US almond growers achieve court victory in fight against mandatory fumigation
August 11, 2010 Wednesday, August 11, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
(NaturalNews) Three years after the USDA destroyed the U.S. raw almond business by forcing almond producers to fumigate or pasteurize their nuts, a significant victory has been achieved that could overturn that onerous regulation. A federal appeals court has ruled that California almond farmers may now challenge the USDA regulation in the courts.
Why is this a victory? Because for years, a federal district court has ruled that almond growers could not even challenge the rule. The USDA's power over farmers was absolutely, the court seemed to say, and no mere peasants can challenge the King.
But today that has all changed. A Cornucopia Institute press release announces the details of this court decision:
From the Cornucopia Institute...
See original release at http://www.cornucopia.org/2010/08/f...
WASHINGTON, DC – A federal appeals court ruled today, overturning a lower court decision, that a group of California almond farmers have the right to challenge a USDA regulation requiring the treatment of their raw almonds with a toxic fumigant or steam heat prior to sale to consumers. For the past three years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has denied American consumers the right to buy raw almonds, grown in the USA, when they shop in grocery and natural food stores.
A group of almond growers sued the government to challenge USDA's rule, but the federal district court ruled that courtroom doors were closed to the growers' claims. The controversial rule has cost individual farmers millions of dollars in lost sales since it was enacted in September 2007.
"We are delighted by the court's decision," said Will Fantle, Cornucopia's Research Director. Cornucopia has been coordinating the legal strategy for the farmers' lawsuit. "At long last the farmers who have been injured by this rule will have the opportunity to stand in court and state why this poorly thought out regulation should be thrown out," Fantle added.
The USDA and the Almond Board of California imposed the treatment scheme to minimize the risk of salmonella contamination outbreaks like those that had occurred with almonds in 2001 and 2004. 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 outbreaks, in part, to the country's largest "factory farm," growing almonds and pistachios on over 9000 acres.
Family-scale growers have argued that the onerous and expensive mandated treatment regime is only needed by the giant industrial producers, who have less control over the quality of their nuts, and has hurt their market because it consumer resistance.
Many in the industry have questioned the logic exempting foreign-grown almonds from the treatment scheme. Imports have displaced raw domestic nuts in many major markets and retail locations across the U.S. This regulatory loophole is part of what has been crushing California producers.
"I am very happy with this first step in overturning this destructive regulation," said Nick Koretoff, an almond farmer and plaintiff in the lawsuit. "The treatment mandate has been a financial catastrophe for me. My consumers want raw, untreated healthy almonds and I have been denied the opportunity to sell them what they want."
Attorney John Vetne, who has been representing the almond farmers, said the Appeals Court made a "very strong decision affirming farmers' rights." The USDA had been arguing that farmers did not even have the right to legally challenge the USDA regulation. "We are pleased that the Appeals Court rejected USDA's argument that courthouse doors are closed to farmers. We now intend to demonstrate to the federal district court that USDA acted outside of authority granted by Congress when it denied California almond growers a consumer market for raw almonds," Vetne added.
Tens of thousands of consumers have expressed their discontent with the raw almond treatment rule in comments to the USDA. Organic and raw foods enthusiasts were particularly incensed that the nuts, despite being processed with propylene oxide (identified as a carcinogen by the federal EPA) or steam-heat, were still allowed to be labeled as "raw" -- many believe that essential nutrients in food can be destroyed by heat, radiation and toxic chemicals.
The Cornucopia Institute, an organization known for its research and defense of family farmers involved in organics, artisan and local food production, was impressed with how many consumers have a real passion for maintaining the availability of raw food and nuts, including almonds, and have been willing to financially support the farmers in their legal challenge. "Contributions continue to flow in supporting this effort," Fantle noted.
"I and many of my friends look forward to the day when we will once again be able to easily purchase truly raw, authentic almonds from California in my local store," said Joan Levin, a Chicago resident and raw foods consumer. "We hope this Appeals Court ruling brings that day closer," she said.