SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Unsafe levels of sodium chloride, or salt, in chain restaurant meals
increase one's chance of developing hypertension, heart attacks,
strokes, and kidney disease according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The nonprofit food safety and nutrition watchdog group today is exposing chain restaurant meals with dangerously high levels of sodium and is renewing its call on industry and government to lower sodium levels in foods.
Photo Credit: CSPI Ahoy,
matey! Red Lobster's Admiral's feast, with creamy lobster topped mashed
potato, Caesar salad with dressing, just one of the complimentary
Cheddar Bay Biscuits, and a lemonade: At 7,106 mg of sodium, it is one
of the saltiest restaurant meals in America.
People
with high blood pressure, African Americans, and people middle-aged and
older-70 percent of the population-should consume no more than 1,500
milligrams (mg) of sodium daily, according to the government's dietary
advice. Others should consume no more than 2,300 mg of sodium per day.
Yet it is almost impossible to get restaurant meals with reasonably
safe levels of sodium. A lifetime of eating much more than the
recommended amounts of sodium presents an increased risk of disease in
the long term. But for some, particularly the elderly, consuming 4,000
mg or more of sodium in a single meal can present an immediate risk of
heart failure or other serious problems.
CSPI
researchers examined 17 chains and found that 85 out of 102 meals had
more than a day's worth of sodium, and some had more than four days'
worth, including these:
"Who
knows how many Americans have been pushed prematurely into their graves
thanks to sodium levels like those found in Olive Garden, Chili's, and
Red Lobster?" asked CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "These
chains are sabotaging the food supply. They should cut back and give
consumers the freedom to decide for themselves how much salt they
want."
"More than 70 percent of older Americans have
hypertension and are especially vulnerable," said Dr. Mel Daly, a
geriatrician who is Medical Director of the Subacute Unit at Greater
Baltimore Medical Center and an associate professor of medicine at
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "Many elderly eat
frequently at these restaurants because of convenience and cost. But
the high sodium levels in many of these meals can lead to a spike in
blood pressure and even precipitate heart failure in some individuals."
Children eating at chain restaurants don't fare much
better than their parents or grandparents. According to the Institute
of Medicine, children aged 4-8 should consume no more than 1,200 mg of
sodium per day. These meals that have one or two days' worth of sodium:
"Parents
already have enough to worry about with the increasing incidence of
obesity and diabetes among children. The restaurant industry should not
add to these problems by raising kids' blood pressure as well," said
Dr. Stephen Havas, an adjunct professor of preventive medicine at
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a former vice
president for science, quality, and public health of the American
Medical Association. He noted that a 2006 meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials in children found that reducing children's salt
intake lowered their blood pressure, and that if lower blood pressure
were maintained into adulthood, it would reduce the incidence of
cardiovascular disease.
Since 1978, CSPI has been urging the Food and Drug Administration to press for lower salt levels in processed and restaurant foods. In 2005 the group sued the FDA
and then petitioned the agency to regulate salt as a food additive,
subject to reasonable limits in a given category of food. (Currently,
the FDA considers salt to be "generally recognized as safe" and does
not put any limits on its use.) Havas and other hypertension experts
have estimated that reducing sodium levels in restaurant and packaged
foods by half could prevent at least 150,000 premature deaths per year
in the United States.
CSPI hopes that new leadership in the Obama
administration will look to sodium reduction and other prevention
measures as means of making health care reform affordable. Since the
Bush administration did nothing to encourage sodium reduction, some
city public health departments, particularly New York City's, have
begun to press the food and restaurant industries to cut the sodium in
their products. Requiring chain restaurants to disclose sodium on menus
would help consumers regulate their salt intake and would likely nudge
the industry to provide more low-sodium choices, according to CSPI.
"Americans spend north of $15 billion to treat high blood
pressure, and many billions more on expensive heart procedures, yet the
government spends peanuts improving Americans' diets," said Jacobson.
"Getting the food and restaurant industry to use less salt would be one
way the Obama Administration could help prevent chronic disease and
make health coverage more affordable."
Tomorrow, before the Senate Finance Committee, Jacobson
will testify that reducing sodium consumption by just 25 percent over
the next 10 years could save the government $9 billion a year in direct
medical costs.
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Jeremy Corbyn said. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
Progressive critics and lawmakers are expressing outrage after the U.K. Parliament on Tuesday voted to cut a winter fuel allowance for millions of Britons, calling the move by the ruling Labour Party, which took power in July, a continuation of the Conservative Party's austerity policies.
The measure turns the allowance, which provides £200 to £300 ($262 to $293) per year to senior citizens for heating bills, into a means-tested program in which only the poorest will qualify. It's expected to reduce the number of people receiving the winter payment from 11.4 million last year to 1.5 million this year. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it a "tough choice" that was necessary because of the poor state of the British treasury.
A vote to overturn the cut lost 348 to 228 on Tuesday after Labour successfully whipped enough its members of Parliament into supporting the cut. Fifty two Labour MPs abstained, at least 20 of whom had expressed opposition to the plan, and one voted in opposition.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who now represents voters as an independent, condemned Starmer's move.
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Corbyn wrote on social media. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
"Did he get permission from the Tories to reuse their trademark slogans?" he asked of Starmer in an a Tuesday op-ed in Tribune.
Under the headline, "Austerity Is Labour's Choice," Corybn railed against Starmer and his allies for falling back on the kind of neoliberalism that has dominated the U.K. for decades. He wrote:
It is astonishing to hear government ministers try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. The government knows that there is a range of choices available to them. They could introduce wealth taxes to raise upwards of £10 billion. They could stop wasting public money on private contracts. They could launch a fundamental redistribution of power by bringing water and energy into full public ownership. Instead, they have opted to take resources away from people who were promised things would change. There is plenty of money, it’s just in the wrong hands.
The winter fuel payment was introduced as an unconditional cash transfer in 1997 under then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Some economists have argued that U.K. pensioners are in better position today than than were then, and thus the payment no longer makes sense; others have noted that in real terms, the payment is far lower than it used to be, due to inflation, and thus had become a relatively insignificant benefit anyway.
However, progressives have called the cuts, which were first proposed after Labour took office and weren't mentioned during the election campaign, far too drastic, given the roughly 10 million people they'll effect. Meanwhile, Corbyn and others have argued that Labour's move marks a loss for universalism and could auger more cuts to come:
A universal system of welfare reduces the stigma attached to those who rely on it, and removes barriers for those who find it difficult to apply (both are reasons why the take-up of means-tested payments is so low). What next for means testing? The state pension? The NHS [National Health Service]?
Some commentators have objected to rich pensioners receiving benefits such as the fuel allowance. Progressives have responded that the money should simply be clawed back through higher tax rates on the wealthy.
"In my view the government should be looking to raise revenues from the wealthiest in society, not working class pensioners," Jon Trickett, the only Labour MP to vote to nix to the cut, said in a statement issued on social media.
Universal programs make it easier to reach all those who need help, progressives argue. The new winter fuel payment will be set up so that only those who receive a Pension Credit or other similar government benefit will be eligible for it. But only 63% of pensioners who qualify for the credit actually receive it, government statistics show. The government has announced a campaign to try to increase uptake of the credit.
Trickett said that he feared it would lead more senior citizens to fall into poverty during what he predicted would be an "extremely difficult" winter for his constituents in West Yorkshire. "After years of obscene profiteering by energy companies, they are hiking bills yet again," he wrote.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the cut would save the treasury £1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) this year. She argues that the Conservatives, who held power from 2010 until July, initially as part of a coalition, left the national finances in a dire state and Labour must fill a £22 billion ($28.7 billion) budgetary "black hole."
Labour hasn't released an official impact assessment of the winter payment measure. Reeves, like Starmer, has said she didn't want to make the cut, but two weeks ago a video clip of her proposing to cut the allowance as an opposition MP in 2014.
Rachel Reeves has repeatedly said she didn't want to cut the universal winter fuel allowance for pensioners but it was a tough decision forced on her because of the financial black hole left by the last govt
Here's Reeves 10 years ago: pic.twitter.com/1BAIL4racv
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) August 28, 2024
Reeves and Starmer have long tried to establish their fiscal prudence and distance themselves from purportedly free-spending progressives in their party. A progressive commentator on Novara Mediacalled their winter allowance cut an "incredible political fumble."
"There needs to be consequences," said Craig Corrie. "These are American weapons that are being used. That's against U.S. law, and it should be stopped."
The parents of Rachel Corrie—the American activist crushed to death by a U.S.-supplied Israeli military bulldozer in 2003 in the illegally occupied West Bank—this week called for an independent investigation into the Israel Defense Force's killing last week of a Turkish American Palestine defender who was volunteering in the territory.
Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, a 26-year-old who recently graduated from the University of Washington, was volunteering with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)—of which Corrie was a member—when she was shot in the head, allegedly by an IDF sniper, during a demonstration in Beita against Israel's illegal apartheid settlements.
Eyewitnesses said Israeli forces killed Eygi with "a deliberate shot to the head" for no reason.
While admitting that it is "highly likely" that Israeli troops killed the young woman, IDF officials called the killing "unintentional," claiming the fatal shot "was not aimed at her, but aimed at the key instigator of... a violent riot in which dozens of Palestinian suspects burned tires and hurled rocks" at occupation forces.
Cindy and Craig Corrie, Rachel's parents, toldThe Guardian Wednesday that Eygi's killing reopened old wounds.
"You feel the ripping apart again of your own family when you know that's happening to another family. There's a hole there that's never going to be filled for each of these families," Craig Corrie told the British newspaper.
"It's very personal," he added. "This one, you know, is very close, and there's so many similarities."
During a Monday interview with Democracy Now! co-host Amy Goodman, Cindy Corrie said news of Eygi's killing was "very disturbing and emotional for us."
"It's a parent's nightmare," she added. "And so, Friday morning, knowing that there was another family... who was getting that same kind of news was just very, very disturbing. And we continue to just feel deeply about what that family is experiencing right now."
U.S. President Joe Biden was widely denounced Tuesday after repeating an IDF claim that Eygi was accidentally killed when a bullet "ricocheted off the ground."
While calling Eygi's killing "totally unacceptable" and "unprovoked and unjustified," Secretary of State Antony Blinken has signaled that there will be no U.S. investigation of the incident, prompting Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—the only Palestinian American member of Congress—to lament that the Israeli military "can kill Americans and get away with it."
Human rights defenders argue that the U.S. government repeatedly fails to hold Israel accountable or demand justice when it kills Americans. In addition to Corrie and Eygi, Israeli occupation forces have killed U.S. citizens including Al Jazeera correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh, whose killing was deemed intentional by multiple investigations.
An elderly Palestinian American man, Omar Assad, died in January 2022 after Israeli occupation forces dragged him from his vehicle and then blindfolded, gagged, and handcuffed him during a traffic stop in Jiljilya.
No one has been punished for either of these killings.
This year, Israeli forces have killed at least three Americans in the West Bank alone.
As Truthout's Sharon Zhang reported Tuesday:
In January, an Israeli settler and Israeli soldiers killed 17-year-old Tawfiq Ajaq, shooting him in the head while he was on his way to a barbecue in a local grove. Israeli military vehicles prevented an ambulance from reaching him for 15 minutes, and he was pronounced dead on arrival at a medical facility. Ajaq was born in Louisiana, and had only moved to the West Bank nine months prior.
Then, just weeks later, Israeli forces killed Mohammad Khdour, shooting him in the head while he was driving to a hillside where people often held barbecues. Khdour was 17 years old and a senior in high school who hoped to return to the U.S. to study law when he graduated.
"If you're the U.S., you know that there's going to be no accountability from the Israeli side," Bill Van Esveld, the acting Israel/Palestine associate director for Human Rights Watch, told The Guardian. "So the reason [the U.S.] is not pursuing it in cases where there's clear, credible evidence from credible sources of unlawful use of force, lethal force... the only explanation for that is political."
Craig Corrie told Goodman that "it's upsetting to our family to hear our State Department again, and I would expect them to say, that they are trying to find out the facts and looking to Israel for that."
"Israel does not do investigations, they do cover-ups," he stressed.
"Our family worked for an investigation into Rachel's killing, and we wanted some consequences out of that," Corrie added. "And we hoped—even though we didn't know the names of the people that would be killed in the future, we hoped that that would stop and it would not happen."
IDF officials denied intentionally killing Corrie, despite court testimony from army officers that Corrie and other activists were legitimate military targets who were "doomed to death" for resisting Israeli occupation forces during the Second Intifada, or general Palestinian uprising.
The IDF called Corrie's death a "regrettable accident" while blaming the ISM activists for their own harm because they had placed themselves "in a combat zone."
Another ISM campaigner, Tom Hurndall, was shot in the head by an IDF sniper in the West Bank as he attempted to rescue Palestinian children from an Israeli tank that was firing in their direction. The shooting—which occurred a month after Corrie's killing—left Hurndall in a coma; he died nine months later in a hospital in his native Britain. Hurndall's killer was convicted in an Israeli court of manslaughter and served six years of an eight year prison sentence.
While Rachel Corrie once wrote that she felt protected by "the difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed U.S. citizen," there were no such difficulties, just as there were no repercussions after Israeli warplanes killed 34 American sailors and wounded 173 others during a 1967 attack on the USS Liberty—an attack numerous top U.S. officials believed was deliberate.
Cindy and Craig Corrie sued Israel over their daughter's killing. Their case was dismissed in 2012, with the presiding judge ruling that the activist's death was the "result of an accident she brought upon herself."
Cindy Corrie told Goodman that Blinken—then a national security adviser to then-Vice President Biden—told them in 2010 that there had "not been a thorough, credible, and transparent investigation" into Rachel's case.
Craig Corrie called for more than just an investigation into Eygi's killing.
"There needs to be consequences," he told Goodman. "These are American weapons that are being used. That's against U.S. law, and it should be stopped."
"The need for federal regulations to address this type of misinformation and prevent AI deepfakes from upending our elections and undermining our democracy has never been more urgent," said one advocate.
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen on Wednesday applauded pop star Taylor Swift for using her platform and her endorsement of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential race to go beyond simply expressing support for the Democratic candidate—choosing instead to also call attention to artificial intelligence and how it's been used to spread misinformation.
"Recently I was made aware that AI of 'me' falsely endorsing Donald Trump's presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation," wrote Swift in an Instagram post announcing her endorsement of Harris.
Swift was referring to a false AI-generated image, known as a deepfake, that showed the singer-songwriter's likeness dressed as Uncle Sam with the caption, "Taylor Wants You to Vote for Donald Trump." Trump shared the image on his Truth Social account in August, along with fake images of people appearing to wear shirts that read, "Swifties for Trump."
The images were shared days after the Federal Election Commission's Republican chair, Sean Cooksey, had announced the agency would not establish new rules to prohibit political candidates or groups from misrepresenting opponents or issues with deceptive images.
Cooksey had said the FEC wanted to wait and see "how AI is actually used on the ground before considering any new rules"—a decision Public Citizen denounced as "shameful."
On Wednesday, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert noted that the way AI and deepfakes can and will be used has already been made clear, partially by Swift's experience.
"Taylor Swift—who has been a victim of both AI-generated election misinformation and AI-generated non-consensual intimate deepfakes—is correct in identifying the immensely damaging harms that could result from the spread of AI misinformation, including abuses of our elections."
In addition to the images shared by Trump, billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a Trump supporter, posted on social media a deepfake video that showed a manipulated image of Harris.
"The need for federal regulations to address this type of misinformation and prevent AI deepfakes from upending our elections and undermining our democracy," said Gilbert, "has never been more urgent."