Online only letters

Today's menu

Nutrition info, with a side of healthy living

Editor, The Times:

"Would you like a side of guilt with that?" [Times, editorial, Feb. 15], calling the provision of health-promoting nutrition information on chain restaurant menus "obnoxious" and asserting that it would "spoil" the dining experience, undermines the fight against the epidemics of obesity and diabetes.

Do nutrition labels on food bought in supermarkets spoil the home-dining experience or do octane labels on gasoline spoil the driving experience? Shouldn't information about the fuel people put in their bodies be as easy to come by as the fuel they put in their cars?

Providing nutrition information on the menu gives customers information they want when and where they need it. Consumers want information to make wise choices. As a physician, I support my patients' efforts to live healthy lives. What good is it encouraging them to make healthy eating choices if the information they need to act on this advice is not easily available?

Far from "health authorities [having] commandeered restaurant menus," the restaurant industry has commandeered The Seattle Times. The Times instead should ask why the restaurant industry is so opposed to providing nutrition information on menus. Could it be that unhealthy foods are also the most profitable items on their menus? Would providing customers with readily accessible nutrition information cut into profit margins?

— James Krieger, MD, MPH, Attending Physician, Harborview Medical Center, Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

Mystery meat

I was surprised to read that The Seattle Times opposes menu labeling and suggests that nutrition information not be readily available for people when making decisions when eating out.

Menu boards are what customers read while they are standing in line to place their orders and where they get virtually all of their information about what to order (listings of menu options, product descriptions and prices). You certainly don't see Burger King putting its prices on a poster back by the restrooms!

Half of chain restaurants don't provide any nutrition information to their customers. The other half mostly provide it on websites. If people had time to go home, log on to the Internet and study a Web site, they would probably just cook dinner themselves.

In other chains, people have to hunt around to find if the restaurant provides information via brochures, kiosks, on-package labeling, posters, table tents or tray liners. A recent survey at 275 restaurants that provide nutrition information showed that less than 8 percent of the 11,800 customers interviewed saw the nutrition information that was available in those restaurants.

Nutrition information should be provided in a consistent manner that people can find and use when ordering: on the menu. It's not about making anyone feel guilty; it's about providing information that people have become accustomed to having in grocery stores and now want in restaurants.

Menu labeling is supported by a great majority of the public and is recommended by the Institute of Medicine, American Medical Association, American Heart Association and other health authorities. The Times should join the public and these experts in supporting this low-cost, common-sense, public-health policy.

— Margo Wootan, D.Sc., Director, Nutrition Policy, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C.

Quick fix

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is

I understand Fidelia Andy's frustration with the lack of real solutions to the salmon crisis in the Columbia Basin ["Sea lions vs. salmon: Restore balance and common sense," guest commentary, Feb. 15].

If killing some sea lions would get us our salmon back, I would support the idea. But to me, it just takes valuable time, energy and money away from issues that Andy also addressed in her column, such as habitat degradation and impacts from dams.

I know that elected leaders such as Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell probably find it easier to address an issue like killing unpopular sea lions than removing four outdated dams on the Snake River. But I would hope our leaders have enough courage to face issues even when they are complex and not easily explained in a sound bite.

Kill sea lions, save salmon? That's just too easy to be true.

— Gregg Larson, Kirkland

Simple requests

Let me in

I don't much care where they put the new Interstate 520 interchange as long as it doesn't slow down traffic and, most important, gives good access to the areas of Seattle to the south, like Madison Park, east Capitol Hill and 24th Avenue East ["Local residents pitch idea for new 520 interchange," Local News, Feb. 16]. It's time to stop pretending people from those neighborhoods don't need access to I-520.

— Grant Erwin, Kirkland

Look at me

In Margie Boule's "Silent running: Hybrids sneaking up on pedestrians" [Northwest Life, Feb. 15], drivers of hybrids are asked to be more vigilant of pedestrians. I must say, every driver needs to be more vigilant of pedestrians.

As a frequent pedestrian, I cannot even come close to counting the number of times a car did not yield the right of way to me while crossing the street. Nor can I count the number of times drivers have stopped their vehicles right on the sidewalk as they pull out of a place of business, forcing me to either walk behind the vehicle (hope they don't back up!), walk around the front of the vehicle (right into traffic!) or wait because the drivers were too self-absorbed to realize it is illegal to stop on a walking path.

Most of the time these people tend to be — drumroll, please — talking on their cellphones. If they had been more vigilant, I could avoid running/dodging/diving/etc. out of the way.

I can't speak for those fools who jaywalk across the middle of traffic-clogged streets, though…

— Patrick Holecek, Bellevue

Spring cleaning

Dusting required

I proudly became a citizen of this country in 1966, after emigrating from Britain in the late 1950s. I registered to vote immediately and have done so ever since. In those days, political discourse was much less toxic and camaraderie and cooperation was the norm.

It has been disheartening over the years to witness the disintegration of the political process. Our government is in disarray. It is increasingly difficult to get any meaningful legislation passed. We are beset by infighting and interparty bickering, to say nothing of the corruption of the system by big-money interests.

Our reputation as an honorable and mighty country has been dragged in the mud and we, the electorate, are disillusioned and dispirited with our administration, government and the political process.

Now we have the nomination of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a straight-shooting, honorable man of character who has served his country well. As an Independent, I say well done, good choice.

However, it seems that the clanging cymbals on the far right are appalled. They rant from our TV screens that they will not and cannot vote for McCain. It would go against their Christian, conservative principles. They may not vote at all or they may have to vote for a Democrat! How very mature.

Where, may I ask, were these same principles when they cheered on the illegal and immoral war in Iraq, defended the horrifying pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib as the work of a few bad apples and claimed that torture was right and proper if it saves American lives? Frankly, I believe they repudiate McCain because he's not one of them. Thank God he isn't!

What on earth has happened to us? At this critical time in our nation's history, we need to be pulling together. Let's put labels of party and political ideology aside. Let us vote and make our voices heard.

We have good candidates, we have a wonderful country. Let's all work for it; otherwise this "shining city on a hill" will be a thing of the past.

— Anne Coiley, Renton

Check the sofa

In this modern-day world of seeming Chicken Littles, whose climate is so fearfully falling onto their heads, I ponder what life will become if the Democratic clamor of change heard these last few days from presidential hopefuls becomes a reality.

Will our honorable flag of victory that now boasts white stars on blue among red and white stripes be changed to a blank white flag signifying their apparent march to willing defeat? In the middle of a war, their unheroic stance of surrender and retreat in the face of a brutal enemy is frightening for the future of these United States of America. They're really not so united anymore.

I've also heard it recently said the Democrats' idea of change most certainly refers to "change in our pockets." I for one am not up for their talk of "change."

— Elaine Solberg, Shoreline

Time to flip the mattress

"Al-Qaida in Iraq training children, officials say" [News, Feb. 7] is another indicator of the folly of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. There was no "al-Qaida in Iraq" before we invaded. Without our military presence, Iraqi children would not be training as terrorists there.

We have set the stage on which a new generation of killers will act out their short-lived, but destructive, roles. We must stop this madness now.

The choice is obvious: Continue on the present course to illusory "victory," as Sen. John McCain insists and create more enemies, or choose a surge of genuine diplomacy coupled with a strategically prudent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

We must vote for sanity.

— Hal Seligson, Langley

Take no prisoners

Honesty really is the best policy

As a woman, an independent-minded, left-leaning Democrat and longtime fan of Chris Matthews' blunt, incisive and engaging show "Hardball," I feel compelled to note what "Chris Matthews has a flair, but is he fair?" [News, Feb. 16] did not: While his style may be politically incorrect at times, his content is almost always correct, politically speaking.

I have yet to hear the question asked, "Was the success of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) post-White House political ascension in fact partly due to her husband's misbehavior?" I think there is a strong case to be made that by displaying her personal fortitude during that tumultuous time, she succeeded in shaking off her persona as "Bill's first lady." Instead, she became a strong individual in the eyes of the public, opening the door for her to run for the Senate as a human rather than a cog in the Clinton machine.

It is obvious to anyone who actually listens to Matthews that he did not intend to suggest that her success has nothing to do with her brains or ability, but that — as with any politician — the big story is one of circumstance and public perception in addition to the individual in question.

In a scene full of homogenous TV hosts who are afraid to speak from the heart, Matthews stands out as one of the brightest intellectual minds and most interesting personalities in modern politics. It would be a sad day indeed if he was taken out of the game as a result of his greatest asset: his honesty.

— Rachel Addison, Seattle