies that will probably not lose as much money will show others the right and wrong ways to go about the change and then others can follow with less detriment to their own company. • Weaknesses- Not regulating the amount of salt within the food right away seems like a major oversight. They don’t seem to want to change much of anything except just telling them what to do and hoping that after they say they don’t want to that they actually will. Putting it all on the Obama administration after all these years of not regulating seems like they are looking for just another excuse to not make major changes. It should be the FDA and USDA’s priority to go out and get this regulated without falling back on others support. I’m sure it would be nice but more strict regulations would start to make companies comply just as well as having the President say I want this to change. Against:
• Strengths- The consumer is mostly shown all the labeling of what is in their food when they buy it. This allows the consumer to know what they are buying; if they know what they are looking at. • Weaknesses- “The problem of overconsumption derives more from personal choice than from sodium intake under circumstances beyond one's control, such as when large amounts of sodium were added to food products without information to consumers.” This whole sentence seems to contradict his argument. That people need to regulate themselves when it comes to...