Other then what my doctor and co-workers tell me (I work at a medical clinic), no, I don't. However there is no need to add salt to pop, there are other substances which are just as effective at making it fix without the harmful health effects.

Also, I'm reading a lot of Americans talk about their freedoms. If the government subsidizes corn, so that you eat more corn based products, how is that not the same less against your freedom? Remove the subsidy you you truely can eat/drink what you want. This would naturally inflate the cost of chips and other junk food, but if healthier alternatives are cheaper without subsidies, and you eat healthier things as a result, then isn't this truely freedom and not some world where junk food is subsidized?

Also when I made this thread, the intention is that you still get to eat what you like, only it's healthier now. Yes junk food will likely go up in price a bit, but the gain in health from producers putting less salt/fat/sugar in their foods would be worth the stricter regulations. It's no different then speed limits on highways, they are there to keep you alive (in the case of food alive longer).

You need better doctors. The concentration of salt in 12 oz can of coke is .13 PSS or .013%. For comparison the ocean averages around 32 PSS or 3.2% by weight. Obviously drinking from the ocean makes you thirsty. That's because the human body averages only 3 PSS or .3% salt by weight. The concentration of salt is 10 times greater in the ocean than in the body. Meanwhile a can of coke is only 4.3% of the concentration of salt in your body.

Conclusion: The salt in coke doesn't make you thirsty.

Sources for data:

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/solutions/faq/salinity-and-molarity.shtml

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-03/985293756.Me.r.html

http://i5.minus.com/jn9DSAt37dsGN.jpg

(I really hope I didn't screw up with my calculations. That would be embaressing ;0)

I just read it now, and I don't agree. The Source is not a credible source, it's a newspaper article from 2007.

First of all, no beef is 100% beef (lots of water content), there used to be a meat supplier for McDonalds called "100% Beef" (Even mentions it in the article).

Maybe it changed, I beleive the "100% Beef" issue was older then 1997, and that article only says that McDonalds meat is made from 100% USDA inspected meat with no salt added. The article doesn't mention the Beef Grade. It could still be grade F (or 1 now on a scale of 1-5 on the USDA website) meat.

You have a reading comprehension problem.  The only meat suppliers mentioned in the article are OSI Foods and Australian Food Corporation.  All the other names are clearly stated as fictitious, imaginary companies.

Snopes is the authoritative website for all popular urban legends, and you have been suckered by TWO of them.  I'm sure you heard it from a "reliable source", but that's just how urban legends propagate.  If Snopes says it's false (as opposed to true or mixed), it means there isn't a single shred of evidence to support this outlandish claim.  The second myth is the existence of Grade F meat: there's no such thing.

http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/badmeat.asp

I'm fine with that but then charge obese people in relation to their weight..

Why should I pay the same price as someone weighing 100 pounds more than I for a plane ticket where clearly it costs more to fly them than me ? ( if my luggage is two pounds over the limit I get charged more but that 300 pounds dude pays the same price ?)

Anyway the real issue is healthcare and the fact that it costs more to keep an obese population healthy ( there's a reason the US has some of the highest healthcare costs on earth) and if nothing gets done at some point in the future private health insurances will charge you based on your diet..

Yea, I realize that, I googled that real quick for verification. In the OP I used The World Factbook, it's a lot more accurate and stil Mexico is 7% below USA.

Yes you're right about HFC in Europe, it's not a band, a production quota, but it still forces people not to use it.

Anyway I agree with you, life the corn subsidy. I don't think we have one in Canada, so here we'd have to make regulations for HFC, but for USA I would do a bit of both.

I don't think people want to be obese. They might not want to be twigs, but some people like having a little meat on the bone. However obesity is defined as having a BMI of 30+, I think even larger people want a BMI between 25-30 (which is still overweight).

The point of passing laws to tax junk food isn't to prevent people from becoming obese when they don't have to. It's so that people can keep eating the foods they love without physical consequence. Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I bet most chips would taste roughly the same with 2/3rds as much fat, and less salt.

Putting salt in pop for example is something there should be a law against, you shouldn't be more thirsty after drinking.

As for salt...where the heck did you hear that? I have a few doctors in the family and I work at a Medical office, and everyone I work with actually suggests having a lower salt diet then the recommended 2g. There's actually a push from the Medical Association for those Nutritional stickers to indicate a lower salt value.

High salt in your diet means you need a lot of potassium to balance it (look up the sodium potassium pump, it's in your red blood cells). Without Potassium, your body flushes out the salt by making you drink and pee more. Tell me, if your body is trying to flush out the salt, then why is a high salt diet good for you?

All salt does is help increase your odds of heart attack and stroke at an older age because your arteries become more rigid, and unable to expand for the extra water needed to dilute your blood, and then you don't get enough oxygen/red blood cells to your brain/heart.

You need to read up on the consequences of salt in your diet.