NEWS RELEASE: USDA Plan to Pasteurize Almonds Has Consumers Going Nuts

[Guest guest]

August 6, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Will Fantle, 715-839-7731

 

USDA Plan to " Pasteurize " Almonds Has Consumers Going Nuts

Mandate Would Require Use of Chemical Fumigant

or Heat Treatment on " Raw " Almonds

 

CORNUCOPIA, WI: Small-scale farmers, retailers, and consumers are

renewing their call to the USDA to reassess the plan to " pasteurize " all

California almonds with a toxic fumigant or high-temperature

sterilization process. All domestic almonds will be mandated to have

the treatments by early next year. The plan was quietly developed by

the USDA in response to outbreaks of Salmonella in 2001 and 2004 that

were traced to raw almonds.

 

" The almond 'pasteurization' plan will have many harmful impacts on

consumers and the agricultural community, " said Will Fantle, research

director for The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy

research group. " Only 18 public comments from the entire U.S.-and all

from almond industry insiders-were received on the proposal. The logic

behind both the necessity and safety of the treatments processes has not

been fully or adequately analyzed-as well as the economic costs to

small-scale growers and the loss of consumer choices. "

 

Last Wednesday, the California Almond Board suddenly requested that USDA

delay the treatment mandate until March, 2008-it had been scheduled to

take effect on September 1. " We support this request for a delay, " said

Fantle, " but a delay, due to the industry being unprepared, isn't

enough. The USDA must also re-open the rule for public review and

comment so that those who have been shut out of the decision-making

process can have input into any almond treatment plan. "

 

Although foodborne illnesses have garnered headlines in recent years,

including contamination of California-grown spinach and lettuce, raw

produce and nuts are not inherently risky foods. Contamination occurs

when livestock manure or other fecal matter is inadvertently transferred

to food through contaminated water, soil, or transportation and handling

equipment. Raw foods can also be infected by poor employee hygiene and

sanitation practices either on the farm or in processing facilities.

 

" All fresh foods carry some chance of risk, " notes Bruce Lampinen, a

scientist at University of California, Davis, who studies almonds, " but

there is no more risk now than there was thirty years ago. "

 

And the fear in the farming community is that this will competitively

injure smaller sustainable and organic growers. " This will put American

farmers at a distinct disadvantage in the U.S. and abroad, " says organic

almond farmer Mark McAfee. Fumigated almonds are banned in the EU and

many other countries. McAfee worries about the impact of the rule on his

business. Seventy percent of California's crop is exported.

 

Several domestic companies that use California almonds are already

investigating foreign sources for their needs. After buying almonds

from local producers for over 25 years, Living Tree Community Foods, a

Berkeley, CA-based natural foods supplier, will soon begin buying

almonds from Italy and Spain. Dr. Jesse Schwartz, the president of the

specialty retailer, believes the rule, if implemented, will be a

travesty for American agriculture. " California almonds are the heritage

of the American people, " he says, " they are superior in every way. "

 

Jason Mahon owns Premier Organics, a company that produces raw almond

butter in Oakland, CA. Mahon is also looking to foreign suppliers and

believes the rule is an unnecessary " fear-based decision of the Almond

Board, that is clearly trying to protect itself from bad press and

lawsuits. "

 

The equipment to meet the new USDA mandate is very expensive, ranging

from $500,000 to $2,500,000. Farms can outsource the pasteurization

process, but Hendrik Feenstra, a small-scale California handler of

organic almonds, believes that to do so will still be prohibitively

expensive for modest-sized growers and handlers. " Because pasteurization

companies often charge a flat rate no matter the quantity of almonds, it

could be four or five times more expensive for small-scale almond

producers to pasteurize almonds than it will be for industrial-scale

producers, " Feenstra says. And modest-size marketers are concerned that

increased transportation costs will also add to their burden

 

Organic farmers also question the science behind the rule. They believe

that the sustainable farming methods they use, such as mowing and

mulching, rather than controlling weeds by chemical herbicide

applications, naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more

effectively than treatment after the fact. According to almond grower

Glenn Anderson, " An organic farming system fosters biodiversity and

creates an environment where Salmonella cannot survive. This rule

ignores the root causes of food contamination-the unnatural, dangerous,

and unsustainable farming practices on industrial farms. "

 

An important segment of the agricultural community feels that requiring

small-scale and organic farms to comply with this rule is unwarranted

and premature, as Salmonella outbreaks have only been traced to a very

large industrial farm, and there is currently no published research

pinpointing the causes of the harmful bacteria. " With the costs

involved, and the implications on trade, they are recklessly

experimenting with the livelihood of farmers, " Fantle added.

 

Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence supporting the use of the

chemical fumigant, propylene oxide (PPO), and steam as the only

effective treatments to reduce risk of Salmonella. The most common

method of sterilizing almonds is by PPO treatment, a genotoxic chemical

recognized as a possible carcinogen that is banned in the European

Union, Canada, Mexico, and most other countries. Many chemical-free and

heat-free alternatives are being researched. " The Almond Board has not

released any of the scientific research justifying their treatment

choices, " asserts Eli Penberthy, a policy analyst at Cornucopia. " This

rule should not be implemented until alternative technologies are

thoroughly explored. "

 

The Cornucopia Institute also contends labeling treated almonds as " raw "

is misleading and deceptive to consumers. " People choose to buy raw

almonds for a variety of personal reasons, including health, nutrition,

and even religious beliefs, " Cornucopia's Fantle said. " This rule

denies them the right to control their food choices by making informed

decisions in the marketplace. "

 

In fact, some strict vegetarians who consume only raw foods rely on

almonds to provide as much as 30% of their caloric intake, believing

that they are a nutritionally superior alternative to meat in the diet.

" Raw almonds are increasingly popular for their health benefits, " said

Goldie Caughlin, the Nutrition Education Manager at Puget Community

Cooperative in Seattle, who estimates that the co-op sells 28,000 pounds

of raw almonds every year. She said customers are already confused and

angered by the implications of the rule, and worries how it will affect

sales.

 

Fantle charges that the rule could very well establish a precedent for

more governmental control of fresh foods. Says Fantle, " If almonds

require pasteurization, what foods will be next on the list of mandatory

sterilization, heat treatment, and irradiation? Truly raw, untreated

nuts, fruits, and vegetables might no longer be legally available in the

marketplace. "

 

- 30 -

 

MORE:

 

Public concern about the almond treatment plan has been growing. Over

1,000 comments opposing almond pasteurization have been submitted to the

USDA since the plan was approved on March 31, and an online petition to

stop the implementation of the rule has garnered over 15,000 signatures.

(To learn more about the issue, go to www.cornucopia.org and click on

the almond navigation button.)

 

The only exemption to the almond treatment regulations will be an

allowance for growers to sell truly raw almonds directly to the public

from farmstead stands. Unfortunately, this will give only a limited

number of consumers in specific areas of California, the only state in

the nation that produces almonds, access to untreated nuts.

 

Diets based on raw foods are integral to some religious denominations,

such as Seventh-Day Adventism, so the rule poses a threat not only to

consumer choice, but to religious freedom as well.

[Guest guest]

18 PUBLIC COMMENTS?! That can't be right, I personally know way more than 18

people who wrote letters!! Where are they getting their information.

 

This really scares me. I thought we had a good letter writing campaign going.

 

Shari

 

 

[Guest guest]

That was 18 comments PRIOR to the new rule. The Almond Board and USDA

kept the information under the radar until the Cornucopia Institute

broke the news and it spread around the internet. So, the letters

you're talking about (including mine) were likely after the original

ruling early this year. The letters, hopefully, are influencing the

various players to reverse the decision. With the extended time

before the ruling goes into effect (if the USDA allows the

extension), we will have more time to educate people and protest the

ruling.

 

Jeff

 

On Aug 6, 2007, at 1:56 PM, SV wrote:

 

> 18 PUBLIC COMMENTS?! That can't be right, I personally know way

> more than 18 people who wrote letters!! Where are they getting

> their information.