Sqwertz > wrote:
> Many processed foods are now sporting "Low Sodium Sea Salt" on their
> ingredient labels. Nobody seems to be bloggin' about it, so I'll be
> the first to ask - WTF?
>
> In the past, to get "low sodium", you just used less salt - AKA
> "NaCl". So how does "low sodium salt" differ? And why aren't the
> extra chemicals listed in the ingredient list?
>
> "Low Sodium Salt" seems to be catch-all for any impure or adulterated
> NaCl. There are no FDA guidelines for this ingredient.
>
> You heard it here first.
>
> -sw

There is a formula for conversion of how much to use. Seems like the sodium
level listed on food should already compensate for the difference in sodium
amount?

Greg

"Low-sodium salt" is commonly available in supermarkets here. It
sports well-known labels like Morton et all. I have no problem with
sodium but I tried it once to see what it was like. A considerable
amount of NaCl is replaced with KCl. I can confirm that it tastes
metallic and vile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potass...l_properti es
--
Bob
www.kanyak.com

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:45:34 +0300, Opinicus wrote:
>
>> "Low-sodium salt" is commonly available in supermarkets here. It
>> sports well-known labels like Morton et all. I have no problem with
>> sodium but I tried it once to see what it was like. A considerable
>> amount of NaCl is replaced with KCl. I can confirm that it tastes
>> metallic and vile.
>
> "Low sodium salt" is an oxymoron. The FDA requires that food grade
> salt be at least 97.5% sodium chloride. The labels should state that
> salt is an ingredient. And then if there's also KCl, then that needs
> to be listed separately.
>
> I don't know how these things get label approval. Obviously the big
> corporations are greasing some palms to be able to use these deceptive
> and illegal marketing practices.
>
> -sw

what we need is more Germans in charge of our language

that would straighten things out

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:26:38 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Obviously the big
> corporations are greasing some palms


> Omelet wrote:
>
>> He hates me 'cause I never slept with him...
>
> He hates himself because he is all he has to sleep with
> I don't know, sometimes he used to seem normal, then he went petty
> trough vindictive and now I just shun contact. I have enough crazies to
> deal with in my world without encouraging those who refuse to take their
> meds.

For the record, I never once even considered sleeping with you. And
you know that. You're the one who somehow got the idea that I was
going to move in with you - and you posted that to RFC just out of the
total blue.

After having met you twice at casual austin.food gatherings 2 or 3
years ago and not giving you any indication that there was any sort of
romantic interest in the least, you somehow twisted that into MY
MOVING IN WITH YOU?

That was just way too Psycho for me. I sat there at stared at the
screen for at least 15 minutes wondering, WTF? That was just way too
spooky. I've met weird, semi-psycho women before but you win, hands
down. Mapi of austin.general still holds the male title, but at least
he announced his psychosis right there lying on the floor of the bar
at B.D. Reilly's rather than romantically obsessing over me for 2
years.

Needless to say, you need to come to terms with what happened and why
your mind works that way and stop making up excuses for your fixation
and disappointment before we become the next Yoli and Michael. I'd
prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

And Jeremy, I was just tired of your decade of bullshit and visions of
grandeur about all these things you're "working on" or have not done
in the past. Even posting a call for meetings with imaginary people
about imaginary projects of yours at "the normal time and place", as
if you are somebody important with a life. I'm pretty sure you're
manic depressive mixed with habitual liar.

Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw