September, 10 2008, 10:32am EDT
Almond Growers and Handlers File Federal Lawsuit Seeking to End 'Adulteration' of Raw Nuts
Lawsuit Would Halt Treatment of Almonds With Toxic Fumigant or Steam Heat
WASHINGTON
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.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular