More Top Picks Best Captain Chairs
player ready...Travel isn’t just about exploring iconic sites or art treasures; it’s about food. Years later, what I may remember best about a place is that perfect piece of pie or creamy gelato.
So you can understand how my pulse quickened when I spotted Ivar’s, a much-touted seafood joint on Seattle’s waterfront. The aroma of grease mingling with the sea air beckoned to me in a way the Space Needle did not.
That is, until I perused the menu. There, staring back at me, were the calories for every selection.
That fish-and-chips platter I had been dreaming about? A stratospheric 833 calories — more than half a typical day’s allotment. My enthusiasm deflated faster than, well, a souffle in a draft.
Somehow, when planning this vacation, I had missed that King County (which includes Seattle) had recently implemented mandatory on-the-menu calorie counts.
While the law currently applies only to chains with 15 or more outlets, it surfaced often enough that I had to pay attention. Throughout the week, I was amazed how such in-your-face data steered my eating habits, starting with a quick shift from the Ivar’s velvety clam chowder in a bread bowl (768 calories) to a more virtuous tomato-based version (163) in a cup.
The experience also raised my awareness of the noisy national debate over the merits of such labeling laws.
Some in the restaurant industry are bristling about expense, burdensome regulations and how all those numbers clutter up prime real estate on a menu. Still others say pending federal legislation lets too many eateries off the hook, while citizens across the political spectrum are raising questions about personal responsibility.
“Is there really anyone out there,” sputtered one Chicago radio host, “who doesn’t know that deep-dish pizza is more fattening than a salad?”
Actually, it’s not, if you ladle on the Roquefort dressing, bacon and croutons.
Despite being bombarded with health news, the public remains woefully ignorant about nutrition — one reason that obesity is a national epidemic, accounting for 10 percent, or $147 billion, of all medical spending, according to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.
With so much artery-clogging gunk lurking in seemingly benign places, consumers desperately need information. Research shows that when it’s available, we make better choices.
Certainly, such numbers are available on virtually every product at the supermarket, but we need it when eating out, especially now that the drive-through window has become America’s kitchen table. And it should be at the point of purchase, where we can be clobbered over the head with the unvarnished truth, not tucked away on a Web site, in a pamphlet or on a poster by the men’s room.
Once you spend a few days in a “full disclosure” city, you can’t help but start every conversation with “who knew?” As in “Who knew that Denny’s country fried steak and eggs (543) was a better way to start the day than French toast with syrup and margarine (1,261)? Or that a sugar doughnut (190) was a more prudent choice than a multi-grain bagel (400, without cream cheese, no less) at Dunkin’ Donuts?
Our country’s fatness is a complex public health issue, and it would be naive to think nutritional labeling alone will solve the problem. Still, there is no question that government can play a role in helping us lead healthier lives. Decades ago, seat-belt laws and smoking bans were met with the same kind of hand-wringing.
I’m still going to splurge on pastrami in Brooklyn and beignets in New Orleans — but with a little more moderation. All of us — especially those folks who insist that the problem with a triple bacon cheeseburger is the bun — could use a little sticker shock.
———-