Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A New York legislator wants to ban the use of salt in restaurants. Seriously.
Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking."No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.
What's next, a bill prohibiting food that tastes good?
Politics
Comments
Send him a cake.
One with the salt left out of the recipe.
Posted by: abb3w | March 17, 2010 9:15 AM
Friggin' Nanny State crap really pisses me off.
Posted by: heddle | March 17, 2010 9:21 AM
Or send him some cookies, or a steak, or any food really.
Better yet, force him on no-salt diet for a week then ask him how he likes his hyponatraemia....
Posted by: KevinS | March 17, 2010 9:26 AM
Posted by: Doug Little | March 17, 2010 9:28 AM
Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Next up we will be alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat, bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion will also be illegal. But, then again so will pregnancy, if you don't have a license.
(
Blatantly ripped off fromInspired by one of my favorite bad movies, Demolition Man.)Posted by: Abby Normal | March 17, 2010 9:31 AM
NY without salted meat products. Oh the humanity.
Posted by: Doug Little | March 17, 2010 9:41 AM
The bill, as written, is in fact absurd and unenforceable. Ortiz has actually admitted that he knows nothing about cooking or the restaurant business. Or even basic human physiology, apparently. It's true that many foods--especially fast food and processed foods--have too much salt. Are all these to be outlawed in New York? Some ingredients--cheeses and processed meats, for instance--are salty by nature. Are these to be banned as well? It's beyond "nanny state"--it's truly in bizarro land.
Posted by: Moopheus | March 17, 2010 9:51 AM
A law on the books that made it mandatory for restaurants to disclose how MUCH salt/sodium is used might be a good idea, if done properly.* After all, people have a right to know if what they're planning on eating will have more salt than what they might be expecting, and thus aggravate a medical condition. But such a blanket ban on salt like what is being proposed is completely absurd!
*Instead of having to list actual (average) sodium amounts per serving, I recommend using legally defined 'buckets' -- for example: less than 100mg, between 300 - 500mg, and greater than 500mg -- that would encourage chefs to adjust their high sodium dishes to a lower level to get a better classification, while still giving them the benefit of letting them create their meals in whatever way they see fit.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 17, 2010 9:58 AM
Wait, I don't get it. I can't even blame this on the nanny state because salt isn't bad for us, except those who have specific medical conditions. This is like banning dairy products because some people are lactose intolerant. It's even worse because humans need salt to live. Also, I thought obesity was society's current thing to hate, and salt has no calories.
Posted by: catgirl | March 17, 2010 9:58 AM
My bet it that the anti-salt bill is really just a stepping stone to a greater plan for banning the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in NY. He's getting a feel for the attidudes of New Yorkers, dipping his toe in the proverbial water before diving in.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 17, 2010 10:02 AM
I can just see the Mob suddenly being in the Salt business.
Posted by: Madrocketscientist | March 17, 2010 10:13 AM
I agree with mr heddle on this point -- nanny state gone to the point of absurdity.
Of course, this is also why I disagree with organized religion. However, I also don't understand why mr heddle (and I'm not generalizing here) would, on the one hand, point out the problems of a "nanny state" and yet remain a religionist, what with all the dos and don'ts that are so central to so many religious nanny-state-like tenets (including Christianity).
Posted by: mercurianferret | March 17, 2010 10:20 AM
It has nothing to do with Nanny State. NY legislators could not care less about the general health and welfare of citizens. As far as I have ever been able to figure out the bills they introduce are meant to distract everyone from their abysmal failure to actually govern. Good grief, have you managed to miss Spitzer, Patterson, Domestic Violence, a $10 billion budget hole etc. etc. etc. ? This salt thing is a total attempt at distraction.
Posted by: pHred | March 17, 2010 10:28 AM
Re mercurianferret
Actually, it's Prof. Heddle. Prof. Heddle is a professor of physics at one of the Virginia state universities.
Posted by: SLC | March 17, 2010 10:29 AM
Gonna make selling and cooking seafood interesting. Lucky NY's denizen hate seafood. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 17, 2010 10:37 AM
mercurianferret,
Isn't is obvious? Because I try to follow the dos and don'ts of my religion (such as they are) voluntarily and I don't ask you or anyone else to follow them at all.
Posted by: heddle | March 17, 2010 10:38 AM
How are NYers gonna eat corned beef samwiches? Baby cucumbers picked in brine?
Gah, the terrorist have just won. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 17, 2010 10:43 AM
The person who introduced this bill is either: a total self-righteous moron; or deliberately trying to make the entire movement for healthier and safer food look stupid.
There are laws pertaining to food content and preparation that really make sense and improve public health at a reasonable cost. This is not one of them. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I can't help thinking the whole purpose of this bill is to get more people to react like heddle and oppose ALL legislation to improve food quality and safety.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 17, 2010 10:53 AM
Raging Bee @18:
You think the government is engaged in a conspiracy to make people trust the government less? Yes, you are paranoid. Never attribute to malice that which is equally well explained by stupidity.
Posted by: Miko | March 17, 2010 10:59 AM
First of all, calling it a conspiracy is a bit of an exaggeration, maybe even going into straw-man territory. Raging Bee did not make that claim.
Second, plenty of politicians are distrustful of the government, even though they are part of it. Think about Sarah Palin and the death panels thing. "The government" isn't one unified block of people. There are individuals within it who often want to make other individuals or subgroups look bad.
Posted by: catgirl | March 17, 2010 11:08 AM
No one's life, liberty, or property is safe while the New York state legislature is in session. I love this city, but the state government gives new meaning to the term "dysfunctional relationship."
Posted by: Vicki | March 17, 2010 11:08 AM
As I read it, this bill bans all food that has more than two ingredients and that also contains salt. In other words, it bans all food.
If you add an ingredient that contains salt, you are using "salt in any form". Since every food ingredient contains salt (sodium and chloride both being essential components of all living organisms), no food can be prepared by restaurants. Since the term "restaurant" isn't defined, I wonder what type of food providing places are covered? Are cafeterias covered? How about prison cafeterias? Schools? Hospitals? Delis?
Posted by: daedalus2u | March 17, 2010 11:10 AM
Right... because the history of the Christian religion is all about not asking anyone else to follow the tenets of Christianity at all . But of course, that's those people and not your take on Christianity. And - from previous comments - you are free to pick and choose those parts of the dos and don'ts that you think are the right ones (and yet aren't a cafeteria Christian).
Btw, what about Matthew 28:16-20 (with all that talk of commanding others to obey Jesus and nothing about doing it voluntarily)? And how is that not a commandment (apparently directly from the Big JC) to start up what you term a "nanny state"?
Posted by: mercurianferret | March 17, 2010 11:14 AM
Possibly he is a Colombian salt manufacturer that wants to make a dime on salt prohibition.
Posted by: Björn Lindström | March 17, 2010 11:30 AM
Bagels. Apparently he wants to shut down every bakery in New York.
However, hasn't anyone appreciated the fact that this comes to us on Saint Patrick's Day? The dude has just burned all of the Jews and Irish (to mention two) in New York. Brilliant, just brilliant.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 17, 2010 11:31 AM
doctorgoo,
Better for whom? I would tend to rate it the other way give a higher classification to saltier dishes, mmmmmmm bacon anybody!There is a better way to tell how much salt is in something rather than having to get the poor chefs to remember how many pinches they put in this dish or that, its called your damn taste buds and experience.
Posted by: Doug Little | March 17, 2010 11:31 AM
I find this quite amusing. The "legislator" to use the term very loosely, knows basically nothing about food, nothing about restaurants, nothing about human physiology, nothing about law enforcement, and nothing about economics. Attempting to enforce this ban would tax health and law enforcement officials beyond the breaking point. It would shut down the vast majority of restaurants in the city. And, in the end, it would effectively destroy NYC's economy.
If you read this guy's background though, it makes sense. His father suffers a heart attack due to high blood pressure, he tries to pass legislation making it so others wont go through the pain his family has suffered. It's silly and impossible, and ignores the fact that odds are very good that if salt had anything to do with his father's illness, it was likely his father adding the salt that played an integral role in that illness.
Now, to be fair, Mr. Ortiz insists it is intended for salt added above and beyond recipe requirements. I don't think that fixes anything since that is the salt the consumer adds on their own making it completely unenforceable. Also, in this guy's favor, he argued for the cell phone ban, which I firmly agree with, and he argues for an 18 year old drinking age, which I agree 21 is nearly as unenforceable as laws against marijuana.
I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt and list this as an overreaction to a family crisis.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 11:32 AM
mercurianferret,
Ahh--I see--when you mentioned me by name in #12 you actually meant "other Christians."
But even in and of itself your point is silly. There is nothing wrong with asking--we are talking about the opposite: demanding. If this bozo from Brooklyn said: You should watch your salt intake! Well, that would be fine. Instead he is saying: You can't be trusted to make your own health choices, but I as a enlightened legislator will make them for you!
?? That (the Great Commission) is a command to proselytize, and to seek voluntary converts to Christianity. It is not a command to force conversion. (Do you see any examples of forced conversion in the NT?) But feel free to read into that passage a call to forced conversion, since it is your custom to make these silly little leaps. Well it doesn't say make disciples from those who come voluntarily! So it must mean convert them or kill them! QED.
Posted by: heddle | March 17, 2010 11:36 AM
Posted by: Doug Little | March 17, 2010 11:40 AM
Actually if you read this guy's background and his explanation, he is trying to stop restaurants from adding too much salt, above and beyond the recipe, without the diner's knowledge or consent. Silly and pointless because people will still be free to add whatever salt they want, but not exactly the "nanny state" argument you're making.
Also, while I admit my memory might be a bit off, I seem to recall a number of debates where you were just fine with legislatures, school districts, etc., forcing their religious beliefs upon others, as long as they were Christian, of course.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 11:45 AM
What kind of cell phone ban did he want? Do you mean he wanted to ban cell phone use while driving, or just ban them completely?
Posted by: catgirl | March 17, 2010 11:48 AM
Sorry, didn't make that clear, while driving.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 11:50 AM
You think the government is engaged in a conspiracy to make people trust the government less?
First, "the government" is not a single monolithic entity. Second, I am merely saying it is possible that this bill was either introduced or helped along by people who oppose ALL food-safety regs, and want to discredit the whole lot of them by offering one blatantly stupid reg and using it to incite reflexive contempt and mistrust. Seriously, the more publicity this bill gets, the more people are likely in the future to react to any subsequent proposed reg by saying "You're the same nanny-state assholes who want to ban SALT! Fuck all y'all, you're a buncha socialist morons!"
This is precisely the sort of mindless emotional reaction that reactionaries try to incite to shout down grownup debate on a whole spectrum of other issues (including public-safety regs). So it's quite plausible to suspect that someone might be trying to incite such a reaction here. It doesn't require a big nefarious complicated conspiracy; just some clever misdirecting PR like we're subjected to by well-paid propagandists every day. And as heddle just demonstrated (by making a RARE non-Calvinist-logic post), it's having the very effect I retroactively predicted!
Another thing to note here: why is this a stand-alone reg? If someone was actually trying to pass more food-safety regs, why not lump the salt ban with other rules dealing with other substances and/or practices? That's how silly rules normally get passed by people who really want to pass them: as riders or hidden clauses in large bills no one has time to read in full.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 17, 2010 11:53 AM
I'm curious how he is going to find any ingredients at all that don't contain salt.
Of course I am a chemistry teacher, and salt is not merely sodium chloride. So-called salt substitutes are salts as well.
Posted by: BaldApe | March 17, 2010 12:08 PM
While I think this bill is obviously dumb, a number of arguments against it make no sense. First, the amount of salt a person requires to live on is minuscule, and there's no need to add salt to food for nutritional purposes. Second, high salt intake is bad for everyone, not just people with high blood pressure or certain other conditions.
There is a legitimate problem with restaurants and food manufacturers over-salting their food in order to cover-up its mediocrity, and as a result consumers are eating far more salt than they otherwise would. So while this bill goes about things entirely the wrong way, we would be better off if food preparers used a minimal amount of salt and then let consumers add more to their taste. That way, people who are satisfied with less salt would eat less, and those who wanted more would at least be aware of how much they were eating, and could more easily control their intake.
The real problem of course is that salt is such an integral part of cooking and food preparation that simply "banning" it cannot work. And any law that tried to mandate using a "minimal" amount would either be too easy to circumvent or too obtrusive. Maybe a salt tax would be feasible.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 17, 2010 12:17 PM
'Bee has a point with this one. You see the effort in many levels of government. Look at school boards, local and higher level, where home school/private school/voucher school advocates run for and are elected to public school boards. This is an obvious conflict of interest, they are basically running for a position they believe shouldn't exist. There have been cases where these individuals either overtly or covertly have implemented policies that were obviously anti-public education.
Hell look at the Republican party. When they aren't in office they scream about how government is incompetent and can't solve any problems, while in office they try to prove the point.
'Ape,
If you read a bit about the guy and his background/arguments, he intended the bill to stop the addition of salt above and beyond what the recipe calls for, so it isn't "all salt," but simply extra salt. Still a silly piece of legislation, unless, of course, you're going to have diners sign a release form prior to allowing them to have salt on their table. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 12:28 PM
Not that I agree with this in any way, shape, or form, but I will point out that people saying this doesn't matter because people can add salt to their food are a bit incorrect. IIRC, the amount of salt the average person adds to their food accounts for less than 1% of the salt they consume (forgive me if I got the number slightly off, suffice to say it's a very small fraction). The large portion of salt we eat is already in our food, and in general the more processed the food, the saltier it is. Sauces, ketchup, etc. are also a huge contributor. However, like catgirl said, unless medical opinion's changed a lot in the last few years, salt isn't bad for you unless you already have a condition.
Oh yeah, and there's about 1 x 10^20000 bigger problems for a legislator to tackle than this, he should be kicked right the hell out of office for being dumber than a box of rocks. On second thought, maybe he's equally dumb as a box of rocks. Beck and Bachmann are dumber than a box of rocks, and I don't want to put anyone else in that nasty category.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 17, 2010 12:29 PM
I'll need to see some evidence for that before I take your word on it.
Posted by: catgirl | March 17, 2010 12:38 PM
As far as I'm concerned, Ed, your two possibilities are one and the same. The day that restaurants stop using salt is the day that restaurant food no longer tastes good.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 17, 2010 12:45 PM
@catgirl
Is the suggestion that excessive sodium intake doesn't cause high blood pressure? I thought, wrongly? that was pretty much generally accepted?
Anyhow, here are two citations (limiting to 2 to avoid the spam filter). There appear to be a gazillion of them talking about salt reduction and blood pressure reduction. Some are modeling papers, others are clinical data.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/362/7/590
The cardiovascular benefits of reduced salt intake are on par with the benefits of population-wide reductions in tobacco use, obesity, and cholesterol levels. A regulatory intervention designed to achieve a reduction in salt intake of 3 g per day would save 194,000 to 392,000 quality-adjusted life-years and $10 billion to $24 billion in health care costs annually. Such an intervention would be cost-saving even if only a modest reduction of 1 g per day were achieved gradually between 2010 and 2019 and would be more cost-effective than using medications to lower blood pressure in all persons with hypertension.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/339/nov24_1/b4567
Results There were 19 independent cohort samples from 13 studies, with 177 025 participants (follow-up 3.5-19 years) and over 11 000 vascular events. Higher salt intake was associated with greater risk of stroke (pooled relative risk 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.43; P=0.007) and cardiovascular disease (1.14, 0.99 to 1.32; P=0.07), with no significant evidence of publication bias. For cardiovascular disease, sensitivity analysis showed that the exclusion of a single study led to a pooled estimate of 1.17 (1.02 to 1.34; P=0.02). The associations observed were greater the larger the difference in sodium intake and the longer the follow-up.
Posted by: JohnV | March 17, 2010 12:54 PM
A lot of good angst being spilled over something that's never gonna happen.
Posted by: Taz | March 17, 2010 1:02 PM
Are we certain that the legislator who proposed this wasn't just trolling? Seems like the kind of thing someone might say so that his sock puppet can say "Look at all these damn people I've been telling you about, making crazy rules. What will they think of next?"
On the other hand, there are lots of stupid people in the world, some of those in its legislatures, and this guy could just be among them.
Posted by: Douglas McClean | March 17, 2010 1:14 PM
Steve--A salt tax, eh?
OK, the protest will be held at the southwest end of Union Square in Manhattan, next to the statue of Gandhi. Flower garlands optional.
John--On a par with the benefits of reductions in tobacco use, or the benefits of reductions in obesity? That's really apples and oranges, and the "less salt for everyone" drumbeat may have as little solid medicine behind it as the "everyone should lose weight" one. (The most basic outcome data--death rates--suggest that it's healthier for adults to be "overweight" than to be "normal," and even most diet advocates will admit that being underweight is also dangerous. [Quotation marks because if X is the healthiest weight range, we shouldn't call it "over".] Yes, too fat is as possible as too thin, but telling everyone to lose weight won't necessarily improve matters, even if it worked.)
Posted by: Vicki | March 17, 2010 1:15 PM
Dunno what to say Vicki, the statement was "The cardiovascular benefits of reduced salt intake are on par with the benefits of population-wide reductions in tobacco use, obesity, and cholesterol levels" so I'm not sure how you could get any more apples to apples than that. Is there a specific concern about their methodology?
Keep in mind, the claim to which I was responding was that evidence was needed that too much salt is bad.
Posted by: JohnV | March 17, 2010 1:34 PM
@11
First you get the salt, then you get the power....and then you get the women.
Posted by: Jay H | March 17, 2010 2:05 PM
I didn't read all the comments (so ashamed), but this smacks of calculated outrage. Seriously, I mean, it links to FOX. This is one step above an email from your grammaw saying that Obama is going to ban Pepsi because of his Islamic views. If this is anything more than a crank bill getting some press because it will fire up The Key Demographic, I'll eat my Greek fisherman's cap.
Posted by: Menschenjaeger | March 17, 2010 2:16 PM
The salt must flow.
Posted by: Baron Harkonnen | March 17, 2010 2:17 PM
I must not fear (salt).
Fear (of salt) is the mind-killer.
Fear (of salt) is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear (of salt).
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear (of salt) has gone there will be nothing.
Only Salt will remain.
Posted by: JustaTech | March 17, 2010 2:45 PM
Hmm. Reducing salt is a nice idea but banning it from cooking is OTT. We've been trying to figure out what to do about salt in Ireland too: far more salt goes into Irish processed foods than into our neighbours like the UK.
The point is that salt, as a flavour-enhancer, enables you to use poorer foodstuffs: lesser ingredients, water-injected chicken, etc. and still have flavour.
The problem is you can exceed your recommended salt intake without adding any salt to the food if you're not careful of which brand of bread you buy when eating apparently healthy sandwiches, etc.
Note that the proposed legislation didn't ban salt being present: just in the prepared food. You can still add it afterwards.
Perhaps labels for all products "This item exceeds recommended salt levels", with appropriate levels set for different types of food ? Then the consumer gets alerted, but still has the choice.
Posted by: Alastair McKinstry | March 17, 2010 4:00 PM
John--
The point is that the benefits of reducing tobacco use are a lot clearer and stronger than the benefits of reducing average body weight. Therefore, it's relevant to ask which of these salt reduction is comparable to. I gather that the epidemiology on population-wide salt reduction is still uncertain, but I base that on one or two recent articles in the NY Times.
Posted by: Vicki | March 17, 2010 4:39 PM
After a couple of days of eating in even good restaurants, and choosing food that isn't obviously salty, my blood pressure goes up.
Two of the restaurants where I have eaten from time to time over the years have cut back dramatically on added salt. They still use all the same ingredients, such as cheese, but now add very little, whenever possible no, additional sodium chloride in the cooking process. They have ordinary salt on the table, and I usually bring along my own potassium chloride just in case I want a little more of a salty taste. My friends use varying amounts from the table salt shaker.
As I use very little salt, I'm sensitive to the taste of it. All too often when other people at a restaurant are admiring some dish, all I can taste in it is the added salt. I'm always grateful when the chef lets the person eating the dish decide how much added salt is appropriate.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 17, 2010 5:12 PM
@moopheus: But if there's too much salt in the food the customers should complain. Also, for the vast majority of people too much salt does no harm whatsoever as long as they have enough water to drink, the kidneys will get rid of the excess - and if they don't have enough water to drink then they have more serious problems than having too much salt.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 17, 2010 5:22 PM
If they ban salt then they better ban butter too. All in favour say Ay!
Posted by: Shadow Caster | March 17, 2010 6:31 PM
Future headline:
Goiter Epidemic Hits Buffalo.
Posted by: Dr X | March 17, 2010 7:13 PM
You can't make chicken parmigianna without salt.
That should end the argument over whatever merits this bill has.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 17, 2010 8:02 PM
I don't fully buy the comparison of this kind of policy to smoking bans. Smoking bans are justifiable because smoking is a public nuisance and a health hazard to others when done indoors. The kind of food you eat is entirely a personal choice, no matter how adversely it effects your health. This kind of policy is nanny-statism, no matter how you slice it.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 17, 2010 8:09 PM
The bill has snowballs chance in the imaginary hell's chance of survival, and according to at least one blog's speculation, the authors know it very well.
That said, we do consume too much salt, and getting people to simply admit it is all that the bills author was getting at.
That is a quite a bit more logical explanation than others for existence of the bill.
Posted by: MarkusR | March 17, 2010 8:23 PM
Quoth Italian cookbook goddess Marcella Hazan:
"Food lacking in salt is lacking in flavor."
End. Of. Argument.
Posted by: How | March 17, 2010 9:17 PM
'What's next'?
The creation of BYOS (Bring Your Own Salt) Day?
Posted by: axilet | March 17, 2010 9:28 PM
MadScientist writes:
"Also, for the vast majority of people too much salt does no harm whatsoever as long as they have enough water to drink..."
This is completely untrue. Try doing a PubMed search.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 17, 2010 10:35 PM
Of course "too much salt" is bad for you. That's what "too much" means!
I'm not convinced about a high salt intake being bad for you. I'd be happy to see the studies, but usually you just get the simplistic pop med. AFAIK, SOME people with SOME kinds of high blood pressure (iirc about 30% of cases) can lower their BP by cutting back on salt. But there's no causal evidence that high blood pressure is caused by salt intake, any more than there is that headaches are caused by a lack of aspirin.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | March 18, 2010 12:44 AM
Jebus, why do people say, "I would like to see some studies..." when they can't be arsed to do a simple PubMed search? If you actually want to see studies, why don't you try looking for them?
I perused some review articles and was able to find dozens that established a causal link between high salt intake and blood pressure (and other negative health consequences). This includes a lot of intervention studies, which aren't simply a matter of correlation. There does not seem to be any serious dispute about this.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 18, 2010 2:57 AM
Guess commercially produced Vitamin C is out too, being a salt of ascorbic acid (Sodium Ascorbate)*.
Guess we can add 'chemistry' to the things this fool knows nothing about! - Dingo
----
* Oh, and no bicarb to wash down this inedible bill with either (sodium hydrogen carbonate is a salt of the weak acid dihydrogen carbonate).
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2010 3:46 AM
I think they mean food served in restaurants, would a person add the salt they want at the meal? maybe I am missing the point.
Posted by: donna | March 24, 2010 4:51 AM
I am happy to bring my own salt, it is dry and lightweight.I am still missing the point I guess.
Posted by: donna | March 24, 2010 4:54 AM