|
|
| Back to the Table of Contents |
Almond growers and
handlers sue to end “adulteration” of raw nuts
|
by Will Fantle
|
A group of fifteen American
almond Cornucopia Institute growers and wholesale nut handlers filed a
lawsuit in the Washington, D.C. federal court on September 9, seeking
to repeal a controversial USDA-mandated treatment program for
California grown raw almonds.
The almond farmers and handlers contend that their businesses have been
seriously damaged and their futures jeopardized by a requirement that
raw almonds be treated with propylene oxide (a toxic fumigant
recognized as a carcinogen by the EPA) or steam heated before they can
be sold to American consumers. Foreign-grown almonds are exempt from
the treatment scheme and are rapidly displacing raw domestic nuts in
the marketplace.
Tens of thousands of angry consumers have contacted the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to protest the compulsory almond treatment since the
agency’s new regulation went into effect one year ago. Some have
expressed outrage that even though the nuts have been processed with a
fumigant or heat, they will still be labeled as “raw.”
The USDA, in consultation with the Almond Board of California, invoked
its treatment plan on September 1, 2007, alleging that it was a
necessary food safety requirement. Salmonella-tainted almonds twice
this decade caused outbreaks of food-related illnesses. USDA
investigators were never able to determine how salmonella bacteria,
which caused the food illnesses, contaminated the raw almonds. But they
were able to trace one of the contaminations, in part, back to the
country’s largest “factory farm,” which grows almonds and pistachios on
more than 9,000 acres. But instead of insisting that giant growers
reduce risky practices, the USDA invoked a rule that requires the
gassing or steam heating of California raw almonds in a way that many
consumers have found unacceptable.
|
Corporate
Growers Protected
|
“For
those of us who are interested in eating fresh and wholesome food, the
USDA’s plan — to protect the largest corporate agribusinesses against
liability — amounts to the adulteration of our food supply,” said
consumer activist and blogger Jill Richardson (www.lavidalocavore.org).
“This ruling is a financial disaster and has closed a major customer
group that we have built up over the years,” said Dan Hyman, an almond
grower and owner of D&S Ranches in Selma (Calif.). His almond
business relies on direct sales to consumers over the internet. Hyman
notes that his customers were never consulted by the USDA or the Almond
Board before they were denied “a healthy whole natural raw food that
they have eaten with confidence, enjoyment and benefit for decades.”
The lawsuit contends that the USDA exceeded its authority, which is
narrowly limited to regulating quality concerns in almonds such as
dirt, appearance and mold. And even if the USDA sought to regulate
bacterial contamination, the questionable expansion of its authority
demanded a full evidentiary hearing and a producer referendum to garner
public input — neither of which were undertaken by the USDA.
“The fact that almond growers were not permitted to fully participate
in developing and approving this rule undermines its legitimacy,” said
Ryan Miltner, the attorney representing the almond growers. “Rather
than raising the level of income for farmers and providing handlers
with orderly marketing conditions,” added Miltner, “this particular
regulation creates classes of economic winners and losers. That type of
discriminatory economic segregation is anathema to the intended purpose
of the federal marketing order system." Barth Anderson, research and
development coordinator for The Wedge, a Minneapolis-based grocery
cooperative, noted that their mission has always been to support family
farmers. “We weren’t surprised, he said, "when Wedge shoppers and
members wrote nearly 500 individual letters expressing disapproval of
the USDA’s mandatory fumigation law for domestic almonds.”
|
No
Consumer Warning
|
“Our
members especially did not like the idea that fumigated almonds could
be called ‘raw,’” Anderson noted. According to the USDA, there is no
requirement for retailers to alert consumers to the toxic, propylene
oxide fumigation or steam treatment applied to raw almonds from
California.
“This rule is killing the California Organic Almond business,” said
Steve Koretoff, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and owner of Purity Organics
located in Kerman (Calif.). “Because foreign almonds do not have to be
pasteurized their price is going up, while our price is going down
because of the rule. It makes no sense.” Two groups of consumers that
have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the almond
treatment rule are raw food enthusiasts and vegans. These consumers may
obtain as much as 30% of their daily protein intake from raw almonds,
after grinding them for flour and other uses. Studies exploring
nutritional effects following fumigant and steam treatment have yet to
be publicly released. A Cornucopia Institute freedom of information
request for the documents is awaiting a response from the USDA.
“We raw vegans believe raw foods, from non-animal sources, contains
valuable nutrients — some not yet wellunderstood by scientists,” stated
Joan Levin, a retired attorney living in Chicago. “These nutrients can
be destroyed by heat, radiation and toxic chemicals. We support the
continued availability of fresh produce free of industrial age
tampering.”
Additional background information on the almond treatment issue,
including a copy of the legal complaint, can be found on The Cornucopia
Institute’s web page, under the Authentic Almond Project, at www.cornucopia.org.
|
| Back to the Table of Contents |
|
|
|
