Are Thai eating healthy?

[AyG]

Diabetes is in epidemic proportions in Thailand these days.

Whilst it's an issue, it's hardly "epidemic proportions".

Out of 223 countries and regions, Thailand ranks 102, so pretty much in the middle. It's also better than the average for SE Asia.

Major countries with worse problems include: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Portugal, Canada, Pakistan, Germany, Switzerland, Turkey, Korea, Philippines and, of course, the lard-<deleted> of the United States.

Source: http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/diabetes_prevalence_country_ranks.html

[xen]

Interesting figures AyG . There does not seem to be any racially based pattern as i thought the Polynesians and the Australian Aboriginees would be very prominent. There is a slight climate based pattern with more tropical countries being up towards the top . I had seen figure quoted as Thailand being 40% diabetic but that figure was also an estimate of un-diagnosed diabetics .

[xylophone]

even in my lifetime I have seen the change from butter, eggs, milk, meat, etc being good for you, to then being branded as bad, only to see the emergence of such things as margarine and trans fats, fructose and so on.

Of course, there has been a major change in lifestyle over the last hundred years.

A hundred years ago meat was an expensive luxury. Most people had very little of it, and certainly didn't eat it every day. It was, however, recognised as a good source of protein, something many people would have been deficient in. Rickets was also a major social problem because of the closeness with which houses were built for poor people, blocking out the sunlight. Dairy products are a good source of vitamin D. It made sense to promote their consumption.

Major change in diet started after World War II. People started eating a lot more animal products, with most people eventually eating meat at least once a day, and often at every meal.

This wasn't a problem until people became a lot more sedentary, partly from the rise of office work, partly from the popularisation of TV, and partly from a decline in interest in sports.

So, what was good for the poor, hardworking people of the early 20th century has turned into a health hazard for the overweight, sedentary people of the 21st.

There is an interesting article in the Phuket Gazette called, "Get the skinny on fats".............worth a read about oils and the link between diet and heart disease.

[slipperylobster]

Much more so than many of the farangs I have seen.

Before Western "Civilization" reached the Orient....these guys had a decent diet of fish, fruits and vegetables.

Edited October 25, 2014 by slipperylobster

[slipperylobster]

LOL...give me a break.

Western Diets are the real killer.

http://www.bodytrim.com.au/diet/the-scary-health-risks-from-western-diets

If you are really concerned about Thai food....fix things on your dinner table first.

Edited October 25, 2014 by slipperylobster

[xen]

LOL...give me a break.

Western Diets are the real killer.

http://www.bodytrim.com.au/diet/the-scary-health-risks-from-western-diets

If you are really concerned about Thai food....fix things on your dinner table first.

Another article i read today before this one . Along similar lines about research into gut bacteria .

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-25/gut-microbiota-linked-to-health-autism-schizophrenia/5841264

[glegolo]

Don't mean to be unkind but you are a wealthy (by Thai standards) idiot.

Are Thais eating healthy?

What a silly question in Thailand.

There are latterly millions of people in Thailand who are every day eating anything they can get to keep them going ..... simply because they can't afford anything else.

Grow up, get out of you elitist Farang mind trap.

Every day there are Thais who think they are lucky to get the 35 Baht for a meal.

They do not have the time, or more especially the money, to consider whether that meal is "healthy" or not.

And frankly they don't care, just as long as they can get a meal so they won't be hungry for a while.

Please excuse me for being blunt, but as many elite and wealthy Farangs in Thailand ....... you simply do not know the really of daily Thai life for latterly millions of poor Thais.

That's why your question is a silly and pointless question.

As I said, I don't mean to be rude, but you need to be aware of the daily reality of life for many poor Thais.

I think you both mean and you ARE rude. Why do you like to stop people from arguing about stuff here in Thailand. I hate those kind of people really.... The Op have all right in the world to talk about stuff that he notice here in Thailand, and why not....from questions comes answers comes development....

But from your rudeness comes absolutely nothing more than silence....

Glegolo

[xylophone]

LOL...give me a break.

Western Diets are the real killer.

http://www.bodytrim.com.au/diet/the-scary-health-risks-from-western-diets

If you are really concerned about Thai food....fix things on your dinner table first.

The modern diet is too full of carbohydrates, sugars (fructose and whatever else), refined oils and other foods which are nutrient depleted, not to mention the fact that some manufacturers of foods have realised that by putting certain sugars in their products, they can induce a form of craving for the sugars and therefore the food which contains them, so more are consumed.

Agree with your comment about "fixing things on your dinner table first" and would love to be able to eat more fresh vegetables here, however the totally indiscriminate use of dangerous pesticides in this country, makes it very difficult. If I had the opportunity, I would love to grow my own organic vegetables, because then I would know what I was eating.

[rice555]

LOL...give me a break.

Western Diets are the real killer.

http://www.bodytrim.com.au/diet/the-scary-health-risks-from-western-diets

If you are really concerned about Thai food....fix things on your dinner table first.

The modern diet is too full of carbohydrates, sugars (fructose and whatever else), refined oils and other foods which are nutrient depleted, not to mention the fact that some manufacturers of foods have realised that by putting certain sugars in their products, they can induce a form of craving for the sugars and therefore the food which contains them, so more are consumed.

Agree with your comment about "fixing things on your dinner table first" and would love to be able to eat more fresh vegetables here, however the totally indiscriminate use of dangerous pesticides in this country, makes it very difficult. If I had the opportunity, I would love to grow my own organic vegetables, because then I would know what I was eating.

Hello All, xylophone, I think you won't fine much fructose used in Thai products, sugar is cheap here compared to the west, and would have to be imported.

Also about basic Thai vegetables with out bug juice can be had through The Royal Project

and 99% of hydroponic don't have bug juice either, Fresh Garden and Take Me Home.

Theres not much nutritional difference between OG and regular grown, only the chems.

And not all non-OG growers use cedes. Just because a farmer doesn't grow OG, doesn't

​mean he doesn't take care of his soil!

rice555

[Jip99]

That seems remarkably cheap as the stuff I sometimes buy at Big C is around 450 baht for 500 ml??

Perhaps the stuff you are buying has been extracted using solvents, or has been through a "refined, bleached and deodorized" process, or is "hydrogenated" (making it mostly solid)??

Any info on this would be appreciated.

Sorry, I'm not an expert on these things , we have the virgin coconut oil which is very expensive but not suitable for cooking. That is more like 450 baht per bottle. The only coconut cooking oil I found is a thai brand and quite cheap. I'm very happy with it.

For cooking, I use the extra virgin coconut oil which has been cold pressed using centrifuge technology, thereby retaining all of the good parts of coconut oil, whereas the cheaper ones which can be subjected to various treatments, including heat and solvents, can have such important components such as Lauric acid removed, making them less healthy.

OK I took a picture of the coconut oil that I buy here in Pattaya, I have no idea how they treated it before it ended up in the bottle. But I'm pretty sure it's healthier than other cheap cooking oil .

.

I found this to be educational:-

[Jip99]

That seems remarkably cheap as the stuff I sometimes buy at Big C is around 450 baht for 500 ml??

Perhaps the stuff you are buying has been extracted using solvents, or has been through a "refined, bleached and deodorized" process, or is "hydrogenated" (making it mostly solid)??

Any info on this would be appreciated.

Sorry, I'm not an expert on these things , we have the virgin coconut oil which is very expensive but not suitable for cooking. That is more like 450 baht per bottle. The only coconut cooking oil I found is a thai brand and quite cheap. I'm very happy with it.

For cooking, I use the extra virgin coconut oil which has been cold pressed using centrifuge technology, thereby retaining all of the good parts of coconut oil, whereas the cheaper ones which can be subjected to various treatments, including heat and solvents, can have such important components such as Lauric acid removed, making them less healthy.

OK I took a picture of the coconut oil that I buy here in Pattaya, I have no idea how they treated it before it ended up in the bottle. But I'm pretty sure it's healthier than other cheap cooking oil .

.

I found this to be educational:-

[xylophone]

LOL...give me a break.

Western Diets are the real killer.

http://www.bodytrim.com.au/diet/the-scary-health-risks-from-western-diets

If you are really concerned about Thai food....fix things on your dinner table first.

The modern diet is too full of carbohydrates, sugars (fructose and whatever else), refined oils and other foods which are nutrient depleted, not to mention the fact that some manufacturers of foods have realised that by putting certain sugars in their products, they can induce a form of craving for the sugars and therefore the food which contains them, so more are consumed.

Agree with your comment about "fixing things on your dinner table first" and would love to be able to eat more fresh vegetables here, however the totally indiscriminate use of dangerous pesticides in this country, makes it very difficult. If I had the opportunity, I would love to grow my own organic vegetables, because then I would know what I was eating.

Hello All, xylophone, I think you won't fine much fructose used in Thai products, sugar is cheap here compared to the west, and would have to be imported.

Also about basic Thai vegetables with out bug juice can be had through The Royal Project

and 99% of hydroponic don't have bug juice either, Fresh Garden and Take Me Home.

Theres not much nutritional difference between OG and regular grown, only the chems.

And not all non-OG growers use cedes. Just because a farmer doesn't grow OG, doesn't

​mean he doesn't take care of his soil!

rice555

Hello rice555, have to agree with a lot of what you said, however I was really referring to fructose in the western diet, however having said that if you look at all of the packets of crisps, biscuits, sweets, cakes, cheap chocolates and so on (especially those seen in stores like 7-Eleven's) well it's a sure bet that most of them would contain fructose in some form or another.

Agree there isn't any nutritional difference between organic and regular grown vegetables apart from the chemicals used, and there are far too many of them in Thailand, with a recent survey even showing that some of the vegetables labelled "organic" were in fact some of the worst affected by pesticides/insecticides and so on.

In addition, again, some of the worst affected vegetables were those sold in farmers and local markets, where the unsuspecting buyers, farangs included, thought they were getting quality vegetables.

[AyG]

however I was really referring to fructose in the western diet, however having said that if you look at all of the packets of crisps, biscuits, sweets, cakes, cheap chocolates and so on (especially those seen in stores like 7-Eleven's) well it's a sure bet that most of them would contain fructose in some form or another.

High fructose corn syrup became a staple part of processed food in the USA because of simple economics: it was cheaper (being produced from highly subsidised corn) than sugar (which is "price protected" and subject to strict import quotas keeping the price higher than the world market). This meant that using fructose meant bigger profits.

In the rest of the world there isn't this kind of market distortion, and pretty much everywhere else has stuck with traditional sugar.

I rather doubt you'd find much fructose here, even in 7-Eleven - particularly since Thailand is the world's 4th largest sugar producer (after Brazil, India and China).

[rice555]

however I was really referring to fructose in the western diet, however having said that if you look at all of the packets of crisps, biscuits, sweets, cakes, cheap chocolates and so on (especially those seen in stores like 7-Eleven's) well it's a sure bet that most of them would contain fructose in some form or another.

High fructose corn syrup became a staple part of processed food in the USA because of simple economics: it was cheaper (being produced from highly subsidised corn) than sugar (which is "price protected" and subject to strict import quotas keeping the price higher than the world market). This meant that using fructose meant bigger profits.

In the rest of the world there isn't this kind of market distortion, and pretty much everywhere else has stuck with traditional sugar.

I rather doubt you'd find much fructose here, even in 7-Eleven - particularly since Thailand is the world's 4th largest sugar producer (after Brazil, India and China).

A good vid on the US corn industry, "King Corn".

rice555

[xylophone]

however I was really referring to fructose in the western diet, however having said that if you look at all of the packets of crisps, biscuits, sweets, cakes, cheap chocolates and so on (especially those seen in stores like 7-Eleven's) well it's a sure bet that most of them would contain fructose in some form or another.

High fructose corn syrup became a staple part of processed food in the USA because of simple economics: it was cheaper (being produced from highly subsidised corn) than sugar (which is "price protected" and subject to strict import quotas keeping the price higher than the world market). This meant that using fructose meant bigger profits.

In the rest of the world there isn't this kind of market distortion, and pretty much everywhere else has stuck with traditional sugar.

I rather doubt you'd find much fructose here, even in 7-Eleven - particularly since Thailand is the world's 4th largest sugar producer (after Brazil, India and China).

Quote: "Worldwide production of high-fructose syrup and crystaline fructose..........In Thailand, a new plant is expected to product 36.3 million kg (High Fructose corn syrup) by 1995".

Old stats however it shows that Thailand is producing the stuff and most probably uses it, and look in any shop to find sweets, biscuits, syrups, colas, sauces etc and even some products labelled "honey" and many of them will have it in them, especially if they are imported.

Even if HFCS is not the culprit then the amount of sugar in the Thai diet will be!

[AyG]

however I was really referring to fructose in the western diet, however having said that if you look at all of the packets of crisps, biscuits, sweets, cakes, cheap chocolates and so on (especially those seen in stores like 7-Eleven's) well it's a sure bet that most of them would contain fructose in some form or another.

High fructose corn syrup became a staple part of processed food in the USA because of simple economics: it was cheaper (being produced from highly subsidised corn) than sugar (which is "price protected" and subject to strict import quotas keeping the price higher than the world market). This meant that using fructose meant bigger profits.

In the rest of the world there isn't this kind of market distortion, and pretty much everywhere else has stuck with traditional sugar.

I rather doubt you'd find much fructose here, even in 7-Eleven - particularly since Thailand is the world's 4th largest sugar producer (after Brazil, India and China).

Quote: "Worldwide production of high-fructose syrup and crystaline fructose..........In Thailand, a new plant is expected to product 36.3 million kg (High Fructose corn syrup) by 1995".

Old stats however it shows that Thailand is producing the stuff and most probably uses it, and look in any shop to find sweets, biscuits, syrups, colas, sauces etc and even some products labelled "honey" and many of them will have it in them, especially if they are imported.

Even if HFCS is not the culprit then the amount of sugar in the Thai diet will be!

Rather than cite a plant that was planned back in 1995 (and quite possibly never built), how about providing some relevant information, perhaps about how much fructose (if any) is actually being produced in Thailand in the 21st century?

As far as I can see it's simply not economic, and any production will most likely be pretty minuscule.

And as for "if HFCS is not the culprit then the amount of sugar in the Thai diet will be" current thinking seems to be that HFCS is significantly more damaging to health than an equivalent amount of regular sucrose.

[NamKAheng]

He is preaching. The worse sort of farang. As if poverty doesn't exist in his home country.

My heart doctor at a world class hospital in Bangkok told me not to eat from the street food stalls but food courts ok.

Go eat at the hi-so food court in a big store where I saw 2 cockroaches on the counter where they prepare food!

The guy preparing the food brush them off the counter with his hand and continue to prepare food

[hugocnx]

Quote: "As far as I can see it's simply not economic, and any production will most likely be pretty minuscule."

Fructose is 50% of sugar (Sacharose). The other half is glucose.

In Thailand sugar is made from sugar cane and sugar palm. Whatever you make sugar from, half of it is fructose, so Thailand produces alot.

[AyG]

Fructose is 50% of sugar (Sacharose). The other half is glucose.

In Thailand sugar is made from sugar cane and sugar palm. Whatever you make sugar from, half of it is fructose, so Thailand produces alot.

There's a big difference between fructose, which is a monosaccharide, and sucrose which is a disaccharide that can be broken down into molecules of fructose and glucose.

Sugar is not a mixture containing fructose as you seem to suggest. It's a single compound - sucrose. (Sacharose is the now obsolete name for the same compound.) So Thailand does not produce a lot of fructose.

[hugocnx]

Fructose is 50% of sugar (Sacharose). The other half is glucose.

In Thailand sugar is made from sugar cane and sugar palm. Whatever you make sugar from, half of it is fructose, so Thailand produces alot.

There's a big difference between fructose, which is a monosaccharide, and sucrose which is a disaccharide that can be broken down into molecules of fructose and glucose.

Sugar is not a mixture containing fructose as you seem to suggest. It's a single compound - sucrose. (Sacharose is the now obsolete name for the same compound.) So Thailand does not produce a lot of fructose.

May I then suggest you rewrite Wikipedia on 'Sugar"?

[AyG]

Fructose is 50% of sugar (Sacharose). The other half is glucose.

In Thailand sugar is made from sugar cane and sugar palm. Whatever you make sugar from, half of it is fructose, so Thailand produces alot.

There's a big difference between fructose, which is a monosaccharide, and sucrose which is a disaccharide that can be broken down into molecules of fructose and glucose.

Sugar is not a mixture containing fructose as you seem to suggest. It's a single compound - sucrose. (Sacharose is the now obsolete name for the same compound.) So Thailand does not produce a lot of fructose.

May I then suggest you rewrite Wikipedia on 'Sugar"?

No need. It's already correct: In the section "Disaccharides": "A molecule of sucrose is formed by the combination of a molecule of glucose with a molecule of fructose. After being eaten, sucrose is split into its constituent parts during digestion by a number of enzymes known as sucrases."

[xylophone]

however I was really referring to fructose in the western diet, however having said that if you look at all of the packets of crisps, biscuits, sweets, cakes, cheap chocolates and so on (especially those seen in stores like 7-Eleven's) well it's a sure bet that most of them would contain fructose in some form or another.

High fructose corn syrup became a staple part of processed food in the USA because of simple economics: it was cheaper (being produced from highly subsidised corn) than sugar (which is "price protected" and subject to strict import quotas keeping the price higher than the world market). This meant that using fructose meant bigger profits.

In the rest of the world there isn't this kind of market distortion, and pretty much everywhere else has stuck with traditional sugar.

I rather doubt you'd find much fructose here, even in 7-Eleven - particularly since Thailand is the world's 4th largest sugar producer (after Brazil, India and China).

Quote: "Worldwide production of high-fructose syrup and crystaline fructose..........In Thailand, a new plant is expected to product 36.3 million kg (High Fructose corn syrup) by 1995".

Old stats however it shows that Thailand is producing the stuff and most probably uses it, and look in any shop to find sweets, biscuits, syrups, colas, sauces etc and even some products labelled "honey" and many of them will have it in them, especially if they are imported.

Even if HFCS is not the culprit then the amount of sugar in the Thai diet will be!

Rather than cite a plant that was planned back in 1995 (and quite possibly never built), how about providing some relevant information, perhaps about how much fructose (if any) is actually being produced in Thailand in the 21st century?

As far as I can see it's simply not economic, and any production will most likely be pretty minuscule.

And as for "if HFCS is not the culprit then the amount of sugar in the Thai diet will be" current thinking seems to be that HFCS is significantly more damaging to health than an equivalent amount of regular sucrose.

Fructose in Thailand is made by The Thai Glucose Co., WGC Co. Ltd., and Bonnet, to name a few.

Products in a 7-Eleven which could contain fructose would be many of the imported colas and soft drinks, just about anything with a sweetener in them, including flavoured yoghurts and sweet soy drinks (many made in Thailand).

Agree that HFCS seems to be significantly more damaging to health than the equivalent amount of sugar, however the research is still cloudy as to exactly how or why. However what is sure is that a diet high in sugar is unhealthy.

Anyway, rather than this getting into a discussion as to the benefits or not of fructose/corn syrup/sugar and whether or not it is produced in this country, the simple fact remains that a diet high in sugar is unhealthy and that's what I was trying to point out.

[hugocnx]

Fructose is 50% of sugar (Sacharose). The other half is glucose.

In Thailand sugar is made from sugar cane and sugar palm. Whatever you make sugar from, half of it is fructose, so Thailand produces alot.

There's a big difference between fructose, which is a monosaccharide, and sucrose which is a disaccharide that can be broken down into molecules of fructose and glucose.

Sugar is not a mixture containing fructose as you seem to suggest. It's a single compound - sucrose. (Sacharose is the now obsolete name for the same compound.) So Thailand does not produce a lot of fructose.

May I then suggest you rewrite Wikipedia on 'Sugar"?

No need. It's already correct: In the section "Disaccharides": "A molecule of sucrose is formed by the combination of a molecule of glucose with a molecule of fructose. After being eaten, sucrose is split into its constituent parts during digestion by a number of enzymes known as sucrases."

So now you admitt I was right?

Sucrose = sugar = fructose + glucose according to Wiki.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[hugocnx]

Anyways, it's of topic.

[AyG]

So now you admitt I was right?

Sucrose = sugar = fructose + glucose according to Wiki.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I really can't be bothered to continue replying to someone who obviously doesn't even have a basic understanding of organic chemistry.

One last time: sucrose is not a mixture of glucose and fructose. It's a chemically distinct compound that can be produced from molecules of those sugars, with the elimination of some excess atoms. There is no fructose in sucrose - not a single molecule.

Your position is rather like saying that table salt (sodium chloride) is a mixture of sodium (a highly reactive, silvery metal) and chlorine (a poisonous gas). It's not. It's a unique compound in its own right.

The sea is full of sodium chloride, but for all practical purposes contains no sodium metal and no chlorine gas. Likewise, sugar contains no fructose.

[hugocnx]

Thanks for your explication for Sugar Dummies. Lesson taken, but where did I say it was a mixture.

[xylophone]

Away from the sugar stuff and on to the heading, "Are Thai eating healthy".............you may be interested in this article from the "Nation" in August 2012. So if this is anything to go by, it is extremely unlikely!!

A consumer network discovers dangerously high levels of chemicals in the vegetables we eat

In a move that will do little to promote Thailand's continuing "Kitchen of the World" campaign, Consumer's Handbook magazine and the Thailand Pesticide Alert Network, or Thai-PAN as it's known for short, recently announced that many vegetables we buy suffer from a surfeit of pesticides.

Confidence in food safety took another blow as they added that the Safe logo or Q logo (Quality standard) made little difference: our health is still at risk from the chemicals in these vegetables.

Tests were conducted on cabbages, Chinese broccoli, Chinese cabbage, water morning glory, parsley, yardlong beans and bird chilli peppers (also known as bird's eye chilli), collected at random from supermarkets, Pracha Nivet amd Huay Kwang markets and mobile markets (the pick-ups that travel round neighbourhoods) and including varieties bearing the Q logo.

Despite wide variations in prices with the veg in some supermarkets sometimes selling for as much as 10 times more than in a fresh market, the trace amounts of pesticides were almost as the same.

An earlier previous investigation found that 43 per cent of all vegetables in supermarkets failed the European Union Food Standard. The same investigation has now been conducted on the vegetables sold in fresh markets and off carts and the failure rate - 43 per cent- is the same. Does this mean that the vegetables are all coming from the same source?

Thai-PAN says the produce at Huay Kwang may well have a unique as the market reveals the highest concentrations of pesticides in all kinds of vegetables, with an alarming 202 times the amount of chemicals allowed by the European guideline.

However, the network notes the risk of contamination varies according to the vegetable with parsley topping the danger list.

Tests on the herb revealed 5 types of pesticides including Carbofuran, Chlopyrifos, EPN and Methidathion at levels up to 102 times higher than the European guideline. Yardlong beans and bird’s eye chilli came second and third respectively. Thai-PAN warns that these chemicals are all harmful to the health, with long term effects as well as acute poisoning if the concentration is high enough. Just 3 drops of EPN or a teaspoon of carbofuran can be fatal.

"This situation is severe," says a Thai-PAN spokesman. "Thailand has very few standards to limit the use of pesticides. One of the guidelines for Huay Kwang market simply states that 'the chemicals should not contaminate the product' but provides no numbers. Without any prescribed doses to adhere to, it's easy to see why pesticides are so liberally applied. European standards are much more detailed.

Take parsley, for example. European guidelines suggest that there should not be more than 0.05mg of Chloropyrifos, 0.02mg of Methidathion and 0.3mg of Methomyl. No limitation is given in the Thai standard."

This issue was addressed in a meeting between Thai-PAN and the Department of Agriculture earlier this month, with Thai-PAN proposing that pesticides should be officially registered and guidelines written to regulate their use. Representatives from the Department of Agriculture turned down the proposal, claiming that the large majority (99.97 per cent) of vegetables are not contaminated by such pesticides as carbofuran. Following the meeting, the ministry's Rice Department; which controls half of the agricultural area in Thailand, expressed its displeasure, saying it was not given the opportunity to become involved in the decision over pesticide use.

Thai-PAN representatives for their part accept it will be a longer struggle that they had expected but say they won't give up. In the meantime, they offer some tips to help consumers protect themselves for too many pesticides.

- Always rinse vegetables repeatedly with water or in a potassium permanganate solution.

- Buy vegetables from organic farms that forbid the use of chemicals. Not only will you enjoy fresher tasting veg but you will also be supporting their organisations.

- Start growing your own veg. It's easy and you can do it in a small plot and even on a balcony.

- Wherever possible, avoid the seven vegetables on the list. These are the most likely to be contaminated with pesticides as farmers race to keep up with high demand.

- Don't buy the same type of vegetable every time. This will prevent an accumulation of chemicals in your body.

- Do be aware when you are buying:

- The label Q stands for quality. It is given to vegetables grown without the use of pesticides but chemical fertilisers may be used.

- Pak plod pai (Hygienic) means that pesticides and chemical fertilisers may be used.

- Pak plod sarn pid (organic) means that neither pesticides nor chemical fertilisers may be used.