

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Will Fantle, 715-839-7731
A group of fifteen American
almond growers and wholesale nut handlers filed a lawsuit in the Washington,
D.C. federal court on Tuesday, 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 USDA
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's raw almond treatment mandate has
been economically devastating to many family-scale and organic almond farmers
in California," said Will Fantle, the research director for the
Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. Cornucopia has been working with
almond farmers and handlers to address the negative impacts of the USDA rule,
including the loss of markets to foreign nuts.
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 somehow
contaminated the raw almonds that caused the food illnesses but they were able
to trace back one of the contaminations, in part, to the country's largest
"factory farm," growing almonds and pistachios on over 9000 acres.
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.
"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
Jill Richardson, a consumer activist and blogger at: 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, CA. 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. "
Retailers of raw almonds have also been expressing their
unhappiness, based on feedback from their customers, with the raw almond
treatment rule. "We've been distributing
almonds grown by family farmers in California for over 30 years
and we regard them as the common heritage of the American people," said
Dr. Jesse Schwartz, President of Living Tree Community Foods in Berkeley,
CA. "We can think of no reply more fitting than to affirm our faith
that ultimately the wisdom and good sense of the American people will
prevail in this lawsuit."
Barth Anderson, Research & 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
when Wedge shoppers and members wrote nearly 500 individual letters expressing
disapproval of the USDA's mandatory fumigation law for domestic almonds,"
Anderson said. "Our members especially did not like the idea that
fumigated almonds could be called 'raw.'"
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, CA. "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." Koretoff
added.
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 impacts 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 well-understood 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," explained Levin.
Cornucopia's Fantle noted
that the Washington, D.C. federal district court has already assigned the
almond lawsuit a case number, beginning its move through the judicial
system. "We believe this is a strong legal case and hope for a
favorable decision in time to protect this year's almond harvest,"
Fantle said.
MORE:
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 at www.cornucopia.org. The lawsuit, filed in
federal district court in Washington D.C., has been assigned case number 1:08-CV-01558.
PCC Natural Markets, in Seattle, WA is the nation's
oldest and largest cooperative grocer. Goldie Caughlan, is the
co-op's Nutrition Education Manager as well as a board member of The
Cornucopia Institute. According to Caughlan: "After the
USDA's treatment mandate became effective, we added imported
organically grown and conventional almonds. The labels and
signage we created accurately informs customers these are truly
"raw," and explain the changed requirements for U.S.
producers. We continue to sell some U.S. produced almonds, but
this has necessitated investigating growers to ascertain that we sell
only steam-pasteurized almonds, not those fumigated by chemicals.
These added efforts are time consuming and create added expense for our
company."
"This is yet another example of how government, under
the guise of 'public health,' is interfering with an individual's
fundamental right to consume the foods of their choice," noted attorney David
G. Cox of Lane, Alton & Horst LLC in Columbus, OH and a legal advisor to
The Cornucopia Institute. "The government's police power does not
authorize the USDA to choose for the individual what foods should be in the
marketplace."
Mitch Wallis, a San Diego attorney and another member of the
Cornucopia legal team, added that "in one fell swoop, the USDA and its
agribusiness-dominated California Almond Board, have taken away all consumer
access to a truly 'raw' almond. Almonds are, especially in California,
perhaps the 'king of nuts.' If they can get away with
destroying the almond, what does this portend for the future of all
nuts and ultimately for all raw and natural foods?"
"It goes against all reason for the USDA to
require domestic almonds to be pasteurized while
allowing unpasteurized almonds to be imported from abroad," observed
Eli Penberthy, a Seattle, WA-based food and farming analyst with The Cornucopia
Institute. "Small-scale and organic farmers in California have
lost sales to retailers and consumers who are instead choosing to buy
truly raw almonds from Italy and Spain." The shift to foreign
sources is ironic since there is virtual unanimity in the retail sector that
foreign nuts are of lower quality in terms of flavor and appearance.
The Cornucopia Institute has been articulating the concerns
of family-scale farmers, producing organic, conventional and local food, about
the potential fallout from the industrialization of our food supply.
Foodborne illnesses, and the contamination of food from large industrial
farming operations, are now motivating regulators to look at
"technological fixes" rather than addressing the root cause of the
problems - the widespread fecal contamination of the nation's food
supply.
"It is ironic that consumers, in increasing numbers,
are voting in the marketplace for a higher quality of food from organic and
local farmers - producers they trust," stated The Cornucopia
Institute 's Fantle. "The very growers that stand to lose are the safest
and highest quality producers of food in the United States. We will not
allow them to be placed at a competitive disadvantage."
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.
Kenya's largest medical professionals union, which welcomed the ruling, argued that if setting up an Ebola quarantine facility "is too dangerous for America, it is too dangerous for Kenya."
A day after US officials said Kenya had approved a request to open a quarantine center for Americans exposed to a rare strain of the Ebola virus, a court in the East African nation on Friday temporarily blocked the plan amid a growing outbreak in neighboring Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The High Court prohibited the Kenyan government from establishing or operating any Ebola exposure, quarantine, isolation, or treatment facility in the country under any agreement with the United States or any other foreign government or agency.
The court also blocked Kenya's government from allowing anyone infected with or exposed to Ebola into the country pending the outcome of the case, which was filed by the Katiba Institute, a civil rights group.
“At its core, the case is about preserving constitutional accountability, protecting public health, and ensuring that no government may place expediency above the lives and safety of the people of Kenya,” Katiba Institute executive director Nora Mbagathi said Thursday.
A 50-bed Ebola quarantine center was set to open Friday at Laikipia Air Base in Nanyuki, located approximately 125 miles north of Nairobi. The facility would have been operated by members of the US Public Health Service, a uniformed branch of the Department of Health and Human Services.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday during a Cabinet meeting that “we cannot and will not allow any cases of Ebola to enter the United States."
However, US public health officials strongly criticized the plan to quarantine Americans in Kenya instead of repatriating them, with one emergency physician accusing the Trump administration of “a dramatic abdication of what we owe our own."
Elected leaders in Laikipia County welcomed the High Court's ruling. They had opposed the US quarantine center, and had asked in a joint statement prior to the decision, "Why Laikipia?"
"What does the US government know about this that they are not accepting their own affected citizens into their soil but are ready to have them elsewhere?"
The Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists, and Dentists Union (KMPDU), which had strongly opposed the quarantine center and had threatened to strike, also welcomed the High Court ruling.
"We are utterly disgusted by the government’s apparent willingness to trade national biosecurity and the lives of its citizens for foreign aid," KMPDU secretary general Davji Bhimji Attelah said in a statement Thursday, referring to the $13.5 million the Trump administration pledged for Ebola preparedness in Kenya, part of a broader $125 million US commitment toward fighting the disease.
Kenyan healthcare workers are pushing back hard against reported plans for the U.S. to establish Ebola quarantine/treatment facilities in Kenya for exposed American personnel during the ongoing Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak in Central/East Africa.
[image or embed]
— BK. Titanji (@boghuma.bsky.social) May 28, 2026 at 11:31 AM
"We will not sit back and watch Kenya be treated as a containment colony for a lethal pathogen that we did not generate," Attelah added. “We will not tolerate an apartheid healthcare model on Kenyan soil. If it is too dangerous for America, it is too dangerous for Kenya."
Critics say President Donald Trump’s ideologically driven decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO), his administration’s dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, and reduced funding for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s global public health efforts have adversely affected the response to the current Ebola epidemic, compared with 2014 and 2019 outbreaks.
The WHO said Friday that there were a total of 906 suspected Ebola cases and 223 suspected deaths reported in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as of Wednesday, and 125 confirmed cases in the DRC and 9 in Uganda, with 18 deaths among the confirmed cases in both countries.
Ebola—which typically kills between 25% and 90% of infected people, depending upon the strain of the virus and quality of available medical care—causes widespread and often catastrophic damage to the body’s blood vessels, immune system, and organs. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals, including fruit bats, porcupines, and non-human primates, and then spreads between humans through direct contact with the blood or bodily fluids of infected people.
The average US household, according to Moody's, has shouldered nearly $450 in extra fuel costs due to the Republican president's unprovoked Middle East war.
Americans have made clear since President Donald Trump joined Israel in beginning an unprovoked war on Iran that they view the conflict-of-choice as damaging to their financial well-being—and that they blame the president for the higher cost of fuel since the war started in February.
On Friday, Moody's Analytics put an exact number on the heightened financial anxiety families across the country have been feeling over the past three months as Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent fuel prices soaring: $447.19.
That's how much the average US household has had to additionally spend on fuel-related expenses since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanu launched their attack on February 28, Moody's told CNBC.
Altogether, Americans have spent a total of nearly $60 billion on gas, airline fares, and other related costs as the strait, a key shipping route for oil, has remained effectively closed.
According to AAA, the average price of a gallon of regular gas stands at $4.39—up close to 50% since early March. Diesel now costs $5.52 per gallon, forcing consumers to pay $20 billion more in additional expenses on groceries and other goods.
"The economy isn’t just soft, it’s struggling," Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, said Thursday. "The Iran war needs to end, and the Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened soon, or recession will become more likely than not."
"Unless the war ends soon, financially pressed consumers will have no option but to turn more cautious in their spending."
As CNBC reported Friday, "higher energy costs can force consumers to raid their savings and lean more on debt to cover expenses."
Trump flatly said earlier this month that he doesn't consider Americans' financial situation "even a little bit" when it comes to the war on Iran, while National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett posited earlier this week that Americans are "spending more money" not because higher prices are forcing them to but because they're "very, very optimistic about the state of the economy." He also bragged recently that "credit card spending is through the roof"—a sign several observers took not as a positive omen for the economy but as a sign that families are being forced to take on debt to pay for gas and other essentials.
Zandi provided a reality check Friday.
"Unless the war ends soon, financially pressed consumers will have no option but to turn more cautious in their spending, threatening the already soft economy,” he told CNBC, warning that families could end up spending nearly $2,000 extra on fuel-related costs if the war continues reaches the one-year mark.
Republicans emphasized last year that Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would give bigger tax returns to families across the country. Any benefit, said Zandi, has now been canceled out by the president's war.
On Thursday, US Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said the White House is in denial about the fact that Americans are struggling with the impact of Trump's foreign policy decisions as the Pentagon vastly underestimates how much the conflict has cost in public statements.
The acting comptroller of the Pentagon told Congress in April that the war had cost $25 billion, increasing the estimate to $29 billion two weeks later.
The senators told the Congressional Budget Office Friday that independent analyses had put the real cost of the war at $40 billion-$50 billion.
“It is essential," said the lawmakers, "that Congress and the American public receive accurate, comprehensive estimates of the costs of the war in Iran."
"We were guinea pigs," said the father of one of the convicted protesters. "They brought the swamp of Washington, DC, into our area to stop American citizens from exercising our rights that are guaranteed."
With the conviction of three anti-ICE protesters in Spokane, Washington on federal "conspiracy" charges Thursday, civil rights advocates and legal experts fear that the Trump administration may have just been handed a powerful tool to criminalize dissent.
Jac Archer, Justice Forral, and Bajun Mavalwalla II, nicknamed the "Spokane 3," were indicted last year for their actions at a protest in June 2025, where they attempted to physically obstruct ICE agents from transporting two Venezuelan immigrants to an ICE processing facility in Tacoma.
Both of the men reportedly entered the US legally under a humanitarian parole program that had been terminated by the Trump administration, leading advocates to protest their detention.
As Spokesman-Review, a Spokane newspaper, described:
Protesters that day eventually began linking arms around vans and in front of agents’ cars. The event grew chaotic. ICE agents entered a crowd of people standing outside the facility’s parking lot gate and began grabbing people by the necks and arms, pushing them to the ground. Protesters also slashed tires of vans meant to transport the detainees.
But where such activity would usually lead to charges against specific protesters for discrete illegal actions like trespassing, property damage, or other public order offenses, the Department of Justice (DOJ)—as part of a nationwide effort to crack down on protests against ICE—charged nine protesters with "conspiracy to impede or injure officers," even though no officers were actually injured during the protest.
Legal experts described it as a novel approach that wrapped many people involved in the protest into a single "conspiracy" regardless of whether they committed specific criminal acts.
“Usually if a protest gets out of hand and people are hurt or property is hurt, you see charges based on that,” Mary Fan, a former federal prosecutor and a University of Washington law professor, told The New York Times earlier this month. “They’re not going after people based on specific harm done. They’re stretching conspiracy charges to target protesters and people who organize protests.”
Facing pressure from the federal government to bring the case following a national memo sent from the DOJ to prioritize and publicize cases against ICE agents, then-acting US Attorney for Eastern Washington Richard Barker resigned last year rather than bring charges against the protesters.
He said at the time he was grateful he “never had to sign an indictment or file a brief that [he] didn’t believe in." His successor, Stephanie Van Marter, however, did sign the order.
Six of the defendants pleaded guilty to the charges to avoid federal prison time. But Archer, Forral, and Mavalwalla chose to fight them, believing the case was part of an unjust attempt to criminalize their right to protest.
After a trial that lasted seven days, a jury found the three defendants guilty of conspiracy. But the defense has argued that the trial was marred by problems that rendered the verdict faulty.
As the Guardian explained:
In February, a federal judge ordered the release of a Venezuelan migrant whose transportation for deportation the protesters sought to block, ruling his arrest violated the constitution.
But the jury, drawn from conservative eastern Washington state, did not hear those facts at trial, thanks to rulings by Judge [Rebecca] Pennell. Pennell, a former federal public defender and appointee of the Democratic president Joe Biden, also ruled the protesters on trial could not use the First Amendment as a defense, though they were allowed to state their reasons for demonstrating.
Instead, the jury watched hours of law enforcement body camera video and heard from a parade of ICE agents... Jeremy Burlingame, an ICE agent who testified, had authored social media posts that called Black politicians “lying ghetto garbage” and transgender people “mentally ill.” He boosted a post showing ICE arresting a pregnant woman at gunpoint that called her a “pregnant invader.”
Federal prosecutors deemed the posts troubling enough to recall Burlingame to impeach him, despite the fact that he was their witness...
But Burlingame’s online posts, the lack of injury to ICE officers, and the absence of evidence showing communication between the three defendants prior to the protest were not enough to sway the jury.
The defendants now face potential sentences of up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine. However, they are expected to appeal the verdict and have filed a rarely used motion allowing their attorneys to argue that no rational juror could find their clients guilty.
"I question whether justice truly was served by today’s verdict,” Barker told the Spokesman-Review. "This was the first conspiracy prosecution in Eastern Washington history under... a Civil War-era law dusted off to punish members of the Spokane community who stood up for two young men who were unlawfully detained by ICE."
Video by KREM 2 News/Youtube
Looking beyond the details of the trial itself, many observers questioned the very premise of the DOJ's prosecution.
Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown said from the start of the trial she believed it was "politically motivated."
"It was meant to make an example out of people who disagreed with federal immigration policy," she said.
City council member Sarah Dixit, who said she took part in the protest, said: "Based on the evidence that was shown, I personally didn’t see evidence of what they were accused of. Conspiracy is a charge that feels complicated to prove, and I don’t believe that the government made a strong case for that.”
Others expressed fear for the precedent that had been set. La Rond Baker, the legal director of the Washington ACLU, said the Trump administration "has a demonstrable history of using the Department of Justice to silence and punish its critics."
The administration has pursued similar sweeping conspiracy charges against other groups of anti-ICE protesters around the country—including in Los Angeles, Broadview, Illinois, and North Texas.
“The verdict was painfully disappointing,” said Archer’s attorney, Carl Oreskovich. “I think it was an extraordinarily aggressive approach to prosecution of protests. And it certainly is going to chill people who want to utilize their First Amendment right to dissent against government actions that they don’t agree with."
In a comment to The Guardian, Robert Chang, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and executive director of its Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, said the verdict was "frightening."
“By this logic, any protest could be a conspiracy,” he said. “The goal posts keep moving.”
Bajun Mavalwalla Sr., a retired US Army intelligence officer who served in Afghanistan, said his son—also a veteran of the same war—and the other two defendants were standing for "the freedoms that separate this country from the dictatorships.”
“People in Spokane and people in Eastern Washington need to understand that we were guinea pigs. That they brought the swamp of Washington, DC, into our area to stop American citizens from exercising our rights that are guaranteed,” the elder Mavalwalla said after his son was convicted.
“It was the whole point of the Constitution, the right to protest, the right to dissent, the right to assemble, all of those things are now in question because of this case," he said. "My son has taken the brunt of the entire weight of the United States government onto their shoulders.”