On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:28:00 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:51:23 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:02:54 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:33:01 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:dljpj2hdmqt0ukqqc03bhdk9be24qd4p9i@4ax .com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:07:12 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:bripj2diur9t2lc9qirn8infofpeg42lj4@4 ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:59:38 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:s0hpj2ta37q789tb9t7tal2gsle2446nu6 @4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:24:51 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:lgepj2ph69m9m6f4v09573r2h36a6asp ...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:35:32 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:1ronj2hcdnjn3vi7u7bm3j0fqfrr4h ...
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:28:08 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

Sla#s wrote:
Geoff wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:49:40 +0100, "Pat Gardiner"
wrote:
SNIP

What does an innocent man have to hide from ID cards?



"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary
security
deserve
neither and will lose both."

B Franklin

And

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist....

Indeed and, given that folk can now have their liberty
restricted
for
long periods 'on suspicion' with no trial, it has already
started.


Good.

yes, they seem to be hitting the animal rights people pretty
hard


Not from where I'm standing

corpse diggers doing time, a good start
they'll be working their way down the list
and just think, with the new laws on the statute they can pull
anyone
in
on
suspicion of terrorism and keep them inside for quite a while

As they already have done to pro hunt nuts.

just watch for the knock on the door

Anytime. How long you nuts been saying that?

pete

There is no pete. Fool. I suppose you could be clinging to that
fake
to avoid confronting your demons? Anytime you or your dumb buddies
fancy their chances........

wonder if anyone has talked. or perhaps someone has just forwarded
them
some
of your posts

Why not you? Ask yourself what you could do to save face!


I hardly need to, looking at the number of people you have hacked
off,
With friends like yours pete ;-))

You're wise not to step forward, which is surprising, given the fact
you're a village idiot.


looking over your shoulder and getting nervous pete,

Of what fatty. You abducting my kids, or hitting women?

LOL I don't think so. Feel free to try.



oh we are twitchy today aren't we

Of what? What could a village idiot possibly do to scare me?

Perhaps you'd like to write to my employers? LOL

The good thing about being loaded, having lots of friends and bold as
brass. Is that I don't need to fear goons, even yellow ones!


methinks she doth protest to much


Methinks you don't like things that bite back!

I'm not the one looking over my shoulder worrying

Something's worrying/upsetting you. I wonder what it could be!

don't worry, they might not grass you up

My local Police have had many, many anonymous letters from kooks and
other pro hunt nuts, trying to have me *done* for various offences.
Luckily, unlike you, the police don't accept hearsay/drivel/bitchiness
as evidence. In fact one unlucky obsessive actually found himself
doing 180 hours community service, not a million miles from you, for
wasting Police time.

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:28:00 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:51:23 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:02:54 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:tmkpj253rsub1r2l00vder9prem232cb99@4ax. com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:33:01 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:dljpj2hdmqt0ukqqc03bhdk9be24qd4p9i@4a x.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:07:12 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:bripj2diur9t2lc9qirn8infofpeg42lj4@ 4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:59:38 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:s0hpj2ta37q789tb9t7tal2gsle2446nu ...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:24:51 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:lgepj2ph69m9m6f4v09573r2h36a6as ...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:35:32 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:1ronj2hcdnjn3vi7u7bm3j0fqfrr4 ...
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:28:08 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

Sla#s wrote:
Geoff wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:49:40 +0100, "Pat Gardiner"
wrote:
SNIP

What does an innocent man have to hide from ID cards?



"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary
security
deserve
neither and will lose both."

B Franklin

And

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist....

Indeed and, given that folk can now have their liberty
restricted
for
long periods 'on suspicion' with no trial, it has already
started.


Good.

yes, they seem to be hitting the animal rights people pretty
hard


Not from where I'm standing

corpse diggers doing time, a good start
they'll be working their way down the list
and just think, with the new laws on the statute they can pull
anyone
in
on
suspicion of terrorism and keep them inside for quite a while

As they already have done to pro hunt nuts.

just watch for the knock on the door

Anytime. How long you nuts been saying that?

pete

There is no pete. Fool. I suppose you could be clinging to that
fake
to avoid confronting your demons? Anytime you or your dumb
buddies
fancy their chances........

wonder if anyone has talked. or perhaps someone has just
forwarded
them
some
of your posts

Why not you? Ask yourself what you could do to save face!


I hardly need to, looking at the number of people you have hacked
off,
With friends like yours pete ;-))

You're wise not to step forward, which is surprising, given the
fact
you're a village idiot.


looking over your shoulder and getting nervous pete,

Of what fatty. You abducting my kids, or hitting women?

LOL I don't think so. Feel free to try.



oh we are twitchy today aren't we

Of what? What could a village idiot possibly do to scare me?

Perhaps you'd like to write to my employers? LOL

The good thing about being loaded, having lots of friends and bold as
brass. Is that I don't need to fear goons, even yellow ones!


methinks she doth protest to much


Methinks you don't like things that bite back!

I'm not the one looking over my shoulder worrying

Something's worrying/upsetting you. I wonder what it could be!

don't worry, they might not grass you up

My local Police have had many, many anonymous letters from kooks and
other pro hunt nuts, trying to have me *done* for various offences.
Luckily, unlike you, the police don't accept hearsay/drivel/bitchiness
as evidence. In fact one unlucky obsessive actually found himself
doing 180 hours community service, not a million miles from you, for
wasting Police time.

aw bless

pete is harassed

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:05:13 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:28:00 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:51:23 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:02:54 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:tmkpj253rsub1r2l00vder9prem232cb99@4ax .com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:33:01 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:dljpj2hdmqt0ukqqc03bhdk9be24qd4p9i@4 ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:07:12 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:bripj2diur9t2lc9qirn8infofpeg42lj4 @4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:59:38 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:s0hpj2ta37q789tb9t7tal2gsle2446n ...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:24:51 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:lgepj2ph69m9m6f4v09573r2h36a6a ...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:35:32 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
news:1ronj2hcdnjn3vi7u7bm3j0fqfrr ...
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:28:08 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

Sla#s wrote:
Geoff wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:49:40 +0100, "Pat Gardiner"
wrote:
SNIP

What does an innocent man have to hide from ID cards?



"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary
security
deserve
neither and will lose both."

B Franklin

And

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist....

Indeed and, given that folk can now have their liberty
restricted
for
long periods 'on suspicion' with no trial, it has already
started.


Good.

yes, they seem to be hitting the animal rights people pretty
hard


Not from where I'm standing

corpse diggers doing time, a good start
they'll be working their way down the list
and just think, with the new laws on the statute they can pull
anyone
in
on
suspicion of terrorism and keep them inside for quite a while

As they already have done to pro hunt nuts.

just watch for the knock on the door

Anytime. How long you nuts been saying that?

pete

There is no pete. Fool. I suppose you could be clinging to that
fake
to avoid confronting your demons? Anytime you or your dumb
buddies
fancy their chances........

wonder if anyone has talked. or perhaps someone has just
forwarded
them
some
of your posts

Why not you? Ask yourself what you could do to save face!


I hardly need to, looking at the number of people you have hacked
off,
With friends like yours pete ;-))

You're wise not to step forward, which is surprising, given the
fact
you're a village idiot.


looking over your shoulder and getting nervous pete,

Of what fatty. You abducting my kids, or hitting women?

LOL I don't think so. Feel free to try.



oh we are twitchy today aren't we

Of what? What could a village idiot possibly do to scare me?

Perhaps you'd like to write to my employers? LOL

The good thing about being loaded, having lots of friends and bold as
brass. Is that I don't need to fear goons, even yellow ones!


methinks she doth protest to much


Methinks you don't like things that bite back!

I'm not the one looking over my shoulder worrying

Something's worrying/upsetting you. I wonder what it could be!

don't worry, they might not grass you up

My local Police have had many, many anonymous letters from kooks and
other pro hunt nuts, trying to have me *done* for various offences.
Luckily, unlike you, the police don't accept hearsay/drivel/bitchiness
as evidence. In fact one unlucky obsessive actually found himself
doing 180 hours community service, not a million miles from you, for
wasting Police time.

aw bless

pete is harassed





I don't see any Pete.

Who's Pete?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

wrote in message
...

aw bless

pete is harassed





I don't see any Pete.

Who's Pete?


someone said something about organ grinders

wrote:

I don't see any Pete.

Who's Pete?

Oh do pay attention Angus.

To save you having to post this question yet again, let's keep this
simple (as I know you like very simple things)...

Pete is the name of the only person on any of these groups who ever
agrees with you, he may use different signatures as has been pointed
out many times, but it's always Pete.

Remember Angus - if the poster agrees with you, it's Pete. The rest of
us are normal...

On 23 Oct 2006 10:43:12 -0700, "Mark"
wrote:


wrote:

I don't see any Pete.

Who's Pete?

Oh do pay attention Angus.

To save you having to post this question yet again, let's keep this
simple (as I know you like very simple things)...

Pete is the name of the only person on any of these groups who ever
agrees with you, he may use different signatures as has been pointed
out many times, but it's always Pete.

Remember Angus - if the poster agrees with you, it's Pete. The rest of
us are normal...


You're confused. No-one was agreeing with me and I'm not sure you can
be classed as "normal" :-))


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:09:35 +0100, wrote:

On 23 Oct 2006 10:43:12 -0700, "Mark"
wrote:


wrote:

I don't see any Pete.

Who's Pete?

Oh do pay attention Angus.

To save you having to post this question yet again, let's keep this
simple (as I know you like very simple things)...

Pete is the name of the only person on any of these groups who ever
agrees with you, he may use different signatures as has been pointed
out many times, but it's always Pete.

Remember Angus - if the poster agrees with you, it's Pete. The rest of
us are normal...


You're confused. No-one was agreeing with me and I'm not sure you can
be classed as "normal" :-))

Thinking he could get away with such a claim is laughable in itself!

On 23 Oct 2006 10:43:12 -0700, "Mark"
wrote:


wrote:

I don't see any Pete.

Who's Pete?

Oh do pay attention Angus.

To save you having to post this question yet again, let's keep this
simple (as I know you like very simple things)...

Pete is the name of the only person on any of these groups who ever
agrees with you, he may use different signatures as has been pointed
out many times, but it's always Pete.

Remember Angus - if the poster agrees with you, it's Pete. The rest of
us are normal...

If you know who Pete is, could you let Dim Jim know because he is
quite upset, and looking for him. I think he'd like to hurt him.

"Mark" wrote in message ups.com...

wrote:

I don't see any Pete.

Who's Pete?

Oh do pay attention Angus.

To save you having to post this question yet again, let's keep this
simple (as I know you like very simple things)...

Pete is the name of the only person on any of these groups who ever
agrees with you, he may use different signatures as has been pointed
out many times, but it's always Pete.

Remember Angus - if the poster agrees with you, it's Pete.

Guess I'm Pete then.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:55:45 +0100, "pearl"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message ups.com...

wrote:

I don't see any Pete.

Who's Pete?

Oh do pay attention Angus.

To save you having to post this question yet again, let's keep this
simple (as I know you like very simple things)...

Pete is the name of the only person on any of these groups who ever
agrees with you, he may use different signatures as has been pointed
out many times, but it's always Pete.

Remember Angus - if the poster agrees with you, it's Pete.

Guess I'm Pete then.


Yeah. Me2.

It would seem the Soil Association are rapidly losing credibility
after their recent exposure that they support organic aquaculture
standards
http://tinyurl.com/y3pfh3

It would seem they also think it's OK to spray our spuds with copper!

http://tinyurl.com/y6l9sv
Blight spray clouds organic claims

By Martin Cassidy
BBC Northern Ireland's rural affairs correspondent


Questions have emerged about the marketing and labelling of organic
food after BBC research found artificial chemicals are being used to
control potato blight.

Confirmation that copper oxychloride is being used to control the
fungal disease has come from the Soil Association.

The association promotes organic farming as being free of artificial
chemicals and has admitted that the copper-based blight sprays
represent an "achilles heel".


Consumers assume sprays are not used
Organic farmers are also now asking questions about the sprays which
the Soil Association says are used as a last resort, but which potato
growers say they rely on to produce their crops.

Tom Gilbert, who runs Ballylaggan organic farm in County Antrim,
questions whether organic potato production should even be attempted
in the British isles because of a climate which almost invariably
results in blight infection.

He said: "If you have to spray things to make them succeed, it's not
really what the organic ideal is about. I do it with a heavy heart
spraying them because I don't really approve of it."

'Under review'

Mr Gilbert, who sells directly from his farm shop, makes a point of
telling customers how the produce is grown but down on the high street
shoppers seem confused.

"I just assumed that things like that were not used on organic farms,"
said one.


The BBC's investigation has also found other evidence of disquiet
within the organic sector.

The Soil Association has confirmed that the use of the greenish blue
powder-based sprays is now limited to eight kilos per hectare -
equivalent to three applications during the growing of a potato crop.

With shoppers paying as much as £3 for a small bag of spuds, they may
now be asking what exactly does the organic label stand for


An inquiry to the association's technical department has revealed that
while copper-based blight sprays are permitted for the time being, the
chemicals are now "under review".

All this may leave consumers wondering if there is any evidence of
copper residues in potatoes that reach the shops.


The results of the BBC's research though, are reassuring from a food
safety point of view. The investigation did not highlight any health
concerns.

What is now under the microscope is the definition of organic.

The Soil Association's claim that organically grown crops do not
require artificial chemicals seems somewhat blighted and seems to run
counter to what is happening down on the farm.

With shoppers paying as much as £3 for a small bag of potatoes, they
may now be asking what exactly does the organic label stand for.


also see

http://tinyurl.com/wxlya

It certainly seems as though the standards we thought we were buying
in to, are not quite the standards they would have us believe!

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:45:28 +0100, Geoff
wrote:

It would seem the Soil Association are rapidly losing credibility
after their recent exposure that they support organic aquaculture
standards
http://tinyurl.com/y3pfh3

It would seem they also think it's OK to spray our spuds with copper!

http://tinyurl.com/y6l9sv
Blight spray clouds organic claims

By Martin Cassidy
BBC Northern Ireland's rural affairs correspondent


Questions have emerged about the marketing and labelling of organic
food after BBC research found artificial chemicals are being used to
control potato blight.

Confirmation that copper oxychloride is being used to control the
fungal disease has come from the Soil Association.

The association promotes organic farming as being free of artificial
chemicals and has admitted that the copper-based blight sprays
represent an "achilles heel".


Consumers assume sprays are not used
Organic farmers are also now asking questions about the sprays which
the Soil Association says are used as a last resort, but which potato
growers say they rely on to produce their crops.

Tom Gilbert, who runs Ballylaggan organic farm in County Antrim,
questions whether organic potato production should even be attempted
in the British isles because of a climate which almost invariably
results in blight infection.

He said: "If you have to spray things to make them succeed, it's not
really what the organic ideal is about. I do it with a heavy heart
spraying them because I don't really approve of it."

'Under review'

Mr Gilbert, who sells directly from his farm shop, makes a point of
telling customers how the produce is grown but down on the high street
shoppers seem confused.

"I just assumed that things like that were not used on organic farms,"
said one.


The BBC's investigation has also found other evidence of disquiet
within the organic sector.

The Soil Association has confirmed that the use of the greenish blue
powder-based sprays is now limited to eight kilos per hectare -
equivalent to three applications during the growing of a potato crop.

With shoppers paying as much as £3 for a small bag of spuds, they may
now be asking what exactly does the organic label stand for


An inquiry to the association's technical department has revealed that
while copper-based blight sprays are permitted for the time being, the
chemicals are now "under review".

All this may leave consumers wondering if there is any evidence of
copper residues in potatoes that reach the shops.


The results of the BBC's research though, are reassuring from a food
safety point of view. The investigation did not highlight any health
concerns.

What is now under the microscope is the definition of organic.

The Soil Association's claim that organically grown crops do not
require artificial chemicals seems somewhat blighted and seems to run
counter to what is happening down on the farm.

With shoppers paying as much as £3 for a small bag of potatoes, they
may now be asking what exactly does the organic label stand for.


also see

http://tinyurl.com/wxlya

It certainly seems as though the standards we thought we were buying
in to, are not quite the standards they would have us believe!


An example straight from the horses mouth.

***********************************
http://tinyurl.com/y4wjfp
Pest and weed control
Organic farmers use natural systems to prevent pest or disease
problems becoming serious. A range of practices prevents them from
having to resort to pesticides.

The main methods of pest control are; crop rotations, encouraging
natural predators, providing conditions that encourage plant health
and vitality, selecting suitable varieties, alongside various planting
techniques and mechanical weeding methods.

Occasionally the system is unable to cope with a particular pest
problem, this may be as a result of unusual weather conditions that
particularly favour a certain pest or disease. If this happens there
are some carefully selected pesticides that can be used. These have
all been assessed for their impact on human health, the environment
and wildlife. We do not allow the use of any herbicides, because the
other practices should always be sufficient to deal with weed
problems.

Sulphur and copper could be used as a fungicide in an organic
vineyard. Under the Soil Association's standards copper can only be
used if the farmer has got permission from Soil Association
Certification Ltd to do so, and even then no more than 8kg per hectare
can be used per year. This maximum amount of copper is being further
reduced to just 6kg per hectare per year at the beginning of 2006.

Mildew diseases can be a problem for vines, these are kept at bay by
allowing a good flow of air around the vine shoots.

****************************************

That means in a 100h field almost 1 tonne could be dumped (.8)!!!

I dread to think what *normal* farming allows per hectare, but 8kg is
a terrifying thought!

In some crops 25Kg/h is *normal*. That's 2.5tonnes per 100 acre
crop!!!

CRAZY!

No wonder we're doomed.

In article ,
Geoff writes:
|
| All this may leave consumers wondering if there is any evidence of
| copper residues in potatoes that reach the shops.

And whether it is enough to give them their RDA of copper :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:45:28 +0100, Geoff
wrote:

It would seem the Soil Association are rapidly losing credibility
after their recent exposure that they support organic aquaculture
standards
http://tinyurl.com/y3pfh3

It would seem they also think it's OK to spray our spuds with copper!

http://tinyurl.com/y6l9sv
Blight spray clouds organic claims

By Martin Cassidy
BBC Northern Ireland's rural affairs correspondent


Questions have emerged about the marketing and labelling of organic
food after BBC research found artificial chemicals are being used to
control potato blight.

Confirmation that copper oxychloride is being used to control the
fungal disease has come from the Soil Association.

The association promotes organic farming as being free of artificial
chemicals and has admitted that the copper-based blight sprays
represent an "achilles heel".


Consumers assume sprays are not used
Organic farmers are also now asking questions about the sprays which
the Soil Association says are used as a last resort, but which potato
growers say they rely on to produce their crops.

Tom Gilbert, who runs Ballylaggan organic farm in County Antrim,
questions whether organic potato production should even be attempted
in the British isles because of a climate which almost invariably
results in blight infection.

He said: "If you have to spray things to make them succeed, it's not
really what the organic ideal is about. I do it with a heavy heart
spraying them because I don't really approve of it."

'Under review'

Mr Gilbert, who sells directly from his farm shop, makes a point of
telling customers how the produce is grown but down on the high street
shoppers seem confused.

"I just assumed that things like that were not used on organic farms,"
said one.


The BBC's investigation has also found other evidence of disquiet
within the organic sector.

The Soil Association has confirmed that the use of the greenish blue
powder-based sprays is now limited to eight kilos per hectare -
equivalent to three applications during the growing of a potato crop.

With shoppers paying as much as £3 for a small bag of spuds, they may
now be asking what exactly does the organic label stand for


An inquiry to the association's technical department has revealed that
while copper-based blight sprays are permitted for the time being, the
chemicals are now "under review".

All this may leave consumers wondering if there is any evidence of
copper residues in potatoes that reach the shops.


The results of the BBC's research though, are reassuring from a food
safety point of view. The investigation did not highlight any health
concerns.

What is now under the microscope is the definition of organic.

The Soil Association's claim that organically grown crops do not
require artificial chemicals seems somewhat blighted and seems to run
counter to what is happening down on the farm.

With shoppers paying as much as £3 for a small bag of potatoes, they
may now be asking what exactly does the organic label stand for.


also see

http://tinyurl.com/wxlya

It certainly seems as though the standards we thought we were buying
in to, are not quite the standards they would have us believe!


Indeed! It seems so.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On 24 Oct 2006 09:01:58 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
Geoff writes:
|
| All this may leave consumers wondering if there is any evidence of
| copper residues in potatoes that reach the shops.

And whether it is enough to give them their RDA of copper :-)


Give or take, it far, far exceeds our minimal requirements

Copper Recommended Dietary Allowance
(milligrams/day)
Adult 0.9
Pregnant woman 1.0
Nursing mother 1.3


And we get more than enough in a good diet, without adding any!

Sources of copper

The table below indicates the approximate copper content in a range
of foods:





Food Copper
(mg/100g
edible portion)
Potato 0.22 Baked, without salt, flesh only
Potato 0.17 Boiled, no skin, no salt
Mushrooms 0.24 Canned, drained
Green Peas 0.14 Frozen, cooked, drained, no salt
Banana 0.10 Raw
Raisins 0.36 Golden, seedless
Peanuts 0.67 Dry roasted, no salt
Peanuts 1.14 Raw
Brazil Nuts 1.77 Dried, unblanched
Chick Peas 0.17 Canned
Chick Peas 0.85 Raw
Sunflower Seeds 1.75 Kernels, dried
Chocolate (Dark) 0.80 Dark chocolate bar