All about Beef

I would like to clarify the cattle industry's position on nutrition labeling requirements for meat and poultry for your readers. The National Cattlemen's Association (NCA) wants the opportunity to provide additional nutrition information about beef products to consumers.

Anyone who reads the newspaper is aware that the last five years have seen a steady increase in the amount of diet and nutrition advice reaching the consumer, and much of this information is confusing and contradictory.

In light of the difficulty consumers are having in weeding through volumes of nutritional dos and don'ts, the beef industry supports the development of clear, concise labeling for beef products. Beef provides many essential nutrients and is lower in fat and cholesterol than many consumers think.

NCA understands the Department of Agriculture's decision to delay nutrition labeling of meat and poultry products. However, we are somewhat disappointed with the suspension.

Beef producers urge industry and government to use this delay productively to conduct additional research to further determine the type of information consumers actually want, need and use, as well as a label format that will effectively deliver this information.

In the meantime, a voluntary program called Meat NutriFacts, launched in 1985 by the National Livestock and Meat Board, the American Meat Institute and the Food Marketing Institute, continues to provide consumers with information on nutrient composition of various cuts of beef.

Mark Armentrout

Washington, D.C.

The writer is chairman of the Food Policy and LabelinCommittee of the National Cattlemen's Association.

Girls Excel in Science

Recently an event took place at our school that was wonderful, exciting and -- to some -- unusual. It shouldn't have been. The event involved three of our students -- three girls. These girls entered the Baltimore Science Fair and walked away with 14 awards.

As headmistress of Maryvale Preparatory School for girls, I wasn't surprised. I know what great things our girls can accomplish.

However, according to a lead article on the front page of The Sun, "girls still lag in mathematics and science scores, and even those who do well in those subjects tend not to choose math and science careers."

The article supported what we've known for years. Single-sex education for girls has been shown to promote more opportunities for young women. According to a professor of education at the Catholic University of America, single-sex schools provide more chances for girls to assume leadership positions, allow for greater concentration on academic endeavors and for more exposure to a number of same-sex academic role models, both teachers and peers.

Our students showed that in an encouraging environment girls can both enjoy and excel in the sciences. Our student winners were competing against students from Howard, Carroll, Baltimore and Harford counties, as well as from Baltimore City schools.

Theresa Berry, co-chair of the Maryvale Science Department said, "Our students' projects may not have been the most elaborate but the girls followed good scientific method and performed a thorough job. They're learning to look at the whole problem and to follow through. They have the confidence to do well in, and enjoy, the sciences."

To hold girls back in science, intentionally or subconsciously, is to lose a whole population of future doctors, scientists, engineers, pharmacists, environmentalists and more.

Sister Shawn Marie Maguire

Brooklandville

The writer is headmistress of Maryvale Preparatory School.

Endangered Animals

In 1973, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to preserve threatened wildlife and help it return to self-sufficiency. The act, which must be reauthorized every five years, classified protected species as either endangered or non-threatened.

An endangered species faces extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is likely to become endangered within the near future.

The Bush administration has yet to officially announce its position on ESA reauthorization. Several members of the administration, however, Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan for one, have indicated a desire to weaken the act. Given the critical nature of our environment, the act should not only be reauthorized, but strengthened.

Recent studies show that federal programs aimed at recovering endangered and threatened species fall far short of what the law mandates. Right now, between 4,000 and 6,000 species are categorized as candidates for endangered and threatened lists.

In 1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service received its largest annual appropriation, $38.7 million. A little more than $700 million has been appropriated for the ESA during its entire history, about the amount to be spent this year on nuclear weapons research at the Sandia National Laboratory.

Even so, the Department of the Interior hasn't requested appropriations that would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to increase its endangered and threatened species listing. I fear if we stall any longer those "candidates" will not be around.

The value of the dollar speaks clearly here. The Bush administration would rather channel money into methods of destruction for all than take measures to improve our fragile ecosystem.

Protecting animals on the verge of extinction should be a priority, not something that can be debated or decided by big business with powerful lobbyists. Taxpayers' money should not be easily given to those who focus on destroying and meagerly invested in the long term act of preserving and improving our world.

The time is now to reassess our priorities and let the Bush administration know that long term human welfare and our future well-being come first.

Carol J. Riddick

Baltimore

Child Care

I was disappointed to read the article, "State agency called uneven on day care," April 13, regarding the enforcement efforts of the state Child Care Administration.

It was unfortunate that the reporter chose not to interview day care providers who are satisfied with Maryland's licensing system or parents who strongly support the state's efforts to ensure safe and protected environments for their children while they work.

The article would have been more objective if the reporter had read the licensing files in the cases mentioned, which are public information, in addition to interviewing the affected providers.

The article gives the impression that the Child Care Administration is pursuing family day care providers who have committed small infractions of the rules. Nothing is further from the truth.

In 1991, out of 26 hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings, 18 involved cases where Protective Services investigations had indicated child abuse or neglect.

Statewide statistics report that out of the total number of licensed child care centers, less than 3.2 percent were subject to enforcement action since Fiscal Year 1991. Not a single child care center was closed in Maryland in calendar year 1991 because of regulatory violations.

For family day care homes, less than 1.4 percent were subject to enforcement actions during the same period.

Finally, statistics indicate that the number of regulated family day care providers is climbing steadily, with an increase of 11 percent in the number of regulated places for children in state Fiscal Year 1991.

The Registration Amnesty Program, in which 600 illegal providers came forward to be registered, shows that the number of regulated homes is increasing. This is just another example of the public-private partnership that is being forged between government and child care providers.

The statements of regulated providers themselves belie the implication in the April 13 article that family providers are discouraged from registering.

It is our general impression from working with cases where children have been injured or abused in day care that Maryland's parents want to feel that their sons and daughters are being protected.

Carolyn W. Colvin

Baltimore

The writer is Maryland secretary of human resources.

Oh, Shut Up

As a resident of Maryland, I have one thing to say to many of my esteemed fellow citizens -- stop whining.

On one page of The Sun we must listen to person after person whine about how over-taxed they are and say that they want no new taxes. On the next page we must listen to the same people either whine or go into a self-righteous uproar whenever any budget cuts are even suggested. They don't want education or police or fire or libraries or social services or just about anything else cut.

I doubt very much that there is $250 to $500 million in "waste" in the state budget. To be sure, there is some and it should ruthlessly be sought out and eliminated. I would challenge even the no-tax radicals in Baltimore County however, to find $500 million of either waste or services which they would be willing to forgo.

It's very easy, pay for the services or do without them; but in either case, stop whining. The rest of us are tired of listening.

Michael J. Groves

Norrisville

Family Day Care

I became very concerned as I read your April 13 article, "State agency called uneven on day care," in which Novella Sargusingh, state president of the Family Child Care Association, complained so bitterly about the state's concern and intervention in a case in which a 22-month-old toddler was confined alone in a bathroom for "quiet time."

Perhaps the parents did tell the day-care mother to discipline the child that way and approved of it, but I have to wonder if they would still have approved if that child had been one of the toddlers who each year drown in buckets of water or toilets when left unattended near them.

What if that toddler had ingested medicine in the medicine cabinet or drunk shampoo or eaten drain cleaner?

These are not freak occurances for 22-month-olds.

According to your article, Karen Hudson, a parent who uses family day care, said that the state should play a part in monitoring day care, but "not to the extent that it overrules the wishes of the parents."

Does she really mean that the state should overlook behavior that threatens the health and safety of the child because it is approved by a parent who does not recognize the danger?

Regulation of day care is like regulation of nursing homes, except that there are many more day care homes for the state to regulate. Both businesses provide a desperately needed service and do a very difficult job providing care to a dependent and sometimes unpleasant population.

For that reason, the state has an incredibly difficult job trying to protect the health and safety of children in day care homes, while trying to encourage, rather than discourage, the provision of the service.

How would you like to be the state regulator who, every day, walks that fine line?

Anita Heygster

Severn

NEA Grants

Just like Edward W. Clautice of York, Pa., (letter to the editor, April 9), I too sometimes question the value of certain works of modern art to which I am exposed.

However, the National Endowment for the Arts supports a wide variety of disciplines, including music, dance, theater and literature, as well as visual mediums.

The fact that not one creation he has experienced rises above his perception of mediocrity indicates that he observes the world with a biased view.

He needs to understand the fact that much of the support for artists and institutions comes not from the NEA, but from corporate, foundation and private philanthropy.

These groups and individuals have long recognized the importance of the arts to a vital community.

Though I know many artists who have been awarded NEA grants, I know of none who can live exclusively on them. The amount is not that much, they are non-renewable, and they are hard to earn.

My wife and I have supported our "hobby" as composers and performers at a professional level for over 20 years.

In that time we've earned two grants: a Maryland State Arts Council Works-In-Progress grant and an NEA Jazz Fellowship.

We're mighty proud of them, too, because not only do they acknowledge the work we have done and encourage us to continue to develop as artists, they also reflect the courage we have shown in keeping our ideals through our years of poverty and the attempts of individuals to discourage us in our life's goals.

In tough economic times, I have not hesitated to earn a living in a more conventional manner. Yet I still continue to study and grow as an artist.

I'm building a collection of works that will be my contribution to the cultural richness of mankind.

There's another thing that the self-righteous apparently need to understand. The "spirit" of one true artist is greater then the combined prattle of all the Helmses, Robertsons and Clautices in the world.

George F. Spicka

Baltimore

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

As a principal in a small business that is a member of the Greater Baltimore Committee, I've been bemused by the recent boomlet of interest in forming an independent chamber of commerce for Baltimore City.

Councilman Anthony Ambridge's assertion that the city's concerns are not adequately championed by the GBC is difficult to fathom.

Within six months last year, the GBC published or had a great deal of influence on three crucial documents that directly address different aspects of Baltimore City and its continued viability as an urban center: "The Strength of Maryland Depends on The State of Baltimore," "The Renaissance Continues: A 20 Year Strategy for Downtown Baltimore," and "Baltimore. Where Science Comes to Life."

That a man like Bill Jews -- whose business is based in Landover -- would be willing to lead the effort that produced that last vision statement is a coup any city would envy.

That the GBC, chaired by Matt DeVito of the Rouse Company in Columbia, threw its considerable weight behind the Linowes Commission recommendations to shift tax revenues to Baltimore nothing short of extraordinary.

A Balkanized array of business organizations would precisely duplicate the political problem the city faces in the state legislature: Baltimore delegates and senators going to Annapolis hat in hand only to be rebuffed by parochial politicians from just across the city line and throughout the state.

A different tack has been taken by Edwin Warfield IV in his publication.

He seems to believe the GBC's horizons are too long-range and that what we need is a more nuts-and-bolts approach.

If center-city retailers need more benches and less trash, then the Downtown Partnership is the perfect vehicle to accomplish this. I run an information technology consulting firm that has needs altogether different from a fashion store like Bedazzled.

The final straw man is the issue of size: The GBC is supposed to be for big companies, and smaller firms need a place to call home. My annual revenues are probably a couple of good weeks' gross at the Gallery and Harborplace, but I number among my clients some of the largest private and public-sector enterprises in the world.

The GBC provides an opportunity to schmooze on a peer-to-peer basis. To date no one has asked me for an income statement to get into a GBC event and all of my dealings with fellow members have been met in the spirit of egalitarianism.

The supporters of a new chamber can choose their cliche -- "beware the law of unintended consequences" or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Frank Fillmore

Ellicott City

Hopkins' Safety

Your article about the kidnapping and rape of a student on April 10 within two blocks of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions hit close to home for me and probably many other Hopkins employees. I am a young physician who recently came to Hopkins and has been unable to find a satisfactory way to commute to work.

I cannot afford the fees charged by the Hopkins parking garages (in which a physician was recently kidnapped and assaulted) and so I take public transportation to work. The city's network of express buses which serve the Hopkins Medical Institutions is a godsend.

But some days I work early or late and must drive. I tried various options and began parking on North Durman Street, where the rape occurred. Despite the obvious danger, that alley and the entire high-crime neighborhood surrounding the hospital is filled five days a week with Hopkins commuters like me. And if I, a physician, cannot afford to park in the Hopkins garages, what about the students and minimum-wage earners who make up the majority of the medical institutions community?

Many are faced with the same painful choice of balancing expense against safety. Those of us who must park on the streets risk our lives for our jobs. Need this continue? Hopkins should commit itself to making safe, affordable parking available to all who work there.

Anne Louise Oaklander M.D.

Baltimore

The writer works in the Department of Neurology at Johns Hopkins Hospital.