When jars of peanut butter dating back to 2005 were found to be contaminated with salmonella, the manufacturer simply fixed its leaky factory roof and said it was sorry. Not the most comforting response, but at least PB-philes can minimize their health risks by buying brands they trust (though that’s no guarantee) and grinding their own delightful nut butters. Not almond butters, though, or at least not after September 1: In response to two salmonella outbreaks (in 2001 and 2004), the Almond Board of California and the USDA have quietly developed new safety standards for the tree nuts that will require most raw almonds sold on this continent to be doused in carcinogenic motorcycle fuel.
The regulations mandate that (with few exceptions) all raw North American almonds, even those grown organically or sold at farmers’ markets, be sterilized either by quick-steaming or with (far cheaper) chemical treatments. And as the director of LocalHarvest explains in a great newsletter piece, the proposed chemical—propylene oxide, or PPO—was in fact banned by both the National Hot Rod and the American Motorcycle Racing associations, which used the stuff as fuel before declaring it too toxic. The EPA has classified it as a “probable human carcinogen.”
So it’s too nasty for hot-rod racers to breathe but just fine to eat? Awesome. And as these things often go, it’s the small and organic producers who will bear the burden of this high-cost new procedure—even though they’re far less likely to be the culprits of any food-borne illness outbreaks. As the rule stands now, the only way to ensure that your almonds are steamed instead of PPOed is to buy organic (otherwise growers don’t have to tell you how they pasteurize), and those babies are already going for about $15 a pound before the inevitable increases in price this fall. Buying roasted instead of raw almonds won’t make a difference, since the nuts will likely have been pasteurized before roasting (link opens to a PDF file). I don’t want to tempt fate here, but I’d rather have a slim chance of getting a bad tummy ache from a handful of delicious almonds than the risk of forestomach tumors, which sound way more painful.
Man, remind me to grow my own…
“even though they’re far less likely to be the culprits of any foodborne illness outbreaks”
While I don’t want any extra anything in my almonds, I do recall a disease outbreak associated with raw almonds that were sold at Trader Joe’s a few years ago. They pulled the raw almonds, I think for over a year, I’ve been eating them ever since they brought them back.
Even at $18 a pound, I’d rather feed my kid non-carcinogenic almonds then the cheaper, carcinogenic-laced ones.
Gee, thanks USDA, for looking out for us. Not.
Are you sure you would be consuming those residues? It sounds like a very volatile chemical? I think this sounds akin to worrying about bleach on flour and dichloromethane in decaf coffee, they are both far too volatile to end up in the final product.
N-I-C-E spells Nice.
Chemical safety and info page for PPO:
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/PR/propylene_oxide.html
go to my website to see my carving davecarving piczo.com
The difference between this and the flour/coffee situation is that consumers who are worried about bleach in their flour, or chemicals in their decaf, can buy unbleached flour and water-process decaf coffee. It sounds like there won’t be an option of unprocessed almonds for those who would rather not support the use of a toxic substance in food processing, whether residues end up on your food or not. Here’s a related question: if the resides don’t end up in the almonds we eat…where do they end up?
oops, I guess chow comments can’t handle HTML. I just wanted italics for emphasis. maybe you can imagine them.
WTF indeed. This is very disappointing. And it’s not like we can grow almonds up here in the Great White North.
I wonder how the Spanish Marcona almond importers will feel about this.
yes, the biggest problem with this is that the consumer may be completely unaware. I dont’ want some nightmare situation where everything comes with a dozen warning labels on it, but I do want to know what I’m buying. It’s gotten very complicated to buy food these days. If there was some transparency in how food is processed (like on a company’s website) then the consumer could answer questions for him/herself. And if a company doesn’t want to disclose that info….then you gotta ask yourself why?
I’m willing to pay more per pound for organic if it means that I’m certain the almonds weren’t treated with propylene oxide, but I’d rather that a company declare it, like dairies that declare no use of BGH. Especially since organic is meaning less and less these days.
Also, why bother with the carcinogen when the almonds can be sterilized with steam? I understand that water is a resource and it might not be cost affective on a large scale, but WTF? Water can be re-used on a closed loop system cleanly, safely, and effectively. We’ve relied on pasteurization to make juice and milk safe for decades now, why wouldn’t we utilize heat instead of involving another chemical to insure salmonella free almonds?
I usually buy my almonds at the health food store, some are organic, others are not. But, from now on, I’ll make sure they are organic.
I wonder how long the Almond Board of California would continue using PPO if small public service announcement commercials showed what PPO is and how they use it on almonds….something like those anti-smoking commercials that disclose corporate secrets to the public?
I doubt they would do it if everyone knew about PPO….like CHOW readers.
Thanks for the heads up!
As it happens, I am a California almond grower and handler. We produce almonds grown in the traditional manner, as well as both transitional and organic almonds. We have not been given a choice with respect to pasteurization. The largest producers of almonds in the state are deathly afraid of another outbreak; for example, demand for leafy greens still has not recovered from last year’s outbreak in that industry. Hence, the new rule.
At our farms, we will not use PPO gas on any of our almonds, whether organic or non-organic. Instead, we’ll be using a steam method. We don’t want to cook the nuts but we must achieve at least a 4-log reduction in Salmonella. Although it’s not legally required, we are glad to provide treatment information on the label–something like, “Steam – No PPO.” I’d appreciate your suggestions.
There is an exemption. As growers, we can ship unpasteurized almonds to food processers who intend to treat the nuts themselves (and can prove this to the USDA). This treatment may include roasting, if such roasting achieves the desired bacteria kill. Whether it does so or not will depend on each food manufacturer’s own techniques.
As organic growers, we don’t favor the use of chemicals. Still, it’s wrong to minimize the dangers of Salmonella as causing only a “bad tummy ache.” My own mother was exposed to Salmonella from poorly cooked eggs and the resulting illness was horrible and agonizing and potentially life-threatening.
I like “Steam treated/no PPO.” Great idea and thx for the insight.
Yes, thanks for the great info, ptcaffey! I second “steam-treated/no PPO.”
And I apologize for downplaying the symptoms of salmonella–I know it can be terribly painful and can occasionally have life-threatening complications, and I definitely didn’t mean to discount the experience of people who have gone through it. It was a poor choice of words, but I used “bad tummy ache” as a shorthand way of comparing salmonella’s effects–usually 5-7 days of digestive trouble, similar to a really bad stomach flu–to the much more lasting effects that PPO-induced tumors would have. Either one is awful, and it sounds like steam treatment is a good way of preventing both of these forms of disease.
I know the raw foodists out there probably have a different take, though…
Great post ptcaffey, I think any simple identification will do. “steam-treated/no PPO” is a good one. It’s analogous to the BGH or trans-fat indications on packaging, as long as it doesn’t create more confusion for the consumer, then it will allow people to show whether or not they are concerned about it. I’m guessing it might ruffle a few feathers on the processors side though, shining a spotlight on PPO use.
Thank you, all, for your input.