ImStillMags wrote:
> Really interesting article in the NY Times
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/he...me&ref=general
>
> ".....the industry is working overtly and behind the scenes to fend
> off these attacks, using a shifting set of tactics that have defeated
> similar efforts for 30 years, records and interviews show. Industry
> insiders call the strategy “delay and divert” and say companies have a
> powerful incentive to fight back: they crave salt as a low-cost way to
> create tastes and textures. Doing without it risks losing customers,
> and replacing it with more expensive ingredients risks losing profits.
> "
>
>
> and that's the bottom line isn't it?.......to heck with public health
> and welfare, profits uber alles!!

It's far too easy to make simplistic arguments when, in fact, it's a
fairly complex issue. IMHO, it comes down to what packaged food is -
poor quality ingredients that are consumed a long time after they're
prepared. We all know, from cooking at home, that both the quality of
the ingredients we use and their freshness matter, so it only follows
that if one uses ingredients with little flavor and then lets them sit
around , we end up with very bland food, which no one wants to eat.
Salt is a way to turn poor quality ingredients, poorly handled in terms
of time between preparation and consumption, into something that tastes
at least tolerable.

The alternative is stop buying prepared food and cook from fresh
ingredients. Fresh food needs far less in terms of salt - that's
perhaps the simplest way to look at it, and fresh food is expensive
compared to the alternatives.

We do not shy away from salt in our cooking, but I'm sure the food we
prepare has _far_ less salt than prepared foods.

In the end, it's our fault for buying so much prepared food in the first
place.

-S-