the dirty dozen

1 (worst) Peach 100 (highest pesticide load)
2 Apple 93
3 Sweet Bell Pepper 83
4 Celery 82
5 Nectarine 81
6 Strawberries 80
7 Cherries 73
8 Kale 69
9 Lettuce 67
10 Grapes - Imported 66
11 Carrot 63
12 Pear 63

For the whole list of 47 fruits and vegetables with pesticides Click Here
While it may be almost impossible these days to avoid at least a partial intake of pesticides, it seems that going by the latest report on the presence of pesticides in our food basket, you might be able to cut it down by at least half by avoiding the top dozen (the dirty dozen)
Least Contaminated: THE CLEAN FIFTEEN

The vegetables least likely to have pesticides on them are onions, sweet corn,
asparagus, sweet peas, cabbage, eggplant, broccoli, tomatoes, and sweet potatoes.

Over half of the tomatoes (53.1 percent), broccoli (65.2 percent), eggplant (75.4 percent),
cabbage (82.1 percent), and sweet pea (77.1 percent) samples had no detectable pesticides.
Among the other three vegetables on the least-contaminated list
(asparagus, sweet corn, and onions),
there were no detectable residues on 90 percent or more of the samples.
Multiple pesticide residues are extremely rare on any of these least contaminated vegetables. Tomatoes had the highest likelihood, with a 13.5 percent chance of more than one pesticide when ready to eat. Onions and corn both had the lowest chance with zero samples containing more than one pesticide.
The greatest number of pesticides detected on a single sample of any of these low-pesticide vegetables was five (as compared to 11 found on sweet bell peppers, the vegetable with the most residues on a single sample).
Broccoli had the most pesticides found on a single type of vegetable, with up to 28 pesticides, but far fewer than the most contaminated vegetable, sweet bell peppers, on which 64 were found.
The fruits least likely to have pesticide residues on them are avocados, pineapples, mangoes, kiwi, papayas, watermelon and grapefruit.

Fewer than 10 percent of pineapple, mango, and avocado samples had detectable pesticides on them, and fewer than one percent of samples had more than one pesticide residue.
Though 54.5 percent of grapefruit had detectable pesticides, multiple residues are less common, with only 17.5 percent of samples containing more than one residue. Watermelon had residues on 28.1 percent of samples, and just 9.6 percent had multiple pesticide residues.
Source : Environmental Working Group
The six measures of contamination that were used were:

Percent of the samples tested with detectable pesticides
Percent of the samples with two or more pesticides
Average number of pesticides found on a sample
Average amount (level in parts per million) of all pesticides found
Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample
Number of pesticides found on the commodity in total

Every year, new research is published demonstrating the toxicity of pesticides to human health and the environment, often at doses previously declared "safe" by the pesticide industry and the government.

As acknowledged by the U.S. and international government agencies, different pesticides have been linked with a variety of toxic effects, including:

Nervous system effects
Carcinogenic effects
Hormone system effects
Skin, eye and lung irritation

Pesticides are unique among the chemicals we release into the environment; they have inherent toxicity because they are designed to kill living organisms – insects, plants, and fungi that are considered "pests." Because they are toxic by design, many pesticides pose health risks to people, risks that have been acknowledged by independent research scientists and physicians across the world.

Ignorance Does Not Equal Safety
Pesticide Health Effects: The Latest Science
It is up to us to be vigilant in these things because we cannot usually count on the government to be very pro-active. It is very unfortunate that in regards to human and environmental health, government action has been far too slow. It is important to remember that the government said that highly toxic pesticides like DDT, chlordane, dursban and others were safe right up to the day the EPA banned them. And considering that we are talking about toxic chemicals whose effects on children's health may be irreversible, no delay is justifiable.

The real sad part of this whole sorry state of affairs is that it is all so unbelievably unnecessary.
"Dust thou art......"  Everything we are comes from the soil and the interaction with the elements. It all starts with the soil. If the soil is right everything else is going to right too. But if the soil is not right, everything else not going to be right either. If it is not in the soil, the plant cannot take it up and the animal eating the plant won't have access to it either...and neither do we...but bugs and other pests are interested. They apparently have not much use for healthy nutrient dense food. And of course that makes sense. Whatwe usually consider to be pests, are really not pests at all. They are Nature's way of dealing with problems, with diseases, with anything that is not in optimum shape.
There is of course also a simple practical matter : High Brix plants are high in sugar and much more difficult too suck from a plant than watery fluids. Higher sugar content may also constitute a danger for insects if sugar ferments into alcohol against which they have no defennses.
But we have gotten off the right track. We have 'en masse' chosen for low quality, low cost food that is being produced in huge quantities.
Visit your dentist and ask him how many mouths he looks in that have properly developed dental arches. Our children are being fed food so poor in minerals that the average kid’s jaw cannot fully fill out. That is why wisdom teeth have to be removed. That is why so many kids are in braces. Take that knowledge and start studying the faces of the kids you see on the street. The mouth is only a window into the body. Those thin faces; with poorly formed mouth arches; with crowded teeth trying to push past one another; are accompanied by fragile, low-density, bones. Our race is in danger of dying out. High quality food is not important only because it tastes is vital for us to survive.
To survive, we must feed our kids higher quality foods and it will never happen until families can identify good food and distinguish it from chemically grown junk.

It was Dr. Charles Northern, an Alabama physician who stridently protested against the mineral poor food that clogged commercial channels and markets.He asked himself how foods could be used intelligently in the treatment of disease, when they differed so widely in content. The answer seemed to be that they could not be used intelligently. In establishing the fact that serious deficiencies existed and in searching out the reasons therefore, he made an extensive study of the soil. It was he who first voiced the surprising assertion that we must make soil building the basis of food building in order to accomplish human building.

"Bear in mind," says Dr. Northern, "that minerals are vital to human metabolism and health - and that no plant or animal can appropriate to itself any mineral which is not present in the soil upon which it feeds."

"When I first made this statement I was ridiculed, for up to that time people had paid little attention to food deficiencies and even less to soil deficiencies. Men eminent in medicine denied there was any such thing as vegetables and fruits that did not contain sufficient minerals for human needs. Eminent agricultural authorities insisted that all soil contained all necessary minerals. They reasoned that plants take what they need, and that it is the function of the human body to appropriate what it requires. Failure to do so, they said was a symptom of disorder."

"We know that vitamins are complex chemical substances which are indispensable to nutrition, and that each of them is of importance for the normal function of some special structure in the body. Dis-order and disease result from any vitamin deficiency."

"It is not commonly realized, however, that vitamins control the body’s appropriation of minerals, and in the absence of minerals they have no function to perform. Lacking vitamins, the system can make some use of minerals, but lacking minerals, vitamins are useless."

"Neither does the layman realize that there may be a pronounced difference in both foods and soils - to him one vegetable, one glass of milk, or one egg is about the same as another.

"Dirt is dirt, too, and our layman assumes that by adding a little fertilizer to it, a satisfactory vegetable or fruit can be grown."

"The truth is that our foods vary enormously in value, and some of them aren’t worth eating, as food. For example, vegetation grown in one part of the country may assay 1,100 parts, per billion, of iodine, as against 20 in that grown elsewhere. Processed milk has run anywhere from 362 parts, per million, of iodine and 127 of iron, down to nothing. [Note: commercial milk tends to run about 10-11 brix, whereas the very best milk can run up to 20 brix]

"Some of our lands, even in a virgin state, never were well balanced in mineral content, and unhappily for us, we have been systematically robbing the poor soils and the good soils alike of the very substance most necessary to health, growth, long life, and resistance to disease. Up to the time I began experimenting, almost nothing had been done to make good the theft.

"The more I studied nutritional problems and the effects of mineral deficiencies upon disease, the more plainly I saw that here lay the most direct approach to better health, and the more important it became in my mind to find a method of restoring those missing minerals to our foods.

"The subject interested me so profoundly that I retired from active medical practice and for a good many years now I have devoted myself to it."

We know that rats, guinea pigs, and other animals can be fed into a diseased condition and out again by controlling only the minerals in their food.

A 10-year test with rats proved that by withholding calcium they can be bred down to a third the size of those fed with an adequate amount of that mineral. Their intelligence, too, can be controlled by mineral feeding as readily as can their size, their bony structure, and their general health.

Place a number of these little animals inside a maze after starving some of them in a certain mineral element. The starved ones will be unable to find their way out, whereas the others will have little or no difficulty in getting out. Their dispositions can be altered by mineral feeding. They can be made quarrelsome and belligerent; they can even be turned into cannibals and be made to devour each other.

A cageful of normal rats will live in amity. Restrict their calcium, and they become irritable and draw apart from one another. Then they will begin to fight. Restore their calcium balance and they will grow more friendly; in time they will begin to sleep in a pile as before.

It is now agreed that at least 16 mineral elements are indispensable for normal nutrition, and several more are always found in small amounts in the body, although their precise physiological role has not been determined. Of the 11 indispensable salts, calcium, phosphorus, and iron are perhaps the most important.

Calcium is the dominant nerve controller; it powerfully affects the cell formation of all living things and regulates nerve action. It governs contractility of the muscles and the rhythmic beat of the heart. It also coordinates the other mineral elements and corrects disturbances made by them. I t works only in sunlight. Vitamin D is its buddy.

Dr. Harold C. Sherman of Columbia University asserts that 50 percent of the American people are starving for calcium. A recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, stated that out of 4,000 cases in New York Hospital, only 2 were not suffering from a lack of calcium.

What does a deficiency mean? How would it affect your health or mine? So many morbid conditions and actual diseases may result that it is almost hopeless to catalog them. Included in the list are rickets, bony deformities, bad teeth, nervous disorders, reduced resistance to other diseases, fatigability, and behavior disturbances such as incorrigibility, assaultiveness, nonadaptability.

Here’s one specific example: The soil around a certain Midwest city is poor in calcium. Three hundred children of this community were examined and nearly 90 percent had bad teeth, 69 percent showed affections of the nose and throat, swollen glands, enlarged or diseased tonsils. More than one-third had defective vision, round shoulders, bowlegs, and anemia.

Calcium and phosphorus appear to pull in double harness. A child requires as much per day as two grown men, but studies indicate a common deficiency of both in our food. Researcher on farm animals point to a deficiency of one or the other as the cause of serious losses to the farmers, and when the soil is poor in phosphorus these animals become bone-chewers. Dr. McCollum says that when there are enough phosphates in the blood there can be no dental decay.

If iodine is not present in our foods the function of the thyroid gland is disturbed and goiter afflicts us. The human body requires only fourteen-thousandths of a milligram daily, yet we have a distinct "goiter-belt" in the Great Lakes section, and in parts of the Northwest the soil is so poor in iodine that the disease is common.

So it goes, down through the list, each mineral element playing a definite role in nutrition. A characteristic set of symptoms, just as specific as any vitamin-deficiency disease, follows a deficiency in any one of them. It is alarming, therefore, to face the fact that we are starving for these precious, health-giving substances.

Very well, you say, if our foods are poor in the mineral salts they are supposed to contain, why not resort to dosing [supplements]?

That is precisely what is being done, or being attempted. However, those who should know assert that the human system cannot appropriate those elements to the best advantage in any but the food form. At best, only a part of them in the form of drugs can be utilized by the body, and certain dietitians go so far as to say it is a waste of effort to fool with them. Calcium, for instance, cannot be supplied in any form of medication with lasting effect.

But there is a more potent reason why the curing of diet deficiencies by drugging has not worked out so well. Consider those 16 indispensable elements and those others that presumably perform some obscure function as yet undetermined. Aside from calcium and phosphorus, they are needed only in infinitesimal quantities, and the activity of one may be dependent upon the presence of another. To determine the precise requirements of each individual case and to attempt to weigh it out on a druggist’s scales would appear hopeless.

It is a problem and a serious one. But here is the hopeful side of the picture: Nature can and will solve it if she is encouraged to do so.

It is merely a question of giving back to nature the materials with which she works.

We must rebuild our soils: Put back the minerals we have taken out. That sounds difficult but it isn’t. Neither is it expensive.

Therein lies the short cut to better health and longer life.

When Dr. Northern first asserted that many foods were lacking in mineral content and that this deficiency was due solely to an absence of those elements in the soil, his findings were challenged and he was called a crank. But differences of opinion in the medical profession are not uncommon - it was only 60 years ago that the Medical Society of Boston passed a resolution condemning the use of bathtubs – and he persisted in his assertion that inasmuch as foods did not contain what they were supposed to contain, no physician could with certainty prescribe a diet to overcome physical ills.

He showed that the textbooks are not dependable because many of the analyses in them were made many years ago, perhaps from products raised in virgin soils, whereas our soils have been constantly depleted. Soil analyses, he pointed out, reflect only the content of samples. One analysis may be entirely different from another made 10 miles away.

"And so what?" came the query.

Dr. Northern undertook to demonstrate that something could be done about it. By reestablishing a proper soil balance he actually grew crops that contained an ample amount of the desired minerals.

This was incredible. It was contrary to the books and it upset everything connected with diet practice. The scoffers began to pay attention to him. Recently the Southern Medical Association, realizing the hopelessness of trying to remedy nutritional deficiencies without positive factors to work with, recommended a careful study to determine the real mineral content of foodstuffs and the variations due to soil depletion in different locations. These progressive medical men are awake to the importance of prevention.

Dr. Northern went even further and proved that crops grown in a properly mineralized soil were bigger and better; that seeds germinated quicker, grew more rapidly and made larger plants; that trees were healthier and put on more fruit of better quality.

By increasing the mineral content of citrus fruit he likewise improved its texture, its appearance and its flavor.

He experimented with a variety of growing things, and in every case the story was the same. By mineralizing the feed at poultry farms, he got more and better eggs; by balancing pasture soils, he produced richer milk. Persistently he hammered home to farmers, to doctors, and to the general public the thought that life depends upon the minerals.


Reams verified that the "soft" rock phosphate, washed away as an "impurity" while cleaning "hard" phosphate rock during the manufacture of acidulated phosphoric fertilizers was, indeed, a prime resource for the biological farmer. Combined with poultry litter and high-calcium lime, and all under the watchful eye of Reams, the formerly disdained soft rock phosphate produced superb highly-mineralized citrus as well as other crops.

Reams was well aware that citrus crop quality was directly proportional to juice richness. His years of incessant laboratory experiments had proven, over and over, that the mineral content of a crop marched in lockstep to the "heaviness" of the juice it contained.

History does not record when Reams first realized that the concept applied to other crops than grapes and oranges. Nor does history record when he first picked up a refractometer and said, "I wonder?" Did someone else say, " Dr. Reams, take a look at this," or did it come to him as inspiration?

Whatever the answer to those questions, it is known that he created a bombshell in the early 1970’s when he, refractometer in hand, walked into the office of ACRES USA and placed a simple chart on the editor’s desk. That chart correlated brix numbers with four general quality levels for most fruits and vegetables. Copied innumerous times, it has made its way around the world over and over.


You can easily get a drop of juice from most soft fruits, but some vegetables require a sturdy garlic press. Extreme cases require crushing pliers---and rarely---a blender. Understandably, juicing enthusiasts find this the easiest step.

YOU, not some scientist in a lab coat, can test the food you want to buy.
YOU can determine QUALITY at the point of sale.
YOU will gain back a little control over YOUR life.
Please take readings immediately after getting the juice drop. If the juice dries on the prism, it will give a false reading. You must also be wary when testing dehydrated produce. Drying of a drop, or an entire fruit, creates a false high reading.

However, only HIGH QUALITY produce dehydrates. HIGH BRIX produce ADAMANTLY RESISTS ROTTING IN STORAGE! Check this claim yourself by testing and storing HIGH-BRIX fruit or other produce.

The above statement always comes as a shock to a lecture audience. The typical consumer has been conditioned to expect fruits and vegetables to decompose. That is why I must repeat the above sentence: good food will NOT rot in storage. Please, please, check this claim yourself by testing and then storing HIGH-BRIX fruit or other produce in your refrigerator, or even on a windowsill.

Once you depart your current thinking and enter the poor-food-rots / good-food-doesn’t paradigm, everything else in this book will make sense.


The basic Reams’ chart that follows is still widely disseminated by Pike Agri-Lab in Maine. Dr. Reams' widow insists that before he died he spoke often of Mr. Pike's invaluable assistance in helping finalize Brix=Quality crop improvement methods.
Ray Neilson, president of Circle-One in Brooksville, FL publishes the following chart, which I call simply, the Neilson Chart. Circle-One formulates and distributes a wide range of ecologically sound farm products designed to increase plant brix levels (as well as yields). Certain of his numbers reflect continuing research that he has done in the more tropical regions.
Click Here if you want to know more about pesticide free, nutrient dense food
It does not have to be this way
Although Reams viewed agriculture entirely as an energetic process, the basic Reams program requires that cropland have the following water-soluble available mineral elements per acre in place for a starting point. This is if you are truly looking for high quality (high Brix) and very high yield.

per acre:
4000 pounds calcium
400 pounds magnesium
400 pounds phosphate
200 pounds potassium
40 pounds nitrate nitrogen
40 pounds ammonia nitrogen

Are there Brix detractors?  But of course there are!  What should you expect if something so simple came along and shook YOUR toxic chemical agriculture house of cards to its very foundation.

For instance, several years ago a California State University researcher conducted a "fair" evaluation of Brix in regards to grape leafhopper control.  His conclusion: "no difference."

Interestingly, even a high-schooler could read his paper and notice that he conducted his "tests" at 9 Brix.  He failed to mention that all Brix advocates insist you must maintain 12 Brix in the leaf to gain leaf sucking insect control.

University "research" programs have been bought, lock, stock, and barrel, by the toxic chemical industry.  Would YOU pay for a report that could cost you billions of dollars in sales?

Why get caught up in the plant disease "game"?  You could spend a lifetime studying diagnosis, pathology, and other silliness only to know as little when you ended as when you started.
Why not accept that bacterial & fungal "attacks" are nothing more than nature sending her clean-up crews to remove malnourished tissues from the scene?

It's a lot easier to learn mineral balancing and appropriate fertilizing than to memorize endless lists of "diseases" and their associated toxic chemical "cures."
The kicker in the "kill the disease" scenario is that every time the public gets wise to toxic chemical failures, something yet more destructive must be brought out from the lab with much fanfare: "this time we really do have the answer---honest."


Any further Questions?
email me