![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-518154-100x100.png\")
How do their bland, poorly made grits contain so much salt? You can't taste it at all.
1 replies
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
They're food is terrible, this is just another reason not to eat there.
How do their bland, poorly made grits contain so much salt? You can't taste it at all.
They're food is terrible, this is just another reason not to eat there.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-930037-100x100.png\")
I hate these kinds of lawsuits. If you don't like the way Denny's prepares its food, DON'T EAT THERE!!!! It will cost Denny's thousands of dollars to get this frivolous lawsuit thrown out. These kinds of plaintiffs should be sanctioned and heavily fined for bringing bullshit suits like this.
@Esquire99: Nice to know you want the public curling over and dying unnecessarily because Denny's doesn't give a rat's ass about the food they prepare or what it does to their patrons.
This is NOT a bullshit lawsuit. I think this is a GREAT idea, and I am THRILLED Denny's is now going to have to spend money to defend themselves.
That is what you get when you are irresponsible.
Don't like the lawsuit? Make quality food.
YOURS was a bullshit vomment.
@Esquire99: waah...Poor little giant corporation!!
They get such a bad rap!!!
People are sooo mean!!!!
Good, nice, happy corporation being victimized by the mean little non-profits.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-384485-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: That's what I tried to tell them when I got sued for putting monkey feces in my \"special\" chili at my restaurant!! It's not my job to make sure my food won't kill you!! Bunch of pansy girly men.
@Esquire99: I couldn't agree more. Everybody is entitled to decide what's best for them and theirs. They are NOT entitled to force those opinions on me through the courts or any other method they might devise.
I don't eat at Denny's more than once a year or so. I seriously doubt that if I ate there once a week I'd be endangering my health in any significant way but even so, it would be nobody's damned business but my own.
@MinorAnnoyance: no no no - if everyplace you eat collectively has these problems, then you can't escape it and get cancer, and therefore you can't really decide what is best for you because everything you think you are doing correctly is compromised by lies, misinformation or omission and you don't have any healthy eating options except something extreme, remote and unlikely (living with no job as a hermit farmer).
So it's not someone forcing an opinion on you, it's people working to make sure the corporate boardroom profit-chef doesn't molest your health, individually and collectively.
MORE POWER TO THEM.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the frivolity in such a lawsuit. If it were 1500mg of sodium, max, in one dish, then maybe it'd be frivolous, but when a meal has 6,700mg of sodium, that's just irresponsible on Denny's part. There is two sides to the responsibility coin, both personal and the responsibility of the businesses too.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1085388-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: Having read through most comments in response to this point, I think people are missing the point. Denny's \"possibly\" behaves in a negligent way by failing to disclose that individual meals contain 4, or even 5 times the maximum possible daily dose of a particular ingredient which is inherently dangerous (thus the FDA guidelines in the first place). Ibuprofen has been in the news for numerous overdosing problems. People get it at the drugstore without a prescription in bottles of 500 pills and assume it's safe to eat a bunch a day. Each problem is the same - failure to disclose in a clear manner that the quantities consumed can be extremely dangerous. As an after thought - it's a pain in the but to try to read restaurant \"nutrition guidelines\" due to their lack of standardization and confusing layout. My two cents.
@dancekat1: \"Ibuprofen has been in the news for numerous overdosing problems. People get it at the drugstore without a prescription in bottles of 500 pills and assume it's safe to eat a bunch a day.\"
I think you mean acetaminophen (Tylenol), unless I've missed some news.
@ everyone saying \"The information is available, right there online\" - that's great for those of us who have computers, have internet, and are savvy enough to know to look. But, in addition to what Veronykah said, keep in mind that Denny's and other chains are marketed to a certain extent towards the elderly and, shall we say, less-wealthy - two groups of people who are statistically much less likely to have internet access or the wherewithal to know how to use it. I frequently fall into the trap of thinking, \"All the information you need is online\" and yet my own mother - who is not yet 60 - doesn't have a clue how to use the internet, and wouldn't own a computer if it were up to her. (My dad has one, but she never even goes into that room, much less uses the computer.)
Consider this: Would you go into a store that didn't advertise its prices in the store, but only on the website? Would that be a reasonable way of doing business, expecting the customer to come in knowing in advance, and remembering, how much each individual item was going to cost, and if they didn't have that info then you could say it was their own fault if they wound up paying more than they expected?
There are obvious flaws in that analogy - the most obvious one being that very few people would walk up the register before knowing how much an item cost - but it's not that far off.
When most of us read a menu, we see \"chicken breast\" or \"fried egg\" or \"soup\" and we, reasonably, assume that it's going to more or less correlate with the \"chicken breast\" or \"fried egg\" or \"soup\" that we might make at home if we felt like it; we don't assume, \"Ah, chicken breast with an added 1000 mg of sodium\" or \"fried egg with 5x as much salt as I would put on it.\" There is a reasonable expectation that the menu description is going to include anything out of the ordinary - if you ordered a dish listed as \"scrambled eggs\" and you received a dish of scrambled eggs mixed with crawfish and jelly-beans, you'd be upset, and rightfully so. The owner saying, \"Well, it says on our website that we serve crawfish and jelly-beans in everything\" would not be a sufficient answer. The amounts of sodium are not as obvious as crawfish and jelly-beans would be, so with the sodium content, you're often not even aware that you've eaten \"crawfish and jelly-beans\" - perhaps until you have a dangerous medical response.
If they've already got the information on the website, why not take one tiny extra step and print out the nutritional info and include it with the menu, for the benefit of those who don't have access to, or awareness of, the info available online? Bottom line: If there's something out of the ordinary in a dish that is not indicated by the name/description of the dish, that info should be readily available to the consumer, at the point of order/sale, so they can make an informed decision.
@bibliophibian: This is an excellent post, and I hope you don't mind if I adopt several of your analogies for real-life arguments I have with people on this. (And it's not at all too long, IMO. Verbose, yes, but well-written). Too bad I can't multiple heart-click!
@bibliophibian: I was referring to acetaminophen, thank you for the clarification. There was a recent National Public Radio spot about the FDA's review of that item.
Your post was long and I can't respond to everything, but as somebody who recovered from a severe eating disorder and having had some nutritional training from a food counselor I worked with, it's not as easy as you make it sound. There's no easy magic charts that break down proteins, fats, and carbs and help you calculate how much of each you SHOULD be eating much less including, sugar, sodium, and for the other women out there calcium (which we should get 1500mg+ a day AHEM).
Until people get THE BIG PICTURE about the bad food they are eating from a story like the one this lawsuit will tell, people will not change.
Americans gorged themselves on fat SUV's and gas guzzlers until gas got expensive and they learned the HARD WAY that this is bad behavior. People have to learn this lesson with food as well.
@dancekat1: Here are four excellent movies to help them get that big picture:
1. Food, Inc. [www.foodincmovie.com]
2. Fast Food Nation [www.foxsearchlight.com]
3. Super Size Me (Watch free here) [www.imdb.com]
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-926607-100x100.png\")
@WhoAsked You: I see what you're doing, and I sympathize, but really, Fast Food Nation is heavy-handed moralizing. I'm vegan - the sappy save the animals, anti-corporate type - and I didn't dig it, although I agreed with its sentiments. Poor acting, hammer-headed dialogue...
Plus, it's got Avril Lavigne. Seriously, Avril Lavigne. No thanks.
Food Inc. is much much better, really informative.
Also, consider consolidating your points into a handful of posts. Helpful hint.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-495652-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: While I do agree with personal responsibility in addition to wondering why anyone eats there, they shouldn't put so much salt in there anyway. On the other hand, cooking at home would save money and salt- usually.
@Esquire99: You hate lawsuits where consumers try to compel businesses to disclose material facts about the products they sell?
According to the article, [many|most|all] states have specific consumer protection laws that require this, so the lawsuit is really just trying to get Denny's to comply with the law as they see it.
I'm not seeing the frivolity.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-453211-100x100.png\")
@spanky: I've lived in New Jersey, and have never, ever seen nutrition facts posted despite the blog's claim that the law is \"clear as can be.\" And the law in other states only require calorie counts to be posted...you have to ask for the other stuff (which nobody appeared to have done at Denny's). I'd definitely appreciate someone citing the law that states sodium content has to be provided upfront.
Plus, it states that in NJ, \"Companies have a legal duty to let their customers know material facts about what they're selling.\" It doesn't say that they have an obligation in that state to provide the information unprovoked. If he asked and they said that they wouldn't provide the information, then we might have a story.
I'm very confused by people who would come close to death by consuming a certain, common item, yet don't ask if a dish contains that item before ordering it. Part of this entire story rests on the complete lack of personal responsibility, which is why it's frivolous.
@supercereal: I assume the argument is that a reasonable person would not expect a single meal to contain several times the recommended daily maximum intake of sodium. It's not as though these people are deathly allergic to salt, so they would reasonably expect it contains salt--just not that much.
The suit also claims that the information is unclear and not readily available except online and in pamphlets that aren't available in all restaurants. So customers can't just get that information by asking.
And regardless of what you think of the suit, it hardly qualifies as 'frivolous.' The term frivolous is reserved for things like lawsuits against fictional characters and those that are completely without any legal basis at all, not for everything you don't like. (And in many cases, plaintiffs are found partly or wholly responsible for their damages. That doesn't make those cases frivolous.)
@supercereal: Try just finding out if a menu item has an allergen in it. You will get wait staff rolling eyes and off the cuff \"guesses\". So much of the chain restaurant food is prefabbed and full of things you would not expect to be in it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1578-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: I hate these kinds of comments. If you run a business serving food, DON'T POISON YOUR CUSTOMERS!!!! (Sorry, I had to mimic the obligatory four-exclamation-point-self-righteousness.)
And if you're going to load your food with toxic amounts of something and not tell people about it (important point there: \"personal responsibility\" fails when the public isn't provided the necessary information to BE responsible), then expect to have your pants sued off!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1021770-100x100.png\")
@Mary Marsala with Fries: Yet what you and half the other people here don't realize is that once this one lawsuit goes through sucessfully, these same people will then be going after every other fast food and sit-down restaraunt. When that hapens, you will probably end up being one of those idiots that call 911 because McDonald's won't serve you a Big Mac for fear of being sued.
@Mary Marsala with Fries: EXACTLY. What does Esquire-Tard think Denny server's answer is going to be about how much sodium is in various menu items \"UH I don't know I just work here, now what do you want to order?\"
If you ask them if it is safe, they will just laugh at you or act insulted.
This is why corporations need to be regulated and FORCED to do the right thing, otherwise, they simply won't, regardless of public safety, the law, etc. They don't care about people's lives or safety, only profit.
It is amazing to me how people like Esquire-Tard want to scream about personal responsibility at consumers but N E V E R at the businesses knowingly poisoning people and refusing to give them any info. Esquire, WHY doesn't \"Personal Responsibility\" work both ways? HUH?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-517369-100x100.png\")
Meanwhile, a 2/3 LB. Monster Thickburger alone will set you back 2770 mg of sodium. Add large fries if you want for 1040 mg extra... not that I would order all that. Still not as bad as Denny's worst offenders, surprisingly.
Water is also toxic in large quantities. I personally drink a lot of it (My wife had me tested for diabetes, which thankfully I don't have, that's how much I drink!). I'm sure there's people out there who would experience water toxicity with the amount I've requested on a really hot summer's day after some hard work.
Yet nobody is suing Denny's because they'd be willing to give me an entire pitcher of water (or two, maybe even three) with my meal if I asked. And, drunk in one sitting without breaks, a pitcher of water could be poisonous to those with difficulty processing it.
Salt is as equally nourishing to life as water is in the correct quantities (in fact, you die from a lack of salt if you drink too much water).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1713-100x100.png\")
@shepd: On the other hand, Moons over mihammy doesn't have 256 oz of water in it, so I don't get your point. Seems like a lot of water, doesn't it? But at 64 oz a day, that 4 days worth of water, same amount of salt in their food.
@B:
Actually, the reccommended amount of water for a humid temperate climate (such as where I am for this summer) is 24 - 32 oz a day. 80 - 128 oz is actually not as much as you might think. It's one and a half of the largest beverage sizes available at 7-11. I've had this much water before on a hot day. I think most construction workers have, as well (although I'm not a construction worker myself).
And I can use the smaller serving size in my example validly because the CSPI is using a smaller maximum size of salt: 1500 vs. 2400.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-108330-100x100.png\")
@shepd: i completely agree with you! sometimes i go through as much as 3 liters of water a day! (just a little over 100 FLUID oz of water!). i prefer to drink water instead of soda or snacking through the day. yup, 4 random meals (sensibly-sized portions) a day and at least an entire liter of water - keeps me at a healthy lite-weight!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
@Mary Marsala with Fries: It's pretty noticeable that you are eating large quantities of salty food when you eat at Denny's. Sausage ham and bacon cannot be made without a lot of salt, and if you're eating all three in one meal...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-144421-100x100.png\")
@Mary Marsala with Fries: Who said they didn't tell people about it? [www.dennys.com]
Yeah it's not on the menu, and those sodium numbers are a little crazy, but if you cared to know, it was there.
@eelmonger:
Exactly. The people that eat at Denny's simply don't care. Forcing the company to spend a bunch of money defending/dismissing a lawsuit to \"save\" a bunch of people that don't want to be saved is just dumb.
@Esquire99: In all honesty those too dumb to care are frequently the same people jacking up everyone's health care costs and insurance premiums. More in your face full disclosure should at least help a couple of them to get a clue. More discussion about the bad effects of processed foods in as many venues as possible will also help.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-56929-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: A enormous business, and you're worried about a few thousands of dollars? Eh, I don't feel too badly for them.
On one hand... should they have to print their nutritional information on their menu? No, it should be up to patrons to be health conscious enough to request nutrient information.
On the other hand, if a restaurant was inserting a dangerous chemical into your food without telling you, would you be angry? Sodium chloride can kill you just as dead as cyanide can. I see your point, but Denny's is often patronized by the elderly, or the ones around here are, and if they're not completely forthright about the amount of sodium in their foods, it could easily kill someone.
@AlexDitto: \"Sodium chloride can kill you just as dead as cyanide can.\"
This statement is as stupid as the lawsuit. Too much water can kill you. And when was the last time you heard of anyone using Hydrogen Cyanide in ANY quantity in their food?
\"should they have to print their nutritional information on their menu? No, it should be up to patrons to be health conscious enough to request nutrient information.\"
WRONG ANSWER
UMMM if McDonald's can do it on each food container which is much more difficult and time consuming, why can't restaurants put an extra page in the menu?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-27247-100x100.png\")
If I was a regular patron of Denny's and didn't know what was in my meal then yes I bear some of the responsibility for the damage that food will do to me.
However, if the nutritional info is clearly marked on the menu, or a booklet is in the booth, then I'm going to read it and make wildly different choices.
I recently saw the movie Food Inc I think it was, and now I buy my meats and poulty at Whole Foods. I was oblivious before, was given good information and make a better decision for my intestines.
People usually do the right thing when they have all the facts, in my opinion.
@AlexDitto: The problem is they don't disclose this and there is nothing tipping people off that there is such a potential dietary danger in eating there.
It is only coming to light in the last year or so that many of these chain restaurants are relying on hidden flavor enhancers or ridiculous amounts of sugar, fat or salt. There was a certain level of trust that the food was not a horrible dietary disaster.
Expect to see much more of this kind of suit or laws requiring disclosure of what is in what your eating.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-601731-100x100.png\")
@bohemian: Agreed. I think it's generally assumed that eating out regularly is not the best thing for your diet, but most of us also assume our food isn't just made of crap and then chemically engineered to be palatable.
@AlexDitto: To be fair, pretty much anything can kill you in excess. Plus, it's not like they're diabolically injecting rat poison into your meal -- their food contains nothing that the FDA isn't aware of.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-462541-100x100.png\")
Ok, while too much sodium is not great, it's not going to harm an otherwise healthy person as long as they drink enough water to flush it out of the system. Excess sodium can cause (or at least, contribute to) high blood pressure in some (but my understanding is it's only about 10% of the population that is salt-sensitive in that way.)
Granted, I'm not for eating this way everyday, but you'll pry my Grand Slam out of my cold, dead hands :-)
@mmmsoap: Yeah, are you not noticing that the companies involved tend to lobby against providing the information for consumers to make a clear choice as to what they'd like? Is that also part of your vision of capitalism?
Maybe that worked back before the days of international conglomerate multi-billion-dollar food chains - but now, these places have their own impetus completely aside from consumer choice. They're ubiquitous enough that with one on damn near every street corner, enough people will figure \"well, they're everywhere, so they can't be that bad\" and eat there, providing the money to keep them in business regardless of how they're adulterating their food. If they don't provide nutritional data, nobody will ever know how exactly what they're getting into.
I was at IHOP the other day - I've gone there for years - and they've started giving out pretty comprehensive nutrition information standard as part of the menu! How awesome is that? But you know what? After reading it - I didn't really want to eat there anymore! So much of it was absolutely bad nutritionally. 1500 calorie sandwiches, 4 grams of salt in a single item, that kind of stuff. I knew it couldn't be that great, but it's not til I had a real, quantifiable measure that I realised \"holy hell, no wonder!\" Now I'm in a bit of a bind - I'd love to support their disclosure, but I don't want to eat their food!
@mmmsoap: Yeah, as long as you don't eat there all the time, I'd say you'd be alright but this is pretty insane. I use to eat there from time to time when I was a kid. No wonder I need to eat tons better :-)
@Lisa Cebrian: Sorry, but that model doesn't work if all competitors collude to misinform the consumer as a routine industry \"best practice\" and consumer is screwed no matter what, hence, regulatory agencies and public interest lawsuits. Thank you.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103878-100x100.png\")
@Lisa Cebrian: But \"capitalism\" assumes that consumers always have enough information to make an informed choice about what to eat and where. Given us that information, and we can make up our own minds.
Unfortunately people are unaware just how severely BAD this is for you to consume so much salt in one sitting. Restaurants need to be forced to clearly disclose the nutritional value of meals, in the same way any product sold in a Grocery Store has to.
People need to better understand the choices they make. They can make whatever choice they want, but I don't want your lard ass crippling our medical system because \"You can't put down food\". Excuses, that's all it is. It's not genetics. YOU choose to be that way, YOU choose not to change it. I will not be stuck paying your medical bills as a tax payer when you default on payments.
@Jon Bothe: How can people be aware of how bad this is for them if chains like Denny's do not disclose it? Put this info on the menu.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1130468-100x100.png\")
@Jon Bothe:
First, you miss the fact that, while being fat may be under people's control, there IS a genetic factor in terms of how easy it is to gain or lose weight. That's why studies show most overweight people eat less calories than their always-skinny counterparts.
Second, you assume that because someone has extra weight they're unhealthy. Again, not true (though the media sure portrays things differently). A lot of it has to do with fitness level; skinny does not always equal fit, and heavy doesn't always equal unfit.
Finally, let's take your statement to a few more logical conclusions: Given your statements about self-responsibility, I guess we should treat pregnant women (they chose to get pregnant!), people who get injured during sports (they chose to play!), people who get the flu (they chose to go out during flu season and not wash their hands enough), people who get cancer (they chose to expose themselves to any variety of environmental carcinogens)... gee, we can blame EVERYONE for just about any health circumstance. How convenient!
That's why studies show most overweight people eat less calories than their always-skinny counterparts.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-327386-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: This is a study that was done on children [www.nature.com]
And I am still looking. I found that after a seven second search.
@supercereal:
References a study of chinese/non-overweight versus American overweight diet and calories:
[www.pcrm.org]
Dr. Dean Edell's book, 'Eat, Drink, and be Merry' references SEVERAL studies when he talks about the difference between obesity and healthy, and why it can be so difficult to lose weight.
Alternately, please provide your citations that demonstrate that being overweight means that eat more than a slim counterpart. Overweight means you consume more calories than you're burning. Metabolism is based upon your activity level AND your genetics. Anecdotal to be sure, but we all have a friend (or are the person) who eats all the wrong stuff, in copious amounts, washing it down with Cokes and beers, and doesn't gain an ounce.
My point there is that people tend to make comparisons: the thin person automatically consumes food properly, and the fat person is a pig. That's not always an accurate statement. Likewise, we tend to equate thinness with healthiness, and that's not true either. You can be overweight and aerobically healthy. You can be thin and be a mess.
As far as my final paragraph... why not? ALL of those things are within the individual's control, and ALL of those things will, as the OP basically said, cost ME money. Pregnancies may be \"planned\", but isn't the whole implication of the OP that people are overweight solely of their own volition... just like a pregnancy being on purpose? Of course it's a \"contrived parallel\", because I'm not suggesting it as a logical conclusion, just merely pointing out that it is difficult to play the blame game with health issues.
My point is just that it's easy to take [disease/situation I don't think applies to me] and say that the other folks are responsible for it, and it costs the [taxpayer pool / insurance pool] money, and I don't feel I should have to pay for something that doesn't apply to me. As a standalone argument, it's specious.
This is especially true when the correlation between being overweight and a lot of the unhealthy conditions typically associated with it is difficult to prove as causation. A lot of the conditions probably have more to do with being unfit and not necessarily just overweight. True, the two often go hand-in-hand. That's part of what makes it difficult to prove.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-268564-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: \"Eating too much makes you fat\"
Not necessarily true, my friend. Eating too much of the wrong foods will make you fat. Which foods are the wrong ones? Depends on your genes. Actually, have a look here: [en.wikipedia.org] . Many of the metabolic conditions listed have symptoms which could cause or contribute to obesity, regardless of how much you eat. We haven't even started talking about racial genetic traits which can lead to excess storage of fat, inability to metabolize alcohol, etc.
So, yes, there can be a hidden cause. Often more than one, in fact.
By your logic I would be equally truthful in stating, \"Living too much makes you die\". Overly simplistic, much?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
@ceriphim:
AHA!!!!!
Look down on the page and you will find hypothyroidism. A common disorder which slows your metabolism and MAKES IT HARD TO LOSE WEIGHT.
I have it. I'm struggling with my weight (about 40 extra lbs). Yes, I'm exercising and trying to eat right (and not a lot). If I run out of my meds and go for more than a week without them, I start to wind down like an old clock: I fall asleep at the drop of a hat, can't move, can't think. Lucky for me, the medicine is fairly cheap even without insurance, because I need it to live.
Thanks for this post. While I agree that a majority of overweight people simply don't take care of themselves, sometimes no matter what you do, there is something there that is causing problems. I'm lucky mine got diagnosed because it can cause health problems if not treated.
That much salt, however, isn't good for ANYBODY, regardless of weight.
@Jon Bothe: As someone who has plenty of health problems that have nothing to do with lifestyle choices it really annoys me to see people self inflicting themselves into a high cost medical problem.
I can't help my medical problems and make a large effort to stay healthy and avoid things like this that would make it worse. So to see people who shove Dennys and KFC in their faces while downing a 2 liter of soda jacking my premiums and making it harder to get things covered really offends me.
@bohemian: I guess I made myself sound worse then it should have and I admit fault in that. Some situations are hard to avoid weight loss. When I went through a severe bout of depression, Abilify caused me to jump up 10lbs in a week so I looked harder at what I ate and adjusted and got myself off the drug by getting over the depression. Now, I'm 101 lbs lighter then my worst time, and I have a cynical view of anything that \"bad\".
I still eat \"bad\" on occasion, but it's not every other day or every day like others. No fast food, no pop (once a month if I feel like it), avoiding eating out when I can and if I have to, try and make a somewhat healthy choice and if not, I hit hte gym to burn it off.
What I meant by my second paragraph was that the ones who choose to be fat are the ones that are the root of the problem. People can lose the weight in most cases, they just don't want the effort TO do it. Some people will always be fat because of a medical condition, but if its not anything medically related that they can not control, those are the ones ruining the system. Restaurants and food makers prey on them and look at what has happened in just 30 years alone all around us.
@Jon Bothe: \"When I went through a severe bout of depression, Abilify caused me to jump up 10lbs in a week so I looked harder at what I ate and adjusted and got myself off the drug by getting over the depression.\"
You're still making yourself sound worse than you should have, and I hope you'll admit fault in this as well:
Although I'm happy that you were able to \"get over the depression,\" statements like that perpetuate the myth that depression is something that can be simply willed under one's control.
Situational depression - the natural result of life circumstances such as a death, loss of support structure, or other similar event - can be \"gotten over\" to some extent, much in the same way you \"get over\" a cold. You're legitimately ill while you have it, and you should treat it symptomatically and take the best possible care of yourself, but in the end it will run its course and life will resume normal function.
Not everyone is \"fortunate\" enough to have situational depression; some people have life-long depression, with or without a cause or triggering event, which may or may not respond to medication, therapy, and lifestyle changes. It can usually be *controlled*, with the right amount and kinds of support and medical intervention, including lifetime meds for some, but not necessarily *cured*, and virtually never simply \"gotten over.\"
I'm happy that you were able to overcome your situation, and your cynicism is certainly bound to help you find personal perspective in future difficult situations, but please don't make the mistake of assuming that every person with depression, or weight gain, or cancer, or acne, or hair loss, or a bruised pinky toe, is experiencing/has experienced/will experience the exact same path that you did.
@bibliophibian: Very very true. I have Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Panic Disorder. They are biochemical. I can't \"will\" myself out of it or \"get over it\" (trust me, I wish I could). I take two medications that I am GRATEFUL for because if I didn't have them I would be forever in a mental hospital or dead (it was that bad when I didn't have medication).
Biblio, don't listen to people like Jon. He is truely ignorant about the nature of mental illness. I have a feeling he went for a pill because he \"was feeling down\". You know the type. They have a rough day and they want Ativan to cure it.
@thelushie: I had a reponse typed up for your ignorance in assuming I did not have Depression but it froze when I hit submit and not showing now. Read my other responses before responding. I went through Depression, ask my friends, they know I did.
My therapist was the one who recommended Effexor when therapy alone wasn't getting me through things like I was trying. My doc and her (after agreeing to share my medical history) both agreed on it since it needed the doc's consent. I wasn't just \"feeling down\". Every little negative thing snowballed in my head into a giant negative cesspool that would persist for many hours or days at a time and without the med, it was much worse.
Yeah, maybe I was 'lucky' that it just went away, but I NEVER said that everyone will just \"get over\" a mental illness because I never expected to but it just did and I still don't know to this day what made it go away. I hope that some day that there can be something to \"cure\" it as best as possible because its not something fun to deal with.
@bibliophibian: I did NOT have situational depression. That was a severely condensed version of what I went through. I went through clinical depression for about 2-3 years and was on Effexor for about a year or 2 of it. When it got to the point that the suicidal thoughts would hit at least 2-5x a day, that they put me on Abilify to try and quell the thoughts.
What I go through now is just situational depression which lasts anywhere from a few hours to a day or 2 max but nowhere near the constant daily depression and suicidal thoughts. Any little negative thing snowballed me into a major mess and I did my best to hide it in public.
I had an illness and eventually it did \"go away\" in larger retrospect. Some can't which will happen unfortunately. I don't know exactly what caused it to just go away but I only have theories that make sense but not sure if my logic is right.
I do know that Depression can't always be controlled because I went through it personally, but I did my best eventually after much thought and many sessions with my therapist at the time. It helped me cope with it all even if it seemed like a time/money sink.
@Jon Bothe: Depression can change your brain chemistry and severe situational depression, untreated, can snowball into something worse. That happened to me. I got help in time because I was very close to jumping off a bridge, but was too chicken to actually do so.
I'm glad you are better.
@HogwartsAlum: It definitely does change the brain chemistry. It's just something that's difficult to explain/understand until you go through it personally. Just every little thing set me spiraling downward fast for a long period and would recover til the next thing triggered it.
I too was well beyond the point of living, and if it wasn't for me being too scared to actually follow through with my constant thoughts, I would have been long gone already.
@bohemian: I would have no problem with our insurance tossing off the plan those who simply refuse to even try.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-206518-100x100.png\")
@Jon Bothe: Disemvowel, please?
I'm really surprised to hear that I chose to have a medical condition making it near impossible to lose weight (educate yourself on PCOS before you continue to be such an ignorant jerk). Maybe since you are so smart you can tell me how to cure this condition? Surely you must be a doctor since you are so knowledgeable on the matter.
Oh, and by the way? I would guarantee my medical bills are less than yours. My cholesterol and blood pressure are probably better, too.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-389492-100x100.png\")
@jaya9581: whoa! i didn't know that. my gyno didn't say a thing about weight when i was diagnosed. i've had a lot of weight fluctuations in the last two years from diabetes and a paralyzed stomach, but my endocrinologist couldn't figure out why someone [me] who can barely keep down 900 calories a day was still putting the weight back on. wow, thanks!
@catastrophegirl - sometimes makes typos and doesn't care: I always had a suspicion something was wrong but it took an infertility specialist (reproductive endocrinologist) to diagnose; pretty remarkable since in most cases it's easily diagnosed with an ultrasound, such as in my case. If you ever want to talk more about it, feel free to message me. A lot of doctors will just put you on the pill if you aren't actively trying to conceive and tell you you're fine, but PCOS goes so far beyond that and those doctors are doing you a disservice.
I did a LOT of reading after my diagnosis, and my particular favorite book that does a great job of going in-depth without making you feel stupid is this one: [www.amazon.com]
I did achieve a very slow (2-3 lbs/month) weight loss while on 800mg metformin twice daily, which is great. I've gone through diets, exercise, the whole nine yards, but my problem isn't a weight problem, so that stuff generally does nothing.
People who automatically cry \"fatty\" strike a nerve with me, because despite pretty much all effort on my part, I've always been overweight. I hope you \"skinnies\" will think twice the next time you see someone overweight and make judgment calls about our lifestyles.
I rage every January when all the magazines start publishing articles about how all these extremely overweight people lost hundreds of pounds. Read the articles? For the last 4 years, since I started tracking, I have not seen a single one of them that didn't happily admit to eating two to three POUNDS of pasta a day, or two to three Value Meals at McDonalds every single day. Those people are the people to be mad at, and they give the rest of us who do our best a bad name.
@jaya9581: \"I rage every January when all the magazines start publishing articles about how all these extremely overweight people lost hundreds of pounds. Read the articles? For the last 4 years, since I started tracking, I have not seen a single one of them that didn't happily admit to eating two to three POUNDS of pasta a day, or two to three Value Meals at McDonalds every single day.\"
This. I consume about 800-1000 calories a day, and laughed in my endo's face when he wanted me to start on a \"strictly reduced\" 1500-cal diet. When I showed him the diet record that I'd been keeping for the three weeks prior to the appointment, he called me a liar to my face. He also told me it was physically impossible for me to have gained nearly 50 pounds in a single month, after the ?viral? illness that started most of this, despite the fact that I had medical records to document it.
However, various specialists have ruled out PCOS for me, along with a host of other metabolic disorders, although there is still suspicion of a pituitary microadenoma or other malfunction. (My pituitary keeps changing size and configuration on the annual/bi-annual scans, but they can never find an actual lesion.) And so I continue waiting and hoping, and trying to ignore the \"eww, you disgusting fatty\" voices of society...
@bibliophibian: Any doctor I am paying money to who would laugh in MY face would find themselves instantly profiled on yelp.com, losing an eventual stream of steady income. Yelp.com works!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-90073-100x100.png\")
@bibliophibian: Go to a different doctor that will check for hypothyroidism (not necessarily an Endo). Find one that doesn't use the blood test results alone and is also open to using natural thyroid meds like Armour Thyroid. These blood test results can be very misleading and unreliable.
@Jon Bothe: Do you choose to be a judgmental, all knowing jerk? Regardless, one doesn't have to have a weight problem to have health issues related to high sodium intake. Don't collude the two.
@Jon Bothe: I think you're half right. If you were informed, if you were provided the proper information to make your decision in a responsible way, THEN you chose.
But as you say, restaurants aren't forced to provide that information (and shockingly, when they aren't forced to, they don't), so people can't be held to the level of responsibility you seem to want here.
Information has to come FIRST; personal responsibility follows. Nobody who drank \"blue milk\" decades ago was \"responsible\" for the formaldehyde poisoning they got, because dairy companies were allowed to hide the fact of \"what makes the milk blue\".
@Jon Bothe: Whoa, whoa, whoa. While I agree that some people who are overweight (most?) are in that situation because of bad food and exercise choices, many people are in that situation because of genetics, medications, or other illnesses. I'm carrying about 20 extra pounds because of medication that makes it impossible to lose weight, even while eating healthfully and getting regular exercise.
You also forget how expensive the other end of the spectrum is. It's not just \"fatties\" and their food/exercise choices that are (potentially) increasing medical costs. Do you have any idea how expensive treatments are for eating disorders and complications thereof? And yes, at least part of eating disorder etiology seems to be genetically based, according to the most current research.
I'm sorry to say, but matter can neither be created or destroyed... and one pound of fat is 3500 calories. Your body doesn't absorb stuff from the air. It's like a sink... you put some stuff in and other stuff goes out.
If on a daily basis you take in 2000 and use 2100, each day you lose 100 calories and in 35 days you will lose one pound of fat.
Medical conditions may slow your metabolism and make you use only 1600, however, all that means is that you can eat less without affecting your health, as your body isn't using all of the calories you consume. If you stubbornly maintain your consumption at 2000 when your metabolism is only using 1600, then you're makiing a choice.
I'm thirsty.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125075-100x100.png\")
@Ronin-Democrat: This is exactly why I hate eating at Denny's - I get ravenously thirsty from all the salt. That doesn't happen even when I get the deliciously salty Hungarian salami sandwich from the [www.kashtanbistro.com] - well at least no more than a Polish beer can handle.
I'm just really scared to think that there are people who eat this shit every single day.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-14723-100x100.png\")
@kewlfocus: I'm scared to think that people can actually stand Denny's in the first place. I have never had a more flavorless meal than what's served at Denny's.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-590531-100x100.png\")
@Aesteval: \"I have never had a more flavorless meal than what's served at Denny's.\"
Obviously they need to add more salt.
@Aesteval: It's relative. When I was in college (a long time ago) my friends and I would occasionally go out late at night for Denny's Grand Slam breakfasts. They were cheap and tasted heavenly...at least compared to college food.
I wouldn't eat there now since I have access to better food and have health concerns that weren't there when I was in college.
Denny's should make their food information more readily available and people should use more common sense...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-505944-100x100.png\")
I wonder how meatless offerings stacked up in the sodium department.
@mianne: What, no lobster thermidore? I'd have the spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam and spam, but the beans are off.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-716547-100x100.png\")
In other news, fire is hot and will burn you.
@I Love New Jersey: Yes, but if you lit a candle on you dining room table and suddenly the flame jumped 30 feet into the air without warning, then we'd have a comparable scenario. People know that Denny's isn't great for them, but I don't think they realize how bad it is because Denny's isn't providing that information.
@SnowingCookies: I stand corrected. That's a great resource, but it would be nice to have it available at the restaurant. Who knows, maybe it is.
@ARP:
agreed!
i can still remember the last time I ate at Carl's Jr/Hardies. I placed my order at the register. and while waiting for it to be made, I looked over a huge posted that was displayed on the wall next to the registers. just about everything on that posted was grossly over the amount of calories I had thought they would be. i was expecting each food item to be some place between 400 - 800cal a piece. instead, each item was between 1200 and 1600cal!! coincidentally, that was the last time i at at a fast food hamburger joint except for the rare craving of a tommy's chili burger.
who eats at dennys anyways?
Please let us all remember the lady in FL who dies after entering a radio contest whose life would have been SAVED if she had eaten a Denny's meal. [en.wikipedia.org]
You actually NEED salt to survive. I don't know why the Center for Disease Control believes it should be 1500 milligrams, but the USDA's RDA for sodium is 2400 milligrams. So apparently the Reccomended Daily Amount of Sodium is almost twice what the CDC believes it should be.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-313764-100x100.png\")
@NeedsSharkRepellent_GitEmSteveDave: And the Ronald McDonald Center for Nutritional Science says we need at least 4000 mg of salt per day, along with a varied diet consisting of the patty, crispy, creamy and fizzy food groups. So there.
@NeedsSharkRepellent_GitEmSteveDave: I also found this: The American Heart Association recommends that for every 1,000 Calories of food consumed, the sodium intake should be 1,000 mg and should not exceed the 3,000 mg limit.
Now here's a question, if Denny's loses the suit will they also be force to remove salt shakers from the tables. Per the lawsuit that seems to be pouring gas on a fire.
@NeedsSharkRepellent_GitEmSteveDave: This sounds like those oil lobby ads that say \"Carbon Dioxide is needed for life, it can't be bad.\" To address your point:
A large percentage of people have a problem with too much salt and only a tiny, tiny percentage of people have a problem with too little (often serious atheletes, people with eating disorders, and physical/genetic problems according to the internets).
BTW- Even with your updated numbers, that's 2X the salt you need in a day.
@ARP: Correct for SOME of the entrees, it's twice what the USDA reccomends you ingest in a day. For SOME. I know if go and eat some chicken soup, that I will also probably meet, if not exceed my daily amount as well.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436259-100x100.png\")
@ARP: I dont think he was lobbying for Denny's. He was just making a point that salt by itself is not a death sentence, and that the CDC's figures are a bit alarmist.
I find myself trying to tell people the same things when they go off on a War Against Calories, or a Carbs Crusade.
\"How can you eat that donut! Do you have any idea how many calories it has?? It will take you an hour of exercises to burn those off!\"
Re: \"Because its yummy? 260. 25 Minutes on an elliptical machine. And I dont need to work them off. I need those 260 calories for daily sustenance.\"
Now if I was hogging down a few of those after having one of those 1200 calorie salads, that would suck.
@MostlyHarmless: Well yeah, Calories in itself isn't evil and is necessary, but every little thing adds up. Donut > Coffee > Milk > Unnecessarily sized salad > Pop/Soda > Dinner > unproportioned Snack?. People don't realize you can have things like that, but balance it out by not going overboard with other things.
I admit I'm somewhat of a calorie 'nut', but only in that I don't eat what adds up in the end. Stick to the essentials and portion yourself with bad stuff and voila, it all evens out.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-865061-100x100.png\")
@NeedsSharkRepellent_GitEmSteveDave: 6700 mgs is a pretty insane amount of salt, but the CDC 1500 recommendation is actually for specific populations that they recommend consume a reduced sodium diet (older people, Af-Ams, those with high blood pressure, etc. etc.)
I don't know where the misinterpretation crept in, but I always find CSPI reports and recommendations to be overly alarmist and Big Brotherish.
I don't get it...
yeah Dennys is bad do we really need a lawsuit to tell us this?
the public's interest...why wasn't I consulted about the decision to sue a restaurant chain on my behalf I should be contacted about working out a payment plan for my take of the settlement.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-61931-100x100.png\")
the public's interest...why wasn't I consulted about the decision to sue a restaurant chain on my behalf I should be contacted about working out a payment plan for my take of the settlement.But you were. Just like Denny's customers, all the information you need is right here on the intertubes.
Denny's is very popular with -- and promotes itself to -- seniors, a demographic less likely to be aware of nutritional science and more susceptible to the potential hazards of high sodium levels.
The sodium levels cited in the article are bizarrely high, far worse than any other restaurant I've ever heard of.
IMO this really does constitute a health hazard, particularly to at-risk people, and if it takes a lawsuit to generate headlines then so be it.
I don't think that all the sodium is from salt (sodium chloride) alone, many preservatives and synthetic additives contain sodium as well.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17012-100x100.png\")
This is why I don't like the CSPI. The statement \"The CDC recommends consuming no more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium each day\" is, as far as I can tell, misleading at best and an intentional distortion. This is what the CDC does say:
Current dietary guidelines recommend that adults in general should consume no more than 2,300 mg of sodium per day. However, if you are in the following population groups, you should consume no more than 1,500 mg per day.* You are 40 years of age or older.
* You are African American.
* You have high blood pressure.
Now, is it true that those groups include a lot of people? Yes. Is it true that most Americans should consume less salt? Absolutely. But it drives me crazy when people who have an otherwise-valid point choose to exaggerate and distort things that are alarming enough as it is, because it makes it really, really easy to disregard the whole thing as BS.
@44 in a Row:
\"...if you are in the following population groups, you should consume no more than 1,500 mg per day.
[...]
* You are African American.\"
Proof that the CDC is racist.
It's gonna come up, so the difference between junk-food restaurants and tobacco is that the restaurants aren't actively covering up and lying about the health of their food. Big Tobacco knew it was addictive and hid the studies from the public. Denny's and McDonald's have never pretended their food is healthy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-570288-100x100.png\")
@Brian James Schend: But there are restaurants that do pretend to be healthy and are not. Mimi's Cafe (not sure where they are all located) has something called \"Just Enough Lunches and Dinners\". They sound healthy, right? 'Spinach, Apple and Walnut Salad', Chicken Piccata, Petite Citrus Salmon.... but the Ciabatta on that special menu have 705 calories and 2037 mg of sodium!
As if the pissed off waitresses, bad service, and disgustingly dirty restaurants weren't enough, now I have yet another reason to avoid that place.
@ajn007: I think this just goes to show you that most people who complain about the lack of available nutrition facts are simply too lazy or incompetent to actually seek out the information (it was the first result on my Google search). Anything that's not placed directly in people's hands to apparently too difficult to obtain.
@supercereal: All other foods that you purchase have nutrition facts with them, and most of them (all that I've seen) are no where near as deadly as the foods these restaurants serve. Is it so freakin' hard for these companies to give you nutrition facts? On a napkin perhaps like subway? Or post them on a wall so that everyone may see that they care about peoples' health? Seems they're barely making them available if you have to go online to find them. That's just the way I see it.
@supercereal: Yeah but unless you research what you want to eat at Denny's before you go you have no way of knowing the nutritional info of the food on the menu. Fast food at least has the info on the wall/napkins/pamphlets inside the store.
@supercereal: \"Anything that's not placed directly in people's hands [is] apparently too difficult to obtain.\"
and still, some people insist on recording detailed instructions to their voice mail box on how a caller should leave a message -- even though it is the year 2009 and no longer 1999.
we understand that a name and a return call-back number should be left and it should go after the beep and not before! this is what voice mail is all about. duh!!
but still, there are those people who have not caught up with modern times and believe that just because they dont understand something, neither does anyone else.
@SnowingCookies: Does anything make you giggle more than a VM message where the people are talking as soon as it starts up, and they are talking to someone else about how they don't know if this is working or not?
This is just like so many other places..... from the internet:
Chili's Buffalo chicken fajitas with tortillas and condiments and a Dr. Pepper contains 6,916 mg of sodium.
Olive Garden's Tour of Italy lasagna with a breadstick, a garden fresh salad with house dressing and a Coca-Cola contains 6,176 mg of sodium.
Check yourself how much sodium is on one slice of the Costco pizza. It's all online.
This is why nutritional information has to be made available, then it's up to to each of us to decide.
@Inail: Agreed. My parents came to town (which meant lots of meals out) so I was looking up healthy stuff to get at the places we would go. I'm fairly certain that I never want to eat out again. Just the boneless buffalo wings appetizer at Longhorn had over 5,000 mg of sodium (granted I knew they were unhealthy, but 5000!!!!!!!!!).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-124903-100x100.png\")
I usually fall on the side of personal responsibility, but health of Americans is becoming a real epidemic. I'm 34 and would have never guessed Denny's 'food' had this much salt in it. We all say that we can look this stuff up on the net, but there is what we 'can' do and what people do. At the very least, this lawsuit brings to light the unsavory reality of their food.
@The Dude: I wouldn't have guessed either, and my 73-year-old father, who doesn't use the Internet and loves Denny's, probably doesn't know it either.
Nutrition information is all shown right here. What's the big deal? They clearly show what one's getting, which is more than some places offer.
@Inail: And everyone just whips out the ol' internet for a quick check of the nutritional information before ordering in a restaurant, right?
@JulesNoctambule: If you're truly concerned about the nutrition content of a meal, you would check it before deciding to go to the restaurant.
@bohemian: The hell it NEEDS to be on the menu. They can have a few laminated printouts if people are THAT worried about it. There ARE some people who employ common sense, and why should it be displayed next to a description of the meal? It can be available, but the customer is already in Denny's, they already know it's unhealthy.
So, we need a class action suit? Just don't go.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-232165-100x100.png\")
The Problem:
We wish we had the ability to be like Europe with their socialist ways yet be a democracy.
But we fear our super corrupt Politian's so much that we deny ourselves the social services that they do, and even more so many of us buy into this notion that anything from the government is bad.
This is another just another example.
A company should have the moral responsibility to educate it's consumers or at least provide information about the food they are serving.
I don't see how a restaurant is any different than a TV diner company.
I believe that Denny's and all chain restaurants should display nutrition content where the customer has easy access to view it when placing their order. For a fast food restaurant where you order at the counter, posting a chart on the wall is fine - it doesn't have to be on the menu board, just easily accessible with print large enough for the average person to read.
For a sit down restaurant, it should be on the menu. These companies know what's in the food, given that much of it comes in from a warehouse \"semi-prepared\".
I don't think that non-chain restaurants, bakeries, etc.. should have to display nutrition information as it can be a costly process and they are likely to have specials that are seasonal and based on available ingredients.
I think personal responsibility should play a large role in food choices, but it's not always easy to make the best choices when there are so many hidden ingredients.
I don't think anyone would suggest that bacon, sausage, and ham are healthy, low-sodium choices, but I'd expect Denny's bacon to be comparable to regular, grocery store bacon. So why is it so bad? My version of a Grand Slam Breakfast at home shouldn't be THAT much different than Denny's. Moderation, of course, is the key to all food.
WAHAHAHHAHHAHAHWHAHWHAWHAH... gasps for breath... reads the article again... BWAHAHWHAHWAAHHAHAHAHAWAHHA... oh I'm so lightheaded... oh god...
I remember reading an article years ago where they gave people two plates of the same food. The only difference was the amount of salt that was in the food served. People were asked to taste the food then salt to taste. They found out after testing the food again that people put less salt on the food than was originally in the food that was prepared with salt already in it.
IF and only IF the food packagers/restaurants would stop adding salt to their prepared foods and/or cut back by 50% of the amount that they place in our food then maybe just maybe health in the USA would improve.
But it looks so tasty!
A) Try reading, you'd be amazed what information you come across. If you cannot read, find someone who can relay the information contained in the material to you.
As stated in the link, this isn't about \"saving\" people who eat there, it's about compelling Denny's to simply disclose the information about its meals. Denny's knows the food is dangerous, but specifically chooses not to inform customers.
B) Just because someone chooses to eat at Denny's does not mean they are worthless. Everyone deserves to have reliable information prior to making a purchase.
C) If you feel so badly for Denny's having to take on such a burdensome lawsuit, start a collection and/or go volunteer some time in their kitchens.
As stated in the link, this isn't about \"saving\" people who eat there, it's about compelling Denny's to simply disclose the information about its meals. Denny's knows the food is dangerous, but specifically chooses not to inform customers.
@supercereal: Perhaps people are also up in arms about the fact that 2 out of every 3 Americans, or something close to that, eventually gets CANCER because they follow the ads and marketing and trust Denny's and other places regularly or even occasionally (plenty of cancer at the store too) because corporations that know better don't care.
The only place any more you can get anything near healthy without chemicals galore is farmer's markets, and I'm sure Monsanto is working on eliminating those.
This IS a conspiracy to keep American consumers fat, stupid, needy, poor and helpless. They will buy more bad food (fewer options not to) because they are hooked, need more \"drugs\" to fix things, need more exercise at gyms that econo-rape them, and buy more clothes as they change sizes. And put it all on redonkulous high intererest-rape credit cards. Wake up. It's just an expanded multi-industry version of what cigarette companies got sued for - addicting people with secret ingredients.
Don't believe me? Ask the ordinary American if they could go live on a farm and eat only off the farm for a week (i.e., eating truly healthy) and see what your answer is.
You don't need to believe me, get off your couch potato and go watch the Food Inc. movie and Fast Food Nation movie. Like you like to say, the information is there if you just stop being lazy and go avail yourself.
This IS a conspiracy to keep American consumers fat, stupid, needy, poor and helpless.They have computers at the insane asylum now?
You don't need to believe me, get off your couch potato and go watch the Food Inc. movie and Fast Food Nation movie. Like you like to say, the information is there if you just stop being lazy and go avail yourself.There's a huge difference between fact and propaganda. Unlike you, I choose to differentiate between the two and have the mental capacity to do so. Plus, I can't help but see the humor in your recommendation to \"get off the couch\" or to \"stop being lazy\" and instead \"go watch several movies.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-77175-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: What you say makes sense, if someone was planning a big night out to Denny's. Not everyone has a web-enabled phone to check the nutritional info of their breakfast when they decide to go to Denny's on a whim.
I may be grasping at straws here but I would wager most trips to Denny's are not of the plan ahead kind.
I'm not overweight, allergic to anything or have an issue with salt but I do think it would be fantastic if I could get some nutritional info about the food I'm eating when I'm at a restaurant.
By your logic NO ONE should have to put any info on their product, they could just post it online. I mean if you aren't too lazy or incompetent you can find the nutritional info of food in grocery store there too right?
@veg-o-matic: eelmonger previously posted a link on the denny's website to the information that you say that denny's does not disclose. [www.dennys.com]
@SnowingCookies: That's nice, but unless they want to have a highly visible and ready internet kiosk with this in every restaurant, they need to have it on the menus too, dear. It's not fair to assume the whole population has the internet or ready access to it where Denny's are located. (They don't.) Also, each waiter needs to be able to personally bring the info immediately upon request (they can't / don't I'll bet).
@SnowingCookies: Yeah never mind the good points you can't refute, resort to the immediate sign of defeat - insults.
C) If you feel so badly for Denny's having to take on such a burdensome lawsuit, start a collection and/or go volunteer some time in their kitchens.\"
Ouch!
That would be a nice idea though.
If you don't like someone's service GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! Prohibition will never work and that's all this is. YEAH you can serve sausage as long as it doesn't contain SALT! What sausage would they recommend Denny's selling that's low in salt? Fantasy Land sausage made from lean cuts of Jesus?
Eaters will just take their business elsewhere or just buy a pound of sausage from the supermarket and get their fill that way. Problem solved? Not even kinda.
\"Unfortunately people are unaware just how severely BAD this is for you to consume so much salt in one sitting.\"
Based on what? There aren't people dropping dead in mid chew. What's the definition of SEVERELY BAD if it doesn't include dying on the spot?
Cultural perception is what we are making all these laws around and it has nothing to do with reality. Salt was used to preserve food for a long long time. What do you think the salt content was back then? Like 30times what we claim is a healthy limit? 100 times? Was there mass extinction? How was this not the end of civilization?
It wasn't the end of civilization cause we are GUESSING that this is too much. Guessing. Not grounds for law or change or any of the above. It's about making a decision as an adult to what you want to put into your body. If we as adults are not allowed to make decisions for our own actions then what's the point?
How well do people think a bar would do if we all decided that people drink too much alcohol and all they could serve was 1% alcohol based drinks in the name of good health? grand closing almost immediately.
According to my physician, \"dangerous\" salt intake is decided by the consumer's blood pressure and kidney health among other factors. Someone with really low blood pressure and healthy kidneys could easily process a ton of salt with no adverse or long-term effects.
@supercereal: @SnowingCookies: Ahh, but the lawsuit has to do with disclosing dangerous amounts of sodium, not just the standard nutrition information.
I agree everyone should educate themselves as much as they can, but CSPI is especially concerned with the restaurant knowingly pushing high levels of sodium.
@veg-o-matic:
Here's the thing, people who want the nutrition information, or even care about it for that matter, will get it. They will find it online or they will ask in the restaurant. If it's not available, they're left with a CHOICE: Eat there not knowing how healthy (or unhealthy) the food is or leave and patronize a restaurant that discloses their nutrition information in a manner satisfactory to the consumer. As the push for \"healthy\" food continues, restaurants that don't disclose will lose the customers who care.
Denny's does disclose their information. Expecting them to \"warn\" their customers about an arguably unhealthy level of sodium is absurd. It's a waste of the court's resources and an affront to the idea of personal responsibility.
@veg-o-matic: In that case, I think we're on the same page. Still, a \"dangerous amount\" of anything is very dependent on the person. While I have a hard time believing that 5500mg of sodium is healthy for anyone, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that it's less unhealthy (or \"dangerous\") for some over others.
Sodium is also a life necessity, as is something like vitamin C. I routinely have twice the recommended amount of vitamin C a day (heck, just a couple glasses of OJ will do it), even though some scientists agree that too much vitamin C is dangerous. Why should Denny's be sued over, say, Tropicana?
Plus, I suppose it all comes down to the serving size too -- if someone chooses to ear a meal with 80000 calories, but that meal contains 10000 servings, is it necessarily unhealthy? Or did the person just eat too much of it?
Pretty funny. \"I have a medical condition that requires I watch my salt intake. So I cook at home. But sometimes I eat out and I demand that all restaurants adhere to my dietary requirements. It's easier for them to adhere to my personal needs than it is for me not to eat there.\"
Seriously, WTF? Who is this guy to think a whole chain is responsible for his need to control what he eats?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-856526-100x100.png\")
Stories like this make me wonder if there is a \"Wheel of Misfortune\" system used by the medical community to generate these stories. It seems like everything in life has been found by medical science to have some hidden killer property when used excessively or inappropriately. If the trans-fat does not kill you, you can bet that calories, saturated fat, sodium, Bisphenol-A, or some other mystery substance imported direct from China will. After all, the only constants in life are death and taxes.
I hate when people go, look, it's all online!
We have the Internet, but many people in the US still have such slow Internet and prehoistoric computers that they would never use them for such a superficially frivoulous thing, and may not even know how. When you use the web every day, of course your instinct is to Google everything. But when you only turn it on to type a letter in Word? When you don't know what a pdf is or how to open it? How is that fair to EVERYONE?
It needs to be on the menu. Also how many of you really knew how much sodium was ina Denny's meal? Not just what you assumed, but quantitatively? If a restaurant has levels of ingredients that are so unhealthy that a reasonable person, based upon their own cooking experience, would not conceive of such a meal, that is deceptive.
If you go to a restaurant, for instance, and order a grilled piece of chicken, you should be reasonably able to ballpark the amount of calories in that based upon what you know about grilled chicken in general. If you later find out that your grilled chicken was 2000 calories, you would be more than entitled to file suit because that is an egregious disparity to pass under a customer's nose.
@aguacarbonica: This is so true, also what about those spontaneous trips to restaurants. Unless you are living under a rock, they happen. Your not likely to have a laptop on you and Denny's isn't likely to provide you with free wifi access so you can look up the menu. Its unreasonable to expect that people memorize the calorie content of every restaurant meal and store that information in their head. It needs to be on the menu, if its not on the menu then the server should be required to ask every table if they would like to see a nutritional information brochure before you order your meals. This is at the very least.
It will never happen, because companies are way too scared to admit what is actually in their food. It will turn people off, and it will make them lose business. In this economy that is the worst thing that could happen.
@Outrun1986: steak n shake near me has free wifi. it's not advertised but i've looked up their menu on a spontaneous trip with my little handheld computer. but it was a lucky break for me.
@aguacarbonica: true enough. i talk to a large number of people through my job and many of them are older folks or people with poor vision and coordination due to the specific medical condition we are calling them about.
my coworkers and i are frustrated with trying to change a company policy that insists we mention the website on every single call, whether the person uses the internet or not. these are repeat calls to a stable group of people and we know that about half of them don't have internet access or have it available but choose not to use it.
The problem is that the public, as a whole, is too stupid to find out or care about these nutritional facts. Lawsuits like this are necessary to make the public healthier and more informed, therefore reducing health care premiums, burdens on services and increasing the quality of life all around.
If you don't think the public is stupid, as a whole, you must never look around at the garbage that the public consumes (American Idol, McDonalds, bottled water, etc).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-327923-100x100.png\")
One poster here made a good point. If you don't like the way the Denny's makes the food then don't eat there? Why does our own court systems even take these cases and why don't the courts start punishing the lawyers who take these cases on? Laws were established to protect people, but the laws were established by the people and the vast amount of people don't want to see these constant lawsuits, I know I don't. I don't eat at Denny's because I don't want to eat that unhealthy but if someone else likes it then let them have it, neither myself nor the \"law\" should decide what legal foods a person can inguest, period.
Maybe Denny's exists to feed M-113 creatures...they need salt too. And my cat, nothing he likes more than licking the salt off my potato chips
I am not in shock that Denny's food is not the best for you. I am suprised they were singled out as Friendly's, Perkins and most other chains probably are just as bad. I avoid them all.
Superbird is a great sandwich.
Just consumer an extra glass of water to flush out the excess sodium and call it a day.
Death by Denny's?.......please!!
I am seeing a really disturbing trend of blaming the obese for all the ills of our healthcare system.
I agree that in many (but not all) cases, the healthcare costs associated with diabetes and other problems associated with obesity could be avoided with lifestyle changes. But I do NOT agree with the scapegoating of the obese for our broken healthcare system. I don't believe for a second that all the rising costs and increasing problems of health insurance are the fault of obese individuals; they are just a convenient group whose increased numbers and visibility happen to correspond with the desire of insurers to increase profitability at the cost of, you know, actually helping people pay for healthcare.
It's easy for the insurers to point to the obese and say, \"Hey, we wouldn't have to raise premiums if these assholes could stay out of Denny's,\" but it's unclear whether the link between obesity and, for example, diabetes is even causal, and it's sad that so much of the American public has bought it hook, line, and sinker, and started to take up that argument too. We should be railing against the healthcare system that has spectacularly failed to cope with changes in health trends, not the people who have -- willingly or not, knowingly or not -- required healthcare.
@AuntieMaim: \"it's unclear whether the link between obesity and, for example, diabetes is even causal, and it's sad that so much of the American public has bought it hook, line, and sinker, and started to take up that argument too.\"
Even though you clarified what you meant by \"it,\" I think this statement holds true even if \"it\" is assumed to mean the link between diabetes and obesity.
I am obese, but I consume about 800-1000 calories a day, have low-normal blood pressure, normal cholesterol, and \"beautiful\" (in my doctor's words) blood sugars. I've had doctors simply assume that I am diabetic, because of my weight and my age, and argue with me when I have assured them that I am not, until they get the bloodwork back... and on one occasion a doctor ordered a retest of a normal glucose because he thought it must be a lab error.
I'm certainly not doubting that there is a lot of correlation with diabetes and obesity, but there are also a lot of very slender people with type II diabetes, and a lot of very obese people without it. Unfortunately, there is a widespread belief, even among the medical community, that the two always, inevitably, go hand in hand, and if you have one then you automatically have the other.
I'm sure lots of people look at me and assume I'm a burden on their taxes with my hypertensive, high-cholesterolled, diabetic self, and it's simply untrue.
@AuntieMaim: And by \"it\" in \"American public has bought it\", I meant the argument that premiums have to be raised because of obesity. Just realized that was unclear.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-81067-100x100.png\")
Looks like I've got one foot in the grave. I had a Meat Lover's Scramble the other nigh...what's that bright light? GRANDMA?!
Oh come on, I've been in Denny's with my daughter a lot. Never have we seen the nutritional information about the meals we get there. Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine a modern chain using this much salt in their meals. Personally, we rarely use salt at home, but these extreme high levels of salt is just plain bad for people. It does make me angry at Denny's and I am glad for watchdog institutions that hold chains accountable. It's unfortunate that it takes so long to find out companies using these slimy techniques to get people's money. When I go to any restaurant in America, I expect to get a relatively well prepared and healthy meal, plain and simple. Of course in some States, say Idaho, the food ratings system have no baring with reality. I still would expect Denny's to avoid these kinds of expensive law suits, or publicity. Yet accountants in America continue to amaze me with their stupidity. Knowledge is power, others that say they don't want to hear about things like this, they can go on sticking their fat heads in the ground. That way I know I'll have some place to park my bike when I arrive at certain restaurants. ;)
@Hybriddeathdealer: Definitely not the case, you have probably a 90% chance of getting a meal that is horrible for you and a 10% chance of getting one that is good for you. Its kind of unfair to single Denny's out though, as pretty much ANY chain restaurant is just as bad for you as Denny's
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-730845-100x100.png\")
@Hybriddeathdealer: \"When I go to any restaurant in America, I expect to get a relatively well prepared and healthy meal, plain and simple.\"
Unfortunately that is not the case at all. If you take a look at the nutritional information of meals at many restaurants (such as Chili's, Red Lobster, and of course, Denny's) you will see that you really are not getting a \"healthy\" meal. Fortunately there ARE entrees at restaurants that have a decent amount of sodium and fat which allow you to eat relatively healthy when you eat out, but (at least in my case) when I go out to a restaurant I do not, by any means, expect to receive a healthy meal.
Unfortunately the presence of sodium in most restaurant meals seems to be due to preservatives, which sadly are present in almost anything. I think it is rather difficult to avoid a high sodium intake unless you stick to anything fresh because anything canned or frozen is going to be full of sodium.
For those defending Denny's, there is one argument that nobody has mentioned that clearly justifies any lawsuit.
If Denny's, as a corporation in a capitalist society, is free to pursue profit, so should individuals in a class action lawsuit.
Denny's wants to make money by salting you to death? Then you are entitled to bankrupt Denny's if you have a strong enough legal case.
If you don't want those kinds of lawsuits, maybe keeping a tighter leash on corporations in the first place would be the way to go. Pick your poison, or salt.
Because I like to get to the point, who cares. The food is good. I can think of 10 things the Center for Science in the Public Interest should focous on right now.
Hell start with cold fusion or faster than light travel, that should keep them busy for a while.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-965713-100x100.png\")
Who in God's name is approving this as a class action suit? If you're stupid enough to eat Denny's food and think you are getting something healthy, than social darwinism is working and you need to die early anyway. This is a prime example of waste in our judicial system.
@jayphat: Why does anyone have to approve lawsuits beforehand? Judges or arbitrators can help resolve or throw out - that process is already there, thanks.
Also, I really don't appreciate your \"it's always the consumer's fault one way or the other\" mindset here on a pro-consumer blog. No, it is the business' fault for omitting, tricking people in marketing or not making the information quickly available at the restaurant upon request. Further their fault for trashing the insides of their consumer's bodies. The \"Nutrition Coordinator\" listed on their \"nutrition info\" website should be renamed the \"cholesterol cancer\" coordinator or the company should be sued for fraud calling them that to the public.
@jayphat: Approve? If you pay the filing fee it's approved. No one approves this shit before it's filed.
If you're actually concerned about what's in the meal, you wouldn't eat at a chain restaurant.
@cerbie:
Right because none of those \"mom & pop\" restaurants ever use pre-prepared ingredients and foods. Just because a restaurant isn't a large food chain doesn't mean their food isn't packaged and full of preservatives. Oftentimes they just order them from providers. Happy eating.
@cerbie: AND you wouldn't go to the grocery store AND you wouldn't go to drive thrus AND you wouldn't go to the movies AND you wouldn't go to vending machines. Your criticism when followed out really means anyone who isn't a vegan farmer in a rural area doesn't give a damn about their diet.
The fact is consumers have unhealthy food options thrust at them in a deceptive manner systematically, with multiple industries in collusion. Not to accept this and further blame other consumers when you probably do the same things they do but pretend otherwise on a website is to completely be in denial and offensively hypocritical, or intellectually dishonest.
Denny's is a good place to eat verses some of the fast food places. I see more of the older crowd, and a lot of the younger crowd all the time in Denny's. This seems to be a bias opinion of a IHOP employee (who is losing market share to Denny's) My wife likes Denny's over some of the \"better restaurants\" here in San Antonio, We both like steak ,fish,and salads. Denny's breakfast menu has
numerous selections it's up to the individual what they order.
Nobody here has really asked the question, \"Why is there so much salt in convenience and restaurant foods now?\" I believe it has gotten worse over the years. One funny example of a salt reduction is in SpaghettiOs, which about a year ago reduced its salt content by about 35%. The store O brands are still as salty as ever.
@WhoAsked You: I'm just saying it's kind of an awkward thing for the government to be mandating, telling every restaurant where they need to disclose nutrition information. The government already mandates that nutrient information be available. If someone's concerned, they ask for it. I'm all for ensuring that it's easy to get a hold of, but if it's not, companies are already breaking a law. Playing devil's advocate, I guess.
@guymandude: Oh yes, because it's certainly logical to compare water, for which you would have to drink gallons and gallons to kill yourself, and would be evident in food, and sodium, which only takes a a few grams in excess, and can be digested essentially undetected.
And I think you missed my point, which was that people probably want to know what's in the stuff they're eating, ESPECIALLY when it comes to stuff which causes millions of people to die every year. I'm sure you know how many people struggle to keep their sodium low due to health reasons. Why should people have to guess? I suggest you see @bibliophibian's comment, they handled this discussion well.
@AlexDitto: I think YOU missed the point. The point is that you're an idiot and that your comparison was moot as people do not use hydrogen cyanide to flavor their food. And in case you forgot NaCl is water soluable and is mostly excreted when you piss. So it isn't like vitamin E (feel free to insert your favorite fat soluable chemical here) that is bioaccumulated. So if you're going to rail at water as a comparison b/c of how much you would need to be fatal you should also rail at cyanide b/c of the extrememly small amount that is fatal. It's your argument. So don't get confused.
Oh Well, I'm still going to eat there 4 times every weekend at 3am after Friday night, 10am Saturday morning, 3am after Saturday night, and 10am Sunday morning. Two scrambled eggs, 4 pieces of bacon burnt to crisp, and two slices of wheat toast. Tiny bit of syrup and 2-3 cups of coffee, 3 packs of sugar each. But I'll get hit by a bus first before Dennys kills me.
Why do they put so much salt in anyway?? There is a salt shaker on the table
Okay obama zombies brown shirts, now its time to classify salt as a drug and have it regulated by the FDA. Better yet, lets now tax people on the amount they take in.
@dblumgart: Whatever Repugnican Nazi fascist who wanted to make sure we had no Bill of Rights left the last 8 years and could never sue when corporations commit fraud and sell us lethal or harmful products.
@WhoAsked You: Right, bacon, eggs,sausage and pancakes are lethal products. If you don't realize pork products are high in salt, your stupider than your regular ObamaBot. If you don't like the salt, DON'T EAT THERE! Climb up a tree, bang on your tambourine, and eat your granola and nuts==you fruit cake!
Restaurants should be \"forced\" to provide nutrition information? Who's going to make them do it? The government? So instead of paying higher insurance premiums (where's the data that says you do?) you would rather pay higher taxes so that the government can manage that whole bag?
Salt != sodium
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-176356-100x100.png\")
I guess after those busybodies shut down Dennys, they'll next go after Cracker Barrel. Nothing at Cracker Barrel is under 1,700 calories. One serving of their country ham has a full RDA of sodium.
Then again, nobody in their right mind goes to Denny's except at 3 am when the nightclubs close.
@S-the-K: Cracker Barrel is owned by Holy Roller anti-everything loony aholes. Wouldn't hurt anyone a bit them there shuttin' down I figure.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-681073-100x100.png\")
I remember when Denny's used to taste good... Like 10 years ago.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-421267-100x100.png\")
Who's laughing now? The Nannerpus, that's who!
And let's not forget everyone the racist history of some of the locations - still going on apparently:
Then:
Now:
It boils down to this: Chain restaurants would just put the information on the menu IF they didn't think they had something to hide. Period. All these people are assuming nobody would care/it would make no difference while they defend Denny's -- but if Denny's management agreed, they'd have the info available.
I believe in personal responsibility, but without clear information about risks, it becomes impossible to exercise personal responsibility in any meaningful fashion. And all the people grousing about how \"you can find it online!\"/\"supermarkets list calories and sodium so you should figure it out from there!\" -- they've all forgotten that people had to fight to get that information, too.
I would be all for joining in a Class Action suit, if I ever ate at Dennys.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-522770-100x100.png\")
5,5000 mg of salt is the equivalent of a teaspoon of salt.
A teaspoon.
Seriously, you're not supposed to ingest more than 1.5 g of salt a day? My mom puts more than that on her steak.
A 2004 study showed that the average Canadian has a sodium intake of 4,000 mg/day, US citizens were at 4100 mg / day. Children aged 1 - 3 average 1,920 mg / day, US children at 2,140 mg / day.
I don't think Denny's is the root of the issue ....
This article should be tagged \"Killing me softly with its salt\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-485396-100x100.png\")
Got a problem with Dennys stay home. I don't eat there because the service lacks, and the cooks wipe their noses with the same fingers they wipe their asses with. People that are pushing these lawsuits want us all to be eating granola, tofu, and bean sprouts. There is another frivolous lawsuit out there blaming hot dog manufacturers for the increase in colon cancer.
Eating at dennys is dangerous but if I have to eat there by damn I want moons over myhammy.
This is why we're all just getting fatter - we don't know what we're eating! If the nutritional information in each dish was in front of you before you ordered, I highly doubt you'd make the same choice (or at least, most of us wouldn't). When you went out to eat and saw that one dish had more than 2,000 calories, or 5,500 mg of sodium, or 200g of sugar or whatever it might be, you might think twice.
Its just another reminder to be aware of what you're putting in your mouth. We no longer are just eating food because so many restaurants and products available in the grocery store are loaded with chemicals and crap. Eww.
i call b.s. on this one. come on people, we have to take responsibility for ourselves!
A quarter teaspoon of salt is equal to 590 mgs.!
So, if you are making a large batch of soup, add a quarter teaspoon of salt and watch how many people will add salt before they consume it.
What this so-called report is NOT telling you is that most fast food places such as Denny's have to make large batches of certain menu options. In doing so, they add just enough to taste or what the recipe calls for.
Every darn fast food place out there places salt on fries. Show me a place that does not!
How many of those bringing the suit can honestly state that they have NEVER used salt for taste on anything that they have eaten? Probably less then 1% if even that.
Ham? It is preserved using salt! It is a natural preservative. Guess they would rather they use other presevatives that are known to cause cancer. Seems that would be better to them.
Eggs? They are made most places without salt. You need to place that.
Butter? There is salted and unsalted. Which do most places use? Probably salted! Simple switch.
It is the volume at which each item is made and by what company. Ever notice that most of what is on the market is packed with sodium?
A little hint! Look at the packages for the amount of sodium and see what the potassium is. Make sure that the amount of potassium is double the sodium. The two will help each other in your system.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1004377-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-133145-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-210697-100x100.png\")
You could say the secret ingredient is salt.
@B: What's next, lamb chops?
@B: Thanks, Marge.
In keeping with the Groening theme allow me to add:
Fry: That's the saltiest thing I ever tasted, and I once ate a big heaping bowl of salt.
Bender: The salt level was 10% less than a lethal dose!
Zoidberg: Uh oh, I shouldn't have had seconds.