|
Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 06:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
| Last year, the USDA decided that all raw almonds grown in the U.S. (which basically means all raw almonds) must be "pasteurized" before they are sold (with an exception for raw almonds sold directly farmer to consumer). Then they can be sold labeled as "raw" even though they have been treated by either steam or a carcinogenic gas.
Recently, a group of almond growers sued. The Cornucopia Institute has been following this issue since it arose, and they have filed a FOIA request seeking certain documents about almond pasteurization. From the Cornucopia Institute's press release on this:
Since the passage, in spring 2007, of the controversial rule mandating pasteurization of raw almonds grown in California, policy analysts at The Cornucopia Institute have made numerous requests for public information from the Almond Board of California (ABC). Repeatedly, the Almond Board has failed to turn over documents they allege prove the effectiveness of pasteurization and the comparative nutrition, quality, and safety of pasteurized almonds and raw untreated almonds.
"We have taken this step because we have been frustrated by the Almond Board and the USDA's unwillingness to share the science behind the rule, the science that purports to show that treatment with either a toxic fumigant or steam heat is safe and does not affect the almond's taste and nutritional qualities," said Will Fantle, research director for The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy group.
More below, and thanks to The Cornucopia Institute for sticking up for farmers and consumers everywhere! |
| Jill Richardson :: Poison-Covered Almonds. Yum! Thanks, USDA! |
Apparently, the Almond Board claims there is extensive research done by the EPA, FDA, and their own "Technical Expert Review Panel" showing that this poison gas, propylene oxide (PPO), is both safe and effective. They say this but since they won't release any of their studies or results, apparently they just want the rest of us to take it all on faith.
"If they have completed these studies, why won't they share this research?" asks Eli Penberthy, a policy analyst with Cornucopia. She notes that she has made multiple requests to the Almond Board asking for a number of their studies and research documents.
Cornucopia's press release suggests that perhaps the studies aren't complete. Guess that means they didn't follow the classic advice of "better safe than sorry" in this case, given that the pasteurization mandate went into effect Sept 1, 2007.
"We find it very troubling that the proponents of the almond treatment rule, who portray this as a food safety measure, still cannot produce the science and studies upon which the rule is supposedly based," said Penberthy. "The lack of data proves that the rule was passed prematurely and without sufficient review."
"Many family-scale farmers producing almonds and fresh fruits and vegetables are now having their livelihoods put at risk by a number of onerous 'technological fixes' that corporate agribusiness is looking to for solving food contamination problems," added Cornucopia's Fantle. "These draconian regulations might very well push out of business the highest-quality and safest farm operations in the nation and, in doing so, will shut out growing legions of consumers who are seeking out a higher quality and more nutritious food supply."
The lawsuit began September 9 of this year, and if the almond growers win, this law can be overturned. |
|
|
