# 7 Foods Not to Eat... Beef, Milk, Apples...



## GrillingFool (Dec 10, 2009)

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/healt...nt-eat-547963/

1. Canned tomatoes
2. Corn fed beef
3. Microwave popcorn
4. Nonorganic potatoes
5. Farmed Salmon
6. Milk with artificial hormones
7. Nonorganic apples.

I am going to starve.


I'd like to see some supporting data, and I'd like to know who the "food experts" consulted were.


----------



## Selkie (Dec 10, 2009)

Some of those issues have been known for years and are non-news. But people don't want to know that they're harming themselves, they think they know better just because they don't die the following day, when in reality, it may take years or even a couple of decades for the poisons to accumulate. (Many toxins never get flushed from the human body.)

The news is filled with stories about the drastic increase in Diabetes, Arthritis, Fibromyalgia and other ailments that, until about 70 years ago, were minor in significance statistically. Coincidentally, that's when food additives and producing methods radically changed. - The New Age! -

Yeah, right!  Pfssssss.....


----------



## powerplantop (Dec 10, 2009)

I like the one where the "expert" says  "Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won't," 

He must buy his from a diferent store than me. I have had them sprout.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 10, 2009)

powerplantop said:


> I like the one where the "expert" says  "Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won't,"
> 
> He must buy his from a different store than me. I have had them sprout.



He doesn't shop where I shop either....They sprout, and will reproduce if planted....

No grain feed beef?? The "X-Spurt" is co-owner of a Grass fed farming operation...I'm sure he was/is not influenced by $$$$$$$


----------



## Selkie (Dec 10, 2009)

It was that kind of watchfulness and extended effort that makes it illegal today to feed hogs with feed that contains diseased cow, sheep and pig parts - which made it into our food system for many years! Laziness, uncaring and $$$ drove many of the feed producers back then too. Many of the same ones today that have corn to sell... That's where the REAL money is! NOT pasturing cattle.

And if you read the news story, it's not just one person saying that, it's ALL of the food experts they interviewed coming together on a consensus over these seven items.


----------



## bigdaddy3k (Dec 10, 2009)

THe midwest has used corn fed meat for more than a century out of neccesity. Cattle can't reach the grass through 3 feet of snow. I agree that we have too many artificial additives in our foods. 

My question is, if this is bad for us, how did it make it to the shelf? Where is the regulation? Lets find the people who signed the "ok" and string them up.

Oh, and my potatoes sprout too. Both Sweet and White.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 10, 2009)

Corn farmers have seen the average price per bushel decrease by over a dollar this year. Considering USDA predictions of average yield of 162.9 bushels per acre this year, the average farmer will make $162 fewer dollars per acre than he or she would have last year...The 2009 estimated corn crop is 12.954 billion bushels...Almost 13 Billion dollars LESS than last year...That's REAL money.


----------



## GrillingFool (Dec 10, 2009)

> ALL of the food experts they interviewed ....



One thing that bothers me about articles like this is the lack of substantive data...
WHO were these "experts"?
Where's the supporting data?
Otherwise, it's just an article crafted to pull emotional strings and grab headlines.
Worth investigating if it bothers you enough to do the research, but worthless as a
"scientific" article.

The Sky is falling! The sky is falling!


----------



## Selkie (Dec 10, 2009)

GrillingFool said:


> One thing that bothers me about articles like this is the lack of substantive data...
> WHO were these "experts"?
> Where's the supporting data?
> Otherwise, it's just an article crafted to pull emotional strings and grab headlines.
> ...



As they quite often say here: "Google it!" You'll find tons of data, including scientific for much of it. (I haven't read about all 7, but some of them - yes - for years.)

That's like saying: "The President said what!? Can you prove it? Is it scientifically proven to be true? Would he really say that? Are those news people REAL reporters?" The point is, if you don't want to believe it... don't, but don't ridicule - just let it go.


----------



## vyapti (Dec 10, 2009)

bigdaddy3k said:


> My question is, if this is bad for us, how did it make it to the shelf? Where is the regulation? Lets find the people who signed the "ok" and string them up.


The USDA relgulates livestock production and slaughter.  They are the same agency that is charged with promoting US agriculture.  How's that for a conflict of interest?


----------



## GrillingFool (Dec 10, 2009)

> Worth investigating if it bothers you enough to do the research,


yup, selkie,  that's what I said.

What I meant was DONT TAKE THESE THINGS AT FACE VALUE.. do your own research, get the facts, make an informed decision!


----------



## SmartTips (Dec 10, 2009)

You mention farmed salmon but I heard fresh caught salmon in Upstate New York rivers is worse.  Regardless I eat both because Salmon is delicious and nutrient packed.  I'll take my chances.


----------



## CharlieD (Dec 10, 2009)

GrillingFool said:


> http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/healt...nt-eat-547963/
> ...


 

I read that last night. It is definitely Pro Organic propaganda, and there no studies that even proove the validity of use of organic foods.


----------



## CharlieD (Dec 10, 2009)

Selkie said:


> ... until about 70 years ago, were minor in significance statistically........


 


Coincidentally 70 years ago people did not know or had any ways/means to even find out who had what, or why they died. That is not to say that I am for all the chemicals that are being added to foods. But for example Italians, a west majority of them, use canned tomatoes to make spaghetti and pizza sauces and we are talking much more significant numbers than any Americans. And look at them, they are healthier than Americans, they have larger families (that is to dispel the myth of infertility caused by canned tomatoes) than Americans, the life is expectancy is no worse than Americans.

The article though had some well known points, duh, was vehement Pro Organic propaganda. Recent studies have not shown any significant reasons to eat organic versus none organic. My guess is that is because there are so many chemicals in the water, in the air, in soil it self that I do not know what it would take to make foods truly organic, because most of them simply are not.


----------



## vyapti (Dec 10, 2009)

CharlieD said:


> Coincidentally 70 years ago people did not know or had any ways/means to even find out who had what, or why they died. That is not to say that I am for all the chemicals that are being added to foods. But for example Italians, a west majority of them, use canned tomatoes to make spaghetti and pizza sauces and we are talking much more significant numbers than any Americans. And look at them, they are healthier than Americans, they have larger families (that is to dispel the myth of infertility caused by canned tomatoes) than Americans, the life is expectancy is no worse than Americans.
> 
> The article though had some well known points, duh, was vehement Pro Organic propaganda. Recent studies have not shown any significant reasons to eat organic versus none organic. My guess is that is because there are so many chemicals in the water, in the air, in soil it self that I do not know what it would take to make foods truly organic, because most of them simply are not.


Its funny that you can knock researchers for being biased then follow up with a claim that is anecdotal at best, purely misguided at worst, and provides absolutely no causal evidence or even a lucid causal claim.


----------



## CharlieD (Dec 10, 2009)

That was exactly my point, that those researchers reserch and find what they are paid to find. And yes it is anecdotal that people also onlu find the facts that they want to find. My motto is moderation and not some nonsence research.


----------



## Selkie (Dec 10, 2009)

CharlieD said:


> That was exactly my point, that those researchers reserch and find what they are paid to find. And yes it is anecdotal that people also onlu find the facts that they want to find. My motto is moderation and not some nonsence research.



Oh, and you alone are qualified to separate the real research from the nonsense research? Well, I wasn't aware that you had that kind of power. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were such an authority.


----------



## CharlieD (Dec 10, 2009)

I do not qualifie or disqualified  either. Read what I said, "My motto is moderation".

But no research from 1978, I would not consider that a research to consider.


----------



## Selkie (Dec 10, 2009)

CharlieD said:


> ...But no research from 1978, I would not consider that a research to consider.



....I rest my case!


----------



## CharlieD (Dec 10, 2009)

Good. I'm glad.


----------



## GrillingFool (Dec 10, 2009)

Whoops, wrong thread, my bad.

Babbling about MSG, I was.


----------



## Chief Longwind Of The North (Dec 10, 2009)

I've read several articles from respected scientific and agricultural periodicals about at least one of the seven listed foods - grain fed cattle.  Corn tends to be rich in sugars and starches, and not a lot of other things.  In fact, it is recommended that people avoid eating corn as it is close to being junk food, nutritionally.  As a diabetic, I can't eat much corn.  When corn is fed to livestock, it helps "fatten" them up.  Grass fed cattle are leaner, and if fed good grasses in an intense rotational grazing pattern (google articles on intense rotational grazing versus over grazing to find the benifits inherent in the technique), they get more minerals and nutrients from the soil than is available to their corn-fed cousins.  The cattle are healthier, require less medicle treatment, and have better flavor as well.  The problem is that the feedlot cattle have been bred to eat grain and don't do as well as their ancestors did on grasses, that is, they don't grow as quickly.  Things are changing however.  There are genetic traits in certain cattle breeds that allow them to grow as quickly, and in better health on grasses.  As farmers are realizing that their profit margins increase with intensive rotational grazing (no need for machinery to till the ground, or need to purchace grain, and fewer medicines, similar cattle numbers per acre produced, and others) the practice is spreading, the land is becomming richer, and more stable, and the product has more nutrition and flavor to offer the consumer.

Oh, and my store-bought potatoes sprout too.

Seeeeeeya; Goodweed of the North


----------



## CharlieD (Dec 10, 2009)

That was the whole thing about the article in question. Most of the things they brought up are like, gee the grass is green and the sky is blue. I buy grass fed beef all the time. If you taste it ones you cannot even go back to corn fed beef, and everything else you said. Same with cans everybody knows that you not supposed to keep anything in those cans. Same with potatoes, skin is the worst, most unhealthy part of potato, etc.


----------



## Chief Longwind Of The North (Dec 11, 2009)

CharlieD said:


> That was the whole thing about the article in question. Most of the things they brought up are like, gee the grass is green and the sky is blue. I buy grass fed beef all the time. If you taste it ones you cannot even go back to corn fed beef, and everything else you said. Same with cans everybody knows that you not supposed to keep anything in those cans. Same with potatoes, skin is the worst, most unhealthy part of potato, etc.



CharlieD;  My comment about the potato is absolutely true.  It is a root vegetable that stores most of it's energy in the form of starches and sugars.  There is some nutritional value.  The negative part is that there is not enough nutritional value in them to offset the carbohydrate content, and therefore they are unhealthy for diabetics, like me.  My other comment about the potato was that like the other folks who commented, the ones I purchase from the local grocers are as good as any other potatoes, they sprout, and if cut up, can be used as seed potatoes in the garden.

My commnets about grass fed beef are not knee-jerk reactions where I'm following the latest trend.  I have been following this trend for the past several years.  When proper rotational, intensive grazing practices are used, the farmer enriches the soil, rather than depleting it from growing single crop foods on it.  Also, single crop foods, like grains, have shallow root systems that utilyze only the top couple of inches of soil, depleting it of nutrients, hence the need for fertilizers and weed control agents.  Intensive rotational grazing forces the grasses to send the roots deeper into the ground, utilizing more of the soil.  In addition, the animals deposit dung onto the grazed land, enriching it with nitrogen rich organic matter.  The worms do the rest.  The method is patterned after unspoiled lands, where multiple species graze, moving from one area to another in search for food.  Each animal has a purpose, some, like deer and their cousins, eating noxious weeds, while the bovines control the grass.  Other animals such as wild pigs and various birds control insect populations.  a farmer in the Shenandoa Valley started looking at how the Savanah desert could support so many different animals, and still remain a viable ecosystem.  Rotational grazing is what he observed.  He patterned his farm practices to mimick natures way fo doing things.  He grazes his cattle in one pasature for a few days, then moves them to a second pasture.  Then he grazes his pigs in the first pasture.  He moves both of them after a few more days, then lets the chickens into the first pasture.  He cycles all of them forward after a few more days, and introduces goats into the first pasture.  

But the time the goats have eaten for a few days, the grasses that the cows like have re-grown, and with stronger roots.  Each type of animal has contributed its own organic matter into the pastures, enriching the soil.  The cows are moved to the first pasture again, with all of the other animals moving to the next pasture.  This is repeated every couple of days for then entire grazing season.

The farmer, I can't recall his name, sells fewer of each animal than the intesive "factory" farmers.  But he makes up the difference by selling more types of meat products, and of higher quality, to high end food stores, and top restaurants around New York.  His product is in high demand.  It costs him less to raise the livestock as he doesn't have to plow and plant every year.  Nature provides the food.  He only manages it.

It is no secret that the huge, comercial farms, whether they are growing meat, or food crops, can do great damage to the land in the quest for maximum profit.  And we, the customer, get to eat pesticides, fertilizer salts, and watch the great farmlands slowly destroyed by salt accumulation and mineral leaching of the soils, not to mention erosion from wind and rain, and pollution of our waterways by this moving topsoil, and everything that's been put on it.  Rotational, intensive farming builds root systems that resist erosion, enrich the soil with organic matter, and give us healthier livestock and crops.  

I don't understand the resistance to the technique.

Whether you beilieve in a supreme being, or natural selection, the way the world works, before humans force a different "better" way of doing things, is proven again and again to be superior to our efforts to make the world the way we want it.

Seeeeeeya; Goodweed of the North


----------



## kannan (Dec 11, 2009)

I am wondering about apple.Is there a way to remove the pesticides by washing properly ? 

Organic  apples tend to be very expensive.I read that washing fruits with diluted Vinegar do help to remove most of the pesticides,is this true ?


----------



## Selkie (Dec 11, 2009)

Certain kinds of apples - and I don't know which ones are which - you can wash off the skin, but others you must peel it to be rid of the toxins. I believe it also has to do with what is sprayed on the apples and trees. There are web sites better qualified to help you decide.


----------



## bigdaddy3k (Dec 12, 2009)

HEY! I got something to combat #3 on the list. I just took a plain paper bag and a plastic chip clip added 1/2 cup popcorn mixed with 2 tsp olive oil and a little salt and microwaved up some fantastic Pcorn! No chems needed thanks.


----------



## Chief Longwind Of The North (Dec 14, 2009)

bigdaddy3k said:


> HEY! I got something to combat #3 on the list. I just took a plain paper bag and a plastic chip clip added 1/2 cup popcorn mixed with 2 tsp olive oil and a little salt and microwaved up some fantastic Pcorn! No chems needed thanks.


 
You the Man!  That's a great idea.  Thanks.

Seeeeeeeya; Goodweed of the North


----------



## Alix (Dec 14, 2009)

BigD, you can staple it shut too. No more than 3 staples though. And I don't use any olive oil in mine. Just the corn in the bag. Add butter later...mmmmmm. Oh I know...whatever! I LIKE butter.


----------



## GB (Dec 14, 2009)

I do the same as Alix. No oil, two staples, butter after.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Dec 15, 2009)

There are two problems with commercially prepared microwave popcorn:

1) _Fluorooctanoic Acid_ in the lining of the bags

2) _Diacetyl_ (actually concentrated fumes from diacetyl when heated) which is in the butter flavoring. I have asthma and sometimes it throws me into an attack if it's not being microwaved in a well ventilated area.

I do like BD3K, Alix and GB ... brown paper bag and butter it after it is popped.


----------



## bigdaddy3k (Dec 15, 2009)

I mix the oil, corn and seasonings in a bowl before bagging. The oil makes the salt (or whatever) stick to the corn.


----------



## cara (Dec 15, 2009)

1. Canned tomatoes

I sometimes have that... is it in all cans or just some special ones??
But I must admit I've heard of that before.

2. Corn fed beef

I have no idea about the differences..
do they feed the corn as such or as silage?
Here in G dairy cows get ccm or corn silage, but most meat cows are out on the grass over the summer and are fed with gras silage additionally in winter.. well that's how it works with my meat producer ;o)
It couls also be a bit difficult to feed all cows with gras, I don't know if you find that huge amount on earth?

3. Microwave popcorn

no need for that.. 

4. Nonorganic potatoes

I rarely buy nonorganic potatoes.. I can't taste a difference but I feel better with organic ones and they are almost as cheap as nonorganic.. well, potatoes as such are much too cheap I think...

5. Farmed Salmon

don't like salmon, so I rarely buy

6. Milk with artificial hormones

not allowed in the EU

7. Nonorganic apples.

get my apples from my parents yard ,o)
well and if I need some I go and buy - if they offer organic, I'll buy, if not not..


----------



## acetone (Dec 24, 2009)

GrillingFool said:
			
		

> 1. Canned tomatoes
> 2. Corn fed beef
> 3. Microwave popcorn
> 4. Nonorganic potatoes
> ...



1) I doubt it. Canning and processing tomatoes increase the lycopene absorption, thus making them more healthy when consumed. However, like with any other canned foods, it is very important to read the ingredient list and make sure that it lists ONLY tomatoes and water and nothing else.

2) VERY true. Corn is not a cow's natural diet, and anyone who have watched "Food Inc" would know the consequences of it not only to our health, but also to the environment.

3) Microwave is usually bad news, and microwaved corn is no different. Also, as with all processed foods, it is very important to check the ingredients list first before buying.

4) Yeah, potatoes are mass produced, so I'm sure that the non-organic forms have a lot of pesticides sprayed on them. However, whether potatoes are organic or nonorganic they're still very high on the glycemic load scale. Plus, nonorganic sweet potatoes are superior to potatoes nutrition-wise, and they have far less amount of pesticide residues compared to nonorganic regular potatoes.

5) 100% true. I would never eat farmed salmon. I could go on and on why that is so, but I just don't have the time to. Wild salmon, however, is something that I would eat every single day.

6) Actually, I've heard that artificial hormones are the same as the hormones found naturally in cows, but I'm not sure how true is that, and I'd rather avoid milk with artificial hormones just to be safe.

7) Organic apples are a must because unfortunately, nonorganic apples have the highest amount of pesticide residues out of all fruits.


----------



## justplainbill (Dec 24, 2009)

Guess the grass fed beef fans don't enjoy very much USDA Prime.


----------



## GB (Dec 24, 2009)

acetone said:


> 3) Microwave is usually bad news


Not sure what you mean by this. Microwaves are a very safe and healthy way to cook.


----------



## jet (Dec 24, 2009)

justplainbill said:


> Guess the grass fed beef fans don't enjoy very much USDA Prime.



I'd say it's just a matter of priorities.


----------



## vagriller (Dec 24, 2009)

Michael in FtW said:


> 2) _Diacetyl_ (actually concentrated fumes from diacetyl when heated) which is in the butter flavoring. I have asthma and sometimes it throws me into an attack if it's not being microwaved in a well ventilated area.



I thought microwave popcorn was being made these days without diacetyl.


----------



## acetone (Dec 30, 2009)

GB said:
			
		

> Microwaves are a very safe and healthy way to cook.



I beg to differ. Microwaves are widely accepted to be very safe, but honestly, they have been around for only a few decades, which means that, along with the typical American diet and GMO's, it's just something that I'm just not a big fan of. Emitting waves might change the structure of chemicals inside foods, transforming nutrients or other innocuous compounds into something potentially carcinogenic. It may sound far-fetched, but I'm sorry, this is my angle with regards to nutrition.

I have a microwave at home, but I only use that to sterilize cloths and sponges.


----------



## GB (Dec 31, 2009)

Just playing devils advocate here, but if you are so worried that the microwave is potentially changing the chemical structure of compounds into cancer causing agents then why do you feel safe using it on your sponges which will then be used on things you eat off of? Couldn't the structure of things in the sponge be changed the same way and then transferred to the plate you eat off of or the fork you put in your mouth?

Microwaves have been around long enough (over 60 years) to have had serious and reputable studies done to prove they are safe to use. Not only that, but they have been proven not only to be safe, but to be a healthier way to cook than some other well accepted methods. 

You say that emitting waves might change the structure of the chemicals etc., but there has never been any reputable studies that show that. 

If you are not comfortable using them then by all means don't. They have been proven to be absolutely safe though through years and years of scientific study and tests.


----------



## vagriller (Dec 31, 2009)

GB said:


> Just playing devils advocate here, but if you are so worried that the microwave is potentially changing the chemical structure of compounds into cancer causing agents then why do you feel safe using it on your sponges which will then be used on things you eat off of? Couldn't the structure of things in the sponge be changed the same way and then transferred to the plate you eat off of or the fork you put in your mouth?


 
As heaven's advocate (that would be opposite of devil's advocate, right?) you aren't eating the sponge!


----------



## GB (Dec 31, 2009)

No you are not eating the sponge, but you are wiping the sponge on things that come into contact with your food. things are transferred from one to the other. My point is that if you believe that the microwave is changing compounds into something dangerous, even though tons of reliable studies and research has been done that show otherwise, then it would be just as logical to believe that the sponge would have the same affect and transfer that to surfaces you eat off of. Neither of these things really happen IMO, but if you believe one why would you not believe the other?

Love the heavens advocate btw


----------



## jet (Dec 31, 2009)




----------



## Andy M. (Dec 31, 2009)

Not to mention what the microwave may be doing to the very air you breathe in your kitchen.


----------



## GrillingFool (Dec 31, 2009)

Specious logic at best. 
Comparing an inedible item to foodstuffs to make a point.....

By now, we should all know that certain beliefs are held close to the heart,
and we won't be changing them by bombarding with logic and facts.

No reason to belittle others for their beliefs.. just like if they don't like certain foods...... as mentioned elsewhere.

(ducking head and cringing)


----------



## GB (Dec 31, 2009)

I would hardly call it specious logic. It is just as logical to assume my example is correct as it is to assume acetone's is correct as neither have any scientific studies to back them up (as far as I have seen). 

I think you must have misread something somewhere GF. No one was being belittled anywhere. Opinions were being expressed and each person is entitled to his or hers.


----------



## vagriller (Dec 31, 2009)

I used to work with a guy that held the same beliefs about microwaving food. He even said that microwaving water changed its properties. Water consists of only hydrogen and oxygen. And if the properties changed wouldn't it make something other than water?


----------



## Andy M. (Dec 31, 2009)

I agree with GF in one respect.  We cannot change closely held beliefs here.  We can disagree and leave it at that.

Over the years, I have heard all kinds of "scientific" studies that claim some food product or other is bad for you.  The media picks up on it and gives it a huge amount of coverage, scaring many of the people in the country.  Later, when the earlier statements are debunked by reputable sources, the coverage is nil so most don't ever hear they have been led astray.

Coffee is a prime example.  It has been both good and bad for you at various times.  Aluminum pans cause Alzheimer's.  OOOPS, no they don't.

Now many people hear negative statements about various things and don't know what to believe so the assume the worst and avoid the product "just to play it safe" which effectively validates the original statement.

Then there are the manufacturers of certain product types that mount campaigns to trash the competition.  I am thinking primarily of the anti-canola garbage we hear.  

I decided for myself years ago that I would not live in fear of the food I eat.  I will eat what I want, hopefully in moderation, and suffer the consequences.  I'm still alive and kicking.

Don't try to change my mind.  I will just categorize you as a fanatic and ignore you.


----------



## Alix (Dec 31, 2009)

Cooking by its very nature changes the composition of the food. It denatures proteins etc. That happens either on a stove or in a microwave.

Andy's point, and Grilling Fool's I believe are well taken. We all have strongly held beliefs here and none of us are going to change anyone else's mind. And as bigdaddy3k reminds us, text is a lousy medium to convey context. Its possible to read offense where none was meant, especially when passions are high. 

We've ventured a long way from the original post, meandered through many things and really have run the course with this thread. Lets agree to disagree on some of these issues and move along. On a foodie board, this kind of thread is like a religious discussion elsewhere!

Say goodnight Gracie.


----------



## bigdaddy3k (Dec 31, 2009)

I once microwaved water and when I opened the door.... IT WAS HOT! So the molecules were excited but not changed. 

A microwave is a radio wave, just at a ultra high frequency. There are no radioactive elements to the microwave (as was once believed). There is no real mystery to it. It's a glorified radio that transmits through an emmiter. What does it transmit? The same static that you hear between stations on your radio, white noise. 

Signed,
Mr. Electronics

This was posted at the same time as Alix's post. I agree. Lets bury the text hatchet and move on to better topics.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Dec 31, 2009)

acetone said:


> I beg to differ. Microwaves are widely accepted to be very safe, but honestly, they have been around for only a few decades ...



Humm ... only been around for decades. Aluminum, Stainless Steel and Pyrex cookware didn't exist before about 1920, Melamine dinnerware first showed up in the late 1930's, the first microwave oven went into service in a restaurant in 1945, Corning cookware wasn't introduced until 1958, and silicone bakeware/baking mats didn't emerge until the 1980's.

As GB said, there is no research, or historical data, to show any evidence of a health hazard from the food cooked in a microwave oven. They have, on the other hand, been shown to be one of the healthiest ways to cook because they do not cause the loss of nutrients that other forms of cooking do - especially vegetables.

Oops ... looks like I was typing at the same time as Alix and bigdaddy ....


----------

