3 ms·

Would you consider iodized salt "mass medication"?

by l72 2y ago

crote 2y ago
Non-iodized salt is easily available at large quantities for a price very similar to iodized salt. A person who doesn't want to consume iodine via their salt can just choose not to buy it. It is not mass medication, because it is a choice. Drinking water is a completely different story. You can't survive more than a few days without it, and it is being pumped straight into our homes. Bottled water is literally orders of magnitude more expensive, so it cannot be used as a suitable alternative for drinking - let alone for activities like showering and washing dishes. If the water contains fluoride, a significant portion of the population cannot make the choice to consume unadulterated water instead. They are forced to drink it.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  So fluoridated water is mass medication because the alternatives are bottled or expensive, not pumped into the house, and salt is non-mass medication even though its “natural”-marketed alternatives are more expensive too. I guess milk and grains (vitamin D and folate added) are just normal non-mass medicated foods too given that they aren’t pumped into the house like water either? Or is it mass medication in the grains case because the FDA requires folic acid to be added? This is starting to sound real silly.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    Social categories cannot be both comprehensive and consistent and you're asking for both.
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago
      I'm asking for consistency from one person.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        I know. Not even one person has consistency. There will either be cases of ambiguity or contradiction. You're arguing against Gödel's incompleteness theorem. You're asking for something that's not possible.
  - crote 2y ago
    > So fluoridated water is mass medication because the alternatives are bottled or expensive, not pumped into the house, and salt is non-mass medication even though its “natural”-marketed alternatives are more expensive too Correct. You already get most of your salt intake from salt-containing foods. In most cases there is zero need to add salt to your food. You can get a 3lbs box of kosher salt for less than $4. Assuming the maximum recommended daily salt intake of 6g, if you get half of that via added salt, that's less than $0.01 / day. Alternatives are widely available at no significant burden, so it is not mass medication. > Or is it mass medication in the grains case because the FDA requires folic acid to be added? Debatable because grain-free diets are possible. But I would indeed consider this a form of mass medication because it is mandatory to add it. In fact, for a long time my country explicitly forbade adding it to grains! These days it is allowed here, but of course optional. My position is incredibly simple, actually: don't require adding random stuff to food which doesn't need to be there! It is my body, the government doesn't get to decide what I do with it. It is irrelevant whether that is helpful (like fluoridated water and folic acid almost certainly are) or harmful, they should not have that power in the first place.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
I don't think so. It is supplementation, though you could make the argument that it, too, should not be mandated (these things are subject to public consensus). And indeed, you can easily buy salt that isn't iodized. The same holds for vitamin D supplementation in milk. It, too, is avoidable (though I can't see why you would go out of your way to avoid either, in general). I don't think you can construe fluoridation as supplementation, especially given that it is not really needed, especially under current circumstances. There are also mixed studies about the health effects of consuming fluoride (I mentioned intelligence studies, but fluorosis of the bones also comes to mind). Also, you must factor in the gravity of the health concern and the efficacy of the treatment. Fluoride doesn't seem to be justified in this regard. Iodine, and even vitamin D, I would argue, are much more justifiable, and as I wrote above, more avoidable. I would say the principle we should be working from is that such intervention must be justifiable and proportionately so. You're in a bad place if your basic argument for something is "It's not harmful". That's not a reason to institute something. The burden of justification is on those who institute things.
stuaxo 2y ago
Yes, you're one of the only countries that does this.

Would you consider iodized salt "mass medication"?

by l72 2y ago

Would you consider iodized salt "mass medication"?

Non-iodized salt is easily available at large quantities for a price very similar to iodized salt. A person who doesn't want to consume iodine via their salt can just choose not to buy it. It is not mass medication, because it is a choice. Drinking water is a completely different story. You can't survive more than a few days without it, and it is being pumped straight into our homes. Bottled water is literally orders of magnitude more expensive, so it cannot be used as a suitable alternative for drinking - let alone for activities like showering and washing dishes. If the water contains fluoride, a significant portion of the population cannot make the choice to consume unadulterated water instead. They are forced to drink it.

hombre_fatal 2y ago
So fluoridated water is mass medication because the alternatives are bottled or expensive, not pumped into the house, and salt is non-mass medication even though its “natural”-marketed alternatives are more expensive too. I guess milk and grains (vitamin D and folate added) are just normal non-mass medicated foods too given that they aren’t pumped into the house like water either? Or is it mass medication in the grains case because the FDA requires folic acid to be added? This is starting to sound real silly.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Social categories cannot be both comprehensive and consistent and you're asking for both.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    I'm asking for consistency from one person.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      I know. Not even one person has consistency. There will either be cases of ambiguity or contradiction. You're arguing against Gödel's incompleteness theorem. You're asking for something that's not possible.
- crote 2y ago
  > So fluoridated water is mass medication because the alternatives are bottled or expensive, not pumped into the house, and salt is non-mass medication even though its “natural”-marketed alternatives are more expensive too Correct. You already get most of your salt intake from salt-containing foods. In most cases there is zero need to add salt to your food. You can get a 3lbs box of kosher salt for less than $4. Assuming the maximum recommended daily salt intake of 6g, if you get half of that via added salt, that's less than $0.01 / day. Alternatives are widely available at no significant burden, so it is not mass medication. > Or is it mass medication in the grains case because the FDA requires folic acid to be added? Debatable because grain-free diets are possible. But I would indeed consider this a form of mass medication because it is mandatory to add it. In fact, for a long time my country explicitly forbade adding it to grains! These days it is allowed here, but of course optional. My position is incredibly simple, actually: don't require adding random stuff to food which doesn't need to be there! It is my body, the government doesn't get to decide what I do with it. It is irrelevant whether that is helpful (like fluoridated water and folic acid almost certainly are) or harmful, they should not have that power in the first place.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

I don't think so. It is supplementation, though you could make the argument that it, too, should not be mandated (these things are subject to public consensus). And indeed, you can easily buy salt that isn't iodized. The same holds for vitamin D supplementation in milk. It, too, is avoidable (though I can't see why you would go out of your way to avoid either, in general). I don't think you can construe fluoridation as supplementation, especially given that it is not really needed, especially under current circumstances. There are also mixed studies about the health effects of consuming fluoride (I mentioned intelligence studies, but fluorosis of the bones also comes to mind). Also, you must factor in the gravity of the health concern and the efficacy of the treatment. Fluoride doesn't seem to be justified in this regard. Iodine, and even vitamin D, I would argue, are much more justifiable, and as I wrote above, more avoidable. I would say the principle we should be working from is that such intervention must be justifiable and proportionately so. You're in a bad place if your basic argument for something is "It's not harmful". That's not a reason to institute something. The burden of justification is on those who institute things.

stuaxo 2y ago

Yes, you're one of the only countries that does this.