Hi Martha,

Sorry for the delay in replying...but with only 5 mails per
day allowed it is hard to keep up.

> Alan wrote:
> >Raw string beans contain a toxin known as "phasine". It is
> >a strong diuretic and small amounts are even used by the
> >medical industry in diuretic medicines.
>
> Hi Alan.  This is not the reply I hoped for.  You said in
> another post it's the bean and not the pod.  I wonder how
> much of this stuff is in the immature bean that's eaten with
> the pod.

The mature bean in the yellow pod is said to contain less
phasine (but it is hard..'scuse the pun..to eat raw). I
would say sprout the bean if anything as sprouts of any kind
are both delicious and healthy. I must admit, however, that I
myself have never eaten a sprouted bean as I don't grow them
in my garden and wouldn't by such beans from any local store
for other obvious reasons.

> I've never noticed a diuretic effect when eating them, but this
> summer I'll have to pay more attention.  Thanks for the
> "heads up."
>
Neither have I, because I don't eat them (or any raw seeds for
that matter because of the enzyme inhibitors).

So here we have the typical situation where the scientists
(quite correctly) say that raw stringbeans contain a diuretic and
some people who say they have never noticed it. Well it is a
known fact that this phasine is extracted and used in diuretic
drugs and so we can safely say in this instance that the scientists
are right. The question thus has to be: Are raw stringbeans a
natural food for human beings (are indeed any raw legumes a
natural food for us), particularly in view of the fact that they
contain toxins and enzyme inhibitors? Secondly: Just because an
immediate diuretic effect is not noticed, what could be the
long-term consequences of regularly consuming a diuretic food
containing enzyme inhibitors as well? My own personal answer to
that is that if I don't eat them I don't have to worry.

> >It is amazing how the
> >Americans tend to view the advice of people from other
> countries as
> >somehow meaning that they themselves are inferior in
> some way.
>
> Excuse me, but many of us on the list are Americans who in
> no way fit this description.
>
Excuse me Martha (and indeed any others who may have felt
offended). I realised after having sent that that I was not
exactly saying what I really meant. I phrased it wrongly
and thus apologise. What I meant to say was "Americans often
tend to view information (or experiences) from other
countries as always somehow inferior to their own". In
other words they often tend to construe information and
experiences as "advice" and get very uppity if it does not
fit their own idea of things. Kirt is a good example here
(hope you are reading Kirt) and there are countless others
with whom I have corresponded in the past. What we need is
an exchange of ideas in a civil manner with plenty of
constructive criticism (constructive meaning tangible
and convincing counterarguments rather than emotional outbreaks).
Research reports (some people just cannot live without them)
are not always the answer because personal experience and
the experiences of many others on some common issue may
paint an extremely different picture (something which
the NH pathfinders..and I'm not a member of the NHS any
longer..also discovered for themselves).

Sorry for any misunderstanding,

Alan