Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
There was a whole write up recently about "urban farming"; as soon as I come off my latest energy binge I'll look for it. -Mike > Hi Dawie > >>Keith has emphasized before that meaningful food production doesn't >>require huge tracts of land. It is amazing what can be done in very >>small spaces. >> >>Modern cities contain vast amounts of wasted land, but the resulting >>pattern is one that attracts too much moving about of people and >>stuff for non-food-production purposes. There's a vicious circle >>with too much roadway and parking generating an insatiable need for >>more roadway and parking. I'm proposing that urban areas become a >>lot tighter, though fragmented into smaller pockets, somewhat like >>the cities of medieval Europe, so that the greatest proportion of >>non-food-production functions are best supported by a >>pedestrian-based local economy. In practice, the typical "new-world" >>city should be steered to develop into twenty-odd (depending on the >>size of the city) "mini-cities" separated by farmland. > > Or interpenetrated by farmland, in many shapes and forms, but > sometimes just plain farmland. Japanese cities have patches of > farmland throughout, a small field here and there, some of them not > so small, with occasional clumps of fields, they're everywhere. Not > just veggies, rice and soybeans and so on too. There are allotments > as well. People don't notice them much but they produce a lot of > food. There's still quite a lot of waste ground too, empty lots and > all the usable bits and pieces of ground you start seeing around the > place when you begin to take some notice. > >>A lot of that farmland is currently the >>supposedly decorative gardens of sprawling suburbs. > > And/or allotments and so on, and quite a lot of suburban folks raise > some vegetables. > >>The more I get into it, though, the more I realise how much food can >>be produced even in the densely built city areas, > > There's room for it, once you start thinking that way you see it > everywhere. > >>especially in the upper-storey courtyards that result almost >>inevitably from the desire to use available space most effectively >>while maintaining decent daylight and ventilation. This applies as >>much to small livestock as to crops. >> >>I don't see cows being kept on rooftops. Cow-sized staircases would >>just consume too much space! But I do see small dairy operations >>within easy walking distance of city centres. > > It's amazing where people manage to keep poultry and pigs. > > Food for cities is not that big a problem eh? Mainly an attitude > problem, and the attitude's changing. > > Best > > Keith > > > >>Dawie >> >>- Original Message >>From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>Sent: Thursday, 14 June, 2007 5:41:57 AM >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! >> >>hi Keith, >> >>you said "Large-scale animal and animal products production has no future >> and >> > has a disgusting past without any merit. There is no place for "the >> > industry". There is plenty of place for unpasteurised real milk and >> > the healthy people who drink it." I agree, they are in it for the >>money (which we do need) with less regard for the environmental >>footprint, and lacking the passion to provide good food to the >>people. However, could you elaborate on the size of scale you are >>refering to in the above statement. I mean there are hundreds of >>millions of people who live in cities that cant farm or produce for >>themselves. Ultimately, in the end I believe the smaller and more >>localised the farm is to its consumption destination, the better. It >>reduces transport costs, packaging and ultimately energy demand. >>Individual small farms to produce food for themselves and the >>community is the best option if practiced responsibily with the >>social and environmental issues in mind. Having said this what are >>your thoughts for providing food to the cities. >> >>best >> >>Joshua >> >> >> >> > Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Hello Andres >> > >> > >I am affraid the pasteurization process is necessary because to eat >> > >untreated foods is DANGEROUS for humans. >> > >> > Not true. Please see my previous reply and check the references there. >> >
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
The effects of greening rooftops are quite well known, there are enough examples for quite a clear picture to have emerged, showing a wide range of benefits and no apparent downside. The idea of greening rooftops could hit the big time any time, like the local food movement that's sweeping the world (and the media) right now. The foundation for that was already there, with the CSAs, city farms, local markets, community gardens of the last 30 years, then the Slow Food movement and so on. The work had been done, it was just waiting to happen. Greening rooftops could also be just waiting to happen. There's obviously a lot of synergy with the local food boom. The Journey to Forever garden at our first hq at the Beach House on Lantau Island in Hong Kong got me thinking a lot about rooftop gardens. We grew pumpkins and stuff in big baskets up old bamboo ladders onto the cement roofs of two outbuildings there that were hellish hot inside during summer, definitely a good thing to do. The whole garden was built on cement, or through it. I removed the cement for the sq foot beds and so on, but there was eight feet of sea sand mixed with builders rubble underneath (pre-plastic, 1960s rubble). Only one person ever asked where we got the soil. We made it, 12" deep, on top of the sand. Our tomatoes were 12 feet tall and very productive, everything was productive - we grew potatoes and sweet potatoes in bathtubs, and sweet potatoes on top of bare cement (one was 2 ft long). Large variety of crops. A whole ecology moved in, birds and bees and bugs that you don't find on beaches, frogs, butterflies, we found a small watersnake living in our pond (another bathtub). That small space produced a lot of great food! http://journeytoforever.org/garden.html Organic gardening: Journey to Forever organic garden http://journeytoforever.org/garden_con.html No ground? Use containers Etc. It wasn't that different from a rooftop garden. For anything more than an outhouse you need to know what loads roofs can take and so on, how much wet soil weighs, figure out water supply and drainage. But if it's built for people to walk on you should be able to green it effectively in one way or another. I'd like to have more and better resources at Journey to Forever on rooftop gardening. I'll do a search when I get the time. Any suggestions welcome. Best Keith >A grass roof would be evaporatively cooled. Need less air >conditioning. Average attic in summer is a sauna. > >Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I don't see cows being kept on rooftops. Cow-sized staircases would just > > consume too much space! But I do see small dairy operations within easy > > walking distance of city centres. > > > > Dawie > > > >LOL. Probably not cows. But a goat could. And chickens. Milk and >eggs. They eat the scraps from the rooftop garden and turn it back >into protein for the humans and fertilizer for the garden. We need to >start seeing our roofs as something other than wasteland helping >generate a heat island and view it as a land area that we could use >for food and energy production. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
Hi Dawie >Keith has emphasized before that meaningful food production doesn't >require huge tracts of land. It is amazing what can be done in very >small spaces. > >Modern cities contain vast amounts of wasted land, but the resulting >pattern is one that attracts too much moving about of people and >stuff for non-food-production purposes. There's a vicious circle >with too much roadway and parking generating an insatiable need for >more roadway and parking. I'm proposing that urban areas become a >lot tighter, though fragmented into smaller pockets, somewhat like >the cities of medieval Europe, so that the greatest proportion of >non-food-production functions are best supported by a >pedestrian-based local economy. In practice, the typical "new-world" >city should be steered to develop into twenty-odd (depending on the >size of the city) "mini-cities" separated by farmland. Or interpenetrated by farmland, in many shapes and forms, but sometimes just plain farmland. Japanese cities have patches of farmland throughout, a small field here and there, some of them not so small, with occasional clumps of fields, they're everywhere. Not just veggies, rice and soybeans and so on too. There are allotments as well. People don't notice them much but they produce a lot of food. There's still quite a lot of waste ground too, empty lots and all the usable bits and pieces of ground you start seeing around the place when you begin to take some notice. >A lot of that farmland is currently the >supposedly decorative gardens of sprawling suburbs. And/or allotments and so on, and quite a lot of suburban folks raise some vegetables. >The more I get into it, though, the more I realise how much food can >be produced even in the densely built city areas, There's room for it, once you start thinking that way you see it everywhere. >especially in the upper-storey courtyards that result almost >inevitably from the desire to use available space most effectively >while maintaining decent daylight and ventilation. This applies as >much to small livestock as to crops. > >I don't see cows being kept on rooftops. Cow-sized staircases would >just consume too much space! But I do see small dairy operations >within easy walking distance of city centres. It's amazing where people manage to keep poultry and pigs. Food for cities is not that big a problem eh? Mainly an attitude problem, and the attitude's changing. Best Keith >Dawie > >- Original Message >From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Thursday, 14 June, 2007 5:41:57 AM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! > >hi Keith, > >you said "Large-scale animal and animal products production has no future and > > has a disgusting past without any merit. There is no place for "the > > industry". There is plenty of place for unpasteurised real milk and > > the healthy people who drink it." I agree, they are in it for the >money (which we do need) with less regard for the environmental >footprint, and lacking the passion to provide good food to the >people. However, could you elaborate on the size of scale you are >refering to in the above statement. I mean there are hundreds of >millions of people who live in cities that cant farm or produce for >themselves. Ultimately, in the end I believe the smaller and more >localised the farm is to its consumption destination, the better. It >reduces transport costs, packaging and ultimately energy demand. >Individual small farms to produce food for themselves and the >community is the best option if practiced responsibily with the >social and environmental issues in mind. Having said this what are >your thoughts for providing food to the cities. > >best > >Joshua > > > > > Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello Andres > > > > >I am affraid the pasteurization process is necessary because to eat > > >untreated foods is DANGEROUS for humans. > > > > Not true. Please see my previous reply and check the references there. > > > > >The larger the production scale the > > >higher the risk. > > > > True. > > > > >The living parts of foods are oftenly poisonous for us > > >like bacteria. > > > > Not necessarily so. Look at your previous statement about the > > production scale. The inverse is equally true: the smaller the scale > > the lower the risk - in other words small-scale local production, > > such as on CSA farms. This can be and usually is safe and > > high-qualit
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
Hello Dawie, there was once a town in old Germany,Schilda: the towncouncil desided to put the grass growing on top of the townwalls to good use and let the towns cow feed on it. So the good people strang the cow up to the top of the wall but the cow did not wanted to eat anymore grass Fritz - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! > > I don't see cows being kept on rooftops. Cow-sized staircases would just > consume too much space! But I do see small dairy operations within easy > walking distance of city centres. > > Dawie > LOL. Probably not cows. But a goat could. And chickens. Milk and eggs. They eat the scraps from the rooftop garden and turn it back into protein for the humans and fertilizer for the garden. We need to start seeing our roofs as something other than wasteland helping generate a heat island and view it as a land area that we could use for food and energy production. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
A grass roof would be evaporatively cooled. Need less air conditioning. Average attic in summer is a sauna. Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't see cows being kept on rooftops. Cow-sized staircases would just > consume too much space! But I do see small dairy operations within easy > walking distance of city centres. > > Dawie > LOL. Probably not cows. But a goat could. And chickens. Milk and eggs. They eat the scraps from the rooftop garden and turn it back into protein for the humans and fertilizer for the garden. We need to start seeing our roofs as something other than wasteland helping generate a heat island and view it as a land area that we could use for food and energy production. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ - Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
> > I don't see cows being kept on rooftops. Cow-sized staircases would just > consume too much space! But I do see small dairy operations within easy > walking distance of city centres. > > Dawie > LOL. Probably not cows. But a goat could. And chickens. Milk and eggs. They eat the scraps from the rooftop garden and turn it back into protein for the humans and fertilizer for the garden. We need to start seeing our roofs as something other than wasteland helping generate a heat island and view it as a land area that we could use for food and energy production. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
Keith has emphasized before that meaningful food production doesn't require huge tracts of land. It is amazing what can be done in very small spaces. Modern cities contain vast amounts of wasted land, but the resulting pattern is one that attracts too much moving about of people and stuff for non-food-production purposes. There's a vicious circle with too much roadway and parking generating an insatiable need for more roadway and parking. I'm proposing that urban areas become a lot tighter, though fragmented into smaller pockets, somewhat like the cities of medieval Europe, so that the greatest proportion of non-food-production functions are best supported by a pedestrian-based local economy. In practice, the typical "new-world" city should be steered to develop into twenty-odd (depending on the size of the city) "mini-cities" separated by farmland. A lot of that farmland is currently the supposedly decorative gardens of sprawling suburbs. The more I get into it, though, the more I realise how much food can be produced even in the densely built city areas, especially in the upper-storey courtyards that result almost inevitably from the desire to use available space most effectively while maintaining decent daylight and ventilation. This applies as much to small livestock as to crops. I don't see cows being kept on rooftops. Cow-sized staircases would just consume too much space! But I do see small dairy operations within easy walking distance of city centres. Dawie - Original Message From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, 14 June, 2007 5:41:57 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! hi Keith, you said "Large-scale animal and animal products production has no future and > has a disgusting past without any merit. There is no place for "the > industry". There is plenty of place for unpasteurised real milk and > the healthy people who drink it." I agree, they are in it for the money > (which we do need) with less regard for the environmental footprint, and > lacking the passion to provide good food to the people. However, could you > elaborate on the size of scale you are refering to in the above statement. I > mean there are hundreds of millions of people who live in cities that cant > farm or produce for themselves. Ultimately, in the end I believe the smaller > and more localised the farm is to its consumption destination, the better. It > reduces transport costs, packaging and ultimately energy demand. Individual > small farms to produce food for themselves and the community is the best > option if practiced responsibily with the social and environmental issues in > mind. Having said this what are your thoughts for providing food to the > cities. best Joshua > Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Andres > > >I am affraid the pasteurization process is necessary because to eat > >untreated foods is DANGEROUS for humans. > > Not true. Please see my previous reply and check the references there. > > >The larger the production scale the > >higher the risk. > > True. > > >The living parts of foods are oftenly poisonous for us > >like bacteria. > > Not necessarily so. Look at your previous statement about the > production scale. The inverse is equally true: the smaller the scale > the lower the risk - in other words small-scale local production, > such as on CSA farms. This can be and usually is safe and > high-quality. Traditional agricultural systems all had and have good > solutions to these problems. But modern large-scale production has no > such answers. > > >Thanks to god there is still a lot of vegetables we can eat > >in large volumes without processing and alive. > > And quite possibly covered with various pesticide residues and with > only poor nutritional quality - again a problem that increases as the > production scale increases, and decreases to zero as the scale > decreases. > > >There are alternative process to pasteurization, but still expensive > for the > >industry to do it large scale. > > Large-scale animal and animal products production has no future and > has a disgusting past without any merit. There is no place for "the > industry". There is plenty of place for unpasteurised real milk and > the healthy people who drink it. > > >Anyway those process kill all. > > Many people are saying that that is what industrial "food" processing > is accomplishing. They seem to have a strong case for that argument. > > Best > > Keith > > > >- Original Message - > >Fr
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
hi Keith, you said "Large-scale animal and animal products production has no future and > has a disgusting past without any merit. There is no place for "the > industry". There is plenty of place for unpasteurised real milk and > the healthy people who drink it." I agree, they are in it for the money > (which we do need) with less regard for the environmental footprint, and > lacking the passion to provide good food to the people. However, could you > elaborate on the size of scale you are refering to in the above statement. I > mean there are hundreds of millions of people who live in cities that cant > farm or produce for themselves. Ultimately, in the end I believe the smaller > and more localised the farm is to its consumption destination, the better. It > reduces transport costs, packaging and ultimately energy demand. Individual > small farms to produce food for themselves and the community is the best > option if practiced responsibily with the social and environmental issues in > mind. Having said this what are your thoughts for providing food to the > cities. best Joshua > Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Andres > > >I am affraid the pasteurization process is necessary because to eat > >untreated foods is DANGEROUS for humans. > > Not true. Please see my previous reply and check the references there. > > >The larger the production scale the > >higher the risk. > > True. > > >The living parts of foods are oftenly poisonous for us > >like bacteria. > > Not necessarily so. Look at your previous statement about the > production scale. The inverse is equally true: the smaller the scale > the lower the risk - in other words small-scale local production, > such as on CSA farms. This can be and usually is safe and > high-quality. Traditional agricultural systems all had and have good > solutions to these problems. But modern large-scale production has no > such answers. > > >Thanks to god there is still a lot of vegetables we can eat > >in large volumes without processing and alive. > > And quite possibly covered with various pesticide residues and with > only poor nutritional quality - again a problem that increases as the > production scale increases, and decreases to zero as the scale > decreases. > > >There are alternative process to pasteurization, but still expensive > for the > >industry to do it large scale. > > Large-scale animal and animal products production has no future and > has a disgusting past without any merit. There is no place for "the > industry". There is plenty of place for unpasteurised real milk and > the healthy people who drink it. > > >Anyway those process kill all. > > Many people are saying that that is what industrial "food" processing > is accomplishing. They seem to have a strong case for that argument. > > Best > > Keith > > > >- Original Message - > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:45 PM > >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! > > > > > > >I agree. what ever happened to "natural food", soo many things these > days > > >are procesed, heat treated or altered from their natural state in > some way > > >or another. We are protected, inhibiting our own imunity from doing > its > > >job. I suspect that pasteurization could escilate the health problems > by > > >feeding humans "dead" food. One part of health is eating live food. I > see > > >this in the same boat as white bread, white flour, white sugar, white > rice, > > >etc. Foods need to be less procesed and offered in their natural > states. > > > > > > Almonds also contain health promoting mono and polyunsaturated fats, > that > > > when heated to a hot enough temperature, degrade and turn rancid. Im > sure > > > that there are people out there that are also concerned about this. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Forwarding > > >> > > >> As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! > > >> Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike > Johanns > > >> and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. > > >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Phone: 202-720-3631 > > >> Fax: 202-720-2166 > > >> > > >> Con
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
he > > production scale. The inverse is equally true: the smaller the scale > > the lower the risk - in other words small-scale local production, > > such as on CSA farms. This can be and usually is safe and > > high-quality. Traditional agricultural systems all had and have good > > solutions to these problems. But modern large-scale production has no > > such answers. > > > > >Thanks to god there is still a lot of vegetables we can eat > > >in large volumes without processing and alive. > > > > And quite possibly covered with various pesticide residues and with > > only poor nutritional quality - again a problem that increases as the > > production scale increases, and decreases to zero as the scale > > decreases. > > > > >There are alternative process to pasteurization, but still expensive > > for the > > >industry to do it large scale. > > > > Large-scale animal and animal products production has no future and > > has a disgusting past without any merit. There is no place for "the > > industry". There is plenty of place for unpasteurised real milk and > > the healthy people who drink it. > > > > >Anyway those process kill all. > > > > Many people are saying that that is what industrial "food" processing > > is accomplishing. They seem to have a strong case for that argument. > > > > Best > > > > Keith > > > > > > >- Original Message - > > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: > > >Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:45 PM > > >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! > > > > > > > > > >I agree. what ever happened to "natural food", soo many things these > > days > > > >are procesed, heat treated or altered from their natural state in > > some way > > > >or another. We are protected, inhibiting our own imunity from doing > > its > > > >job. I suspect that pasteurization could escilate the health problems > > by > > > >feeding humans "dead" food. One part of health is eating live food. I > > see > > > >this in the same boat as white bread, white flour, white sugar, white > > rice, > > > >etc. Foods need to be less procesed and offered in their natural > > states. > > > > > > > > Almonds also contain health promoting mono and polyunsaturated fats, > > that > > > > when heated to a hot enough temperature, degrade and turn rancid. Im > > sure > > > > that there are people out there that are also concerned about this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Forwarding > > > >> > > > >> As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! > > > >> Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike > > Johanns > > > >> and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. > > > >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> Phone: 202-720-3631 > > > >> Fax: 202-720-2166 > > > >> > > > >> Contact the Almond Board and let them know your thoughts, too. > > > >> http://www.almondboard.com/utilities/FORMContactUs.cfm > > > >> (209) 549-8262 > > > >> ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
Hello Andres >I am affraid the pasteurization process is necessary because to eat >untreated foods is DANGEROUS for humans. Not true. Please see my previous reply and check the references there. >The larger the production scale the >higher the risk. True. >The living parts of foods are oftenly poisonous for us >like bacteria. Not necessarily so. Look at your previous statement about the production scale. The inverse is equally true: the smaller the scale the lower the risk - in other words small-scale local production, such as on CSA farms. This can be and usually is safe and high-quality. Traditional agricultural systems all had and have good solutions to these problems. But modern large-scale production has no such answers. >Thanks to god there is still a lot of vegetables we can eat >in large volumes without processing and alive. And quite possibly covered with various pesticide residues and with only poor nutritional quality - again a problem that increases as the production scale increases, and decreases to zero as the scale decreases. >There are alternative process to pasteurization, but still expensive for the >industry to do it large scale. Large-scale animal and animal products production has no future and has a disgusting past without any merit. There is no place for "the industry". There is plenty of place for unpasteurised real milk and the healthy people who drink it. >Anyway those process kill all. Many people are saying that that is what industrial "food" processing is accomplishing. They seem to have a strong case for that argument. Best Keith >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:45 PM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! > > > >I agree. what ever happened to "natural food", soo many things these days > >are procesed, heat treated or altered from their natural state in some way > >or another. We are protected, inhibiting our own imunity from doing its > >job. I suspect that pasteurization could escilate the health problems by > >feeding humans "dead" food. One part of health is eating live food. I see > >this in the same boat as white bread, white flour, white sugar, white rice, > >etc. Foods need to be less procesed and offered in their natural states. > > > > Almonds also contain health promoting mono and polyunsaturated fats, that > > when heated to a hot enough temperature, degrade and turn rancid. Im sure > > that there are people out there that are also concerned about this. > > > > > > > >> Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Forwarding > >> > >> As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! > >> Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns > >> and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. > >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Phone: 202-720-3631 > >> Fax: 202-720-2166 > >> > >> Contact the Almond Board and let them know your thoughts, too. > >> http://www.almondboard.com/utilities/FORMContactUs.cfm > >> (209) 549-8262 > >> > >> This article gives a great overview on the issue. Thanks for taking > >> action. > >> Time is running out to save raw almonds. > >> Even if you don't eat almonds, please speak up anyway. > >> If there is a precedent for pasteurizing almonds, we may soon find more > >> of our foods mandated for pasteurization. > >> > >> -S. > >> > >> > >> The Almond Board of California, which oversees virtually 100 percent of > >> the almonds grown and consumed in the United States and Canada, is now > >> implementing plans to pasteurize all almonds at temperatures up to 158 > >> degrees (F) and yet have them intentionally and falsely labeled as > >> "raw." The decision was made following the 2001 and 2004 outbreaks of > >> salmonella in almonds, and is based on the intention of the Almond Board > >> of California to provide a "safe, nutritious product to consumers" but > >> not, it seems, an accurately labeled food product to consumers. > >> > >> Although it seems unthinkable to anyone familiar with the fundamentals > >> of nutrition, the Almond Board fails to recognize any distinction > >> between raw almonds and cooked almonds. In statements received by > >> NewsTarget, the Almond Board explained that, "raw almonds that have been > >> pasteurized do not differ in an
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
If that is so, then surely it is the scale of production that is, as usual, the problem -D - Original Message Andres Secco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am affraid the pasteurization process is necessary because to eat untreated foods is DANGEROUS for humans. The larger the production scale the higher the risk. The living parts of foods are oftenly poisonous for us like bacteria. Thanks to god there is still a lot of vegetables we can eat in large volumes without processing and alive. There are alternative process to pasteurization, but still expensive for the industry to do it large scale. Anyway those process kill all. ___ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
Raw almonds have been eaten for centuries. The salmonella contamination is probably due to poorly cleaned equipment used in packaging. Is it too much to expect industry to clean the machines? Would hate to see them waste money on such a novel concept. Kirk Andres Secco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am affraid the pasteurization process is necessary because to eat untreated foods is DANGEROUS for humans. The larger the production scale the higher the risk. The living parts of foods are oftenly poisonous for us like bacteria. Thanks to god there is still a lot of vegetables we can eat in large volumes without processing and alive. There are alternative process to pasteurization, but still expensive for the industry to do it large scale. Anyway those process kill all. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! >I agree. what ever happened to "natural food", soo many things these days >are procesed, heat treated or altered from their natural state in some way >or another. We are protected, inhibiting our own imunity from doing its >job. I suspect that pasteurization could escilate the health problems by >feeding humans "dead" food. One part of health is eating live food. I see >this in the same boat as white bread, white flour, white sugar, white rice, >etc. Foods need to be less procesed and offered in their natural states. > > Almonds also contain health promoting mono and polyunsaturated fats, that > when heated to a hot enough temperature, degrade and turn rancid. Im sure > that there are people out there that are also concerned about this. > > > >> Kirk McLoren wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Forwarding >> >> As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! >> Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns >> and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Phone: 202-720-3631 >> Fax: 202-720-2166 >> >> Contact the Almond Board and let them know your thoughts, too. >> http://www.almondboard.com/utilities/FORMContactUs.cfm >> (209) 549-8262 >> >> This article gives a great overview on the issue. Thanks for taking >> action. >> Time is running out to save raw almonds. >> Even if you don't eat almonds, please speak up anyway. >> If there is a precedent for pasteurizing almonds, we may soon find more >> of our foods mandated for pasteurization. >> >> -S. >> >> >> The Almond Board of California, which oversees virtually 100 percent of >> the almonds grown and consumed in the United States and Canada, is now >> implementing plans to pasteurize all almonds at temperatures up to 158 >> degrees (F) and yet have them intentionally and falsely labeled as >> "raw." The decision was made following the 2001 and 2004 outbreaks of >> salmonella in almonds, and is based on the intention of the Almond Board >> of California to provide a "safe, nutritious product to consumers" but >> not, it seems, an accurately labeled food product to consumers. >> >> Although it seems unthinkable to anyone familiar with the fundamentals >> of nutrition, the Almond Board fails to recognize any distinction >> between raw almonds and cooked almonds. In statements received by >> NewsTarget, the Almond Board explained that, "raw almonds that have been >> pasteurized do not differ in any significant way from untreated raw >> almonds." >> >> Except, of course, for the fact that they are dead. Stating that live, >> raw almonds are the same as dead, cooked almonds is equivalent to >> stating that a living human being is the same as a corpse. >> >> Raw foods are widely understood by virtually the entire food community >> to mean food items kept below 108 degrees (F), beyond which the living >> enzymes in foods are destroyed. Pasteurization, in contrast, exposes >> foods to temperatures of up to 158 degrees for durations up to 30 >> minutes. (Faster "flash" pasteurization can involve much higher >> temperatures for shorter durations: 280 degrees (F) for two seconds, for >> example.) NewsTarget does not know the precise temperature that will be >> used for pasteurizing almonds, but it will without question be a >> temperature higher than 108 degrees (F), which means the almonds can no >> longer be considered raw by any reasonable person familiar with the >> definition of raw. >> >> Outcry from the raw foods community >> >> The raw foods community, not
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
You are what you eat. Perhaps trite - but true. Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. what ever happened to "natural food", soo many things these days are procesed, heat treated or altered from their natural state in some way or another. We are protected, inhibiting our own imunity from doing its job. I suspect that pasteurization could escilate the health problems by feeding humans "dead" food. One part of health is eating live food. I see this in the same boat as white bread, white flour, white sugar, white rice, etc. Foods need to be less procesed and offered in their natural states. Almonds also contain health promoting mono and polyunsaturated fats, that when heated to a hot enough temperature, degrade and turn rancid. Im sure that there are people out there that are also concerned about this. > Kirk McLoren wrote: > > > > > Forwarding > > As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! > Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns > and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 202-720-3631 > Fax: 202-720-2166 > > Contact the Almond Board and let them know your thoughts, too. > http://www.almondboard.com/utilities/FORMContactUs.cfm > (209) 549-8262 > > This article gives a great overview on the issue. Thanks for taking > action. > Time is running out to save raw almonds. > Even if you don't eat almonds, please speak up anyway. > If there is a precedent for pasteurizing almonds, we may soon find more > of our foods mandated for pasteurization. > > -S. > > > The Almond Board of California, which oversees virtually 100 percent of > the almonds grown and consumed in the United States and Canada, is now > implementing plans to pasteurize all almonds at temperatures up to 158 > degrees (F) and yet have them intentionally and falsely labeled as > "raw." The decision was made following the 2001 and 2004 outbreaks of > salmonella in almonds, and is based on the intention of the Almond Board > of California to provide a "safe, nutritious product to consumers" but > not, it seems, an accurately labeled food product to consumers. > > Although it seems unthinkable to anyone familiar with the fundamentals > of nutrition, the Almond Board fails to recognize any distinction > between raw almonds and cooked almonds. In statements received by > NewsTarget, the Almond Board explained that, "raw almonds that have been > pasteurized do not differ in any significant way from untreated raw > almonds." > > Except, of course, for the fact that they are dead. Stating that live, > raw almonds are the same as dead, cooked almonds is equivalent to > stating that a living human being is the same as a corpse. > > Raw foods are widely understood by virtually the entire food community > to mean food items kept below 108 degrees (F), beyond which the living > enzymes in foods are destroyed. Pasteurization, in contrast, exposes > foods to temperatures of up to 158 degrees for durations up to 30 > minutes. (Faster "flash" pasteurization can involve much higher > temperatures for shorter durations: 280 degrees (F) for two seconds, for > example.) NewsTarget does not know the precise temperature that will be > used for pasteurizing almonds, but it will without question be a > temperature higher than 108 degrees (F), which means the almonds can no > longer be considered raw by any reasonable person familiar with the > definition of raw. > > Outcry from the raw foods community > > The raw foods community, not surprisingly, is alarmed at the new rules, > which openly condone the false labeling of a food product. Dr. Gabriel > Cousens, author of several top-selling books on raw foods and founder of > the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona ( www.TreeofLife.nu ), > told NewsTarget, "This mandatory almond pasteurization is an effort by > the powers that be to limit access to healthy food. It is a serious > attack on people's ability to eat what they want and support their > health. In this important way, it deprives us of our basic rights of > life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a serious incursion > of rights for a trivial and preventable reason, this being that the > [past] contamination of the almonds was from a single source." > > The issue at hand here is not merely that all California almonds will > now be sterilized, but that cooked almonds will be deliberately and > falsely labeled as raw. It's like opening a carton of fresh eggs and > finding out they've already been hard-boiled. This is a clear case of > deceptive labeling that should, by any common sense definition, be > illegal. Yet the FDA seems perfectly happy with this deception and will > apparently allow consumers to be blatantly misled about the food > products they are purchasing. > > Raw doesn't mean raw > > The Almond Board of Californi
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
I am affraid the pasteurization process is necessary because to eat untreated foods is DANGEROUS for humans. The larger the production scale the higher the risk. The living parts of foods are oftenly poisonous for us like bacteria. Thanks to god there is still a lot of vegetables we can eat in large volumes without processing and alive. There are alternative process to pasteurization, but still expensive for the industry to do it large scale. Anyway those process kill all. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds! >I agree. what ever happened to "natural food", soo many things these days >are procesed, heat treated or altered from their natural state in some way >or another. We are protected, inhibiting our own imunity from doing its >job. I suspect that pasteurization could escilate the health problems by >feeding humans "dead" food. One part of health is eating live food. I see >this in the same boat as white bread, white flour, white sugar, white rice, >etc. Foods need to be less procesed and offered in their natural states. > > Almonds also contain health promoting mono and polyunsaturated fats, that > when heated to a hot enough temperature, degrade and turn rancid. Im sure > that there are people out there that are also concerned about this. > > > >> Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Forwarding >> >> As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! >> Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns >> and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Phone: 202-720-3631 >> Fax: 202-720-2166 >> >> Contact the Almond Board and let them know your thoughts, too. >> http://www.almondboard.com/utilities/FORMContactUs.cfm >> (209) 549-8262 >> >> This article gives a great overview on the issue. Thanks for taking >> action. >> Time is running out to save raw almonds. >> Even if you don't eat almonds, please speak up anyway. >> If there is a precedent for pasteurizing almonds, we may soon find more >> of our foods mandated for pasteurization. >> >> -S. >> >> >> The Almond Board of California, which oversees virtually 100 percent of >> the almonds grown and consumed in the United States and Canada, is now >> implementing plans to pasteurize all almonds at temperatures up to 158 >> degrees (F) and yet have them intentionally and falsely labeled as >> "raw." The decision was made following the 2001 and 2004 outbreaks of >> salmonella in almonds, and is based on the intention of the Almond Board >> of California to provide a "safe, nutritious product to consumers" but >> not, it seems, an accurately labeled food product to consumers. >> >> Although it seems unthinkable to anyone familiar with the fundamentals >> of nutrition, the Almond Board fails to recognize any distinction >> between raw almonds and cooked almonds. In statements received by >> NewsTarget, the Almond Board explained that, "raw almonds that have been >> pasteurized do not differ in any significant way from untreated raw >> almonds." >> >> Except, of course, for the fact that they are dead. Stating that live, >> raw almonds are the same as dead, cooked almonds is equivalent to >> stating that a living human being is the same as a corpse. >> >> Raw foods are widely understood by virtually the entire food community >> to mean food items kept below 108 degrees (F), beyond which the living >> enzymes in foods are destroyed. Pasteurization, in contrast, exposes >> foods to temperatures of up to 158 degrees for durations up to 30 >> minutes. (Faster "flash" pasteurization can involve much higher >> temperatures for shorter durations: 280 degrees (F) for two seconds, for >> example.) NewsTarget does not know the precise temperature that will be >> used for pasteurizing almonds, but it will without question be a >> temperature higher than 108 degrees (F), which means the almonds can no >> longer be considered raw by any reasonable person familiar with the >> definition of raw. >> >> Outcry from the raw foods community >> >> The raw foods community, not surprisingly, is alarmed at the new rules, >> which openly condone the false labeling of a food product. Dr. Gabriel >> Cousens, author of several top-selling books on raw foods and founder of >> the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona ( w
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
Hello Josh >I agree. what ever happened to "natural food", soo many things these >days are procesed, heat treated or altered from their natural state >in some way or another. We are protected, inhibiting our own imunity >from doing its job. I suspect that pasteurization could escilate the >health problems by feeding humans "dead" food. One part of health is >eating live food. I see this in the same boat as white bread, white >flour, white sugar, white rice, etc. Foods need to be less procesed >and offered in their natural states. You should read "Pottenger's Cats", especially about pasteurised milk. Also lots of good information at the site I reffed yesterday, http://www.realmilk.com/ . >Almonds also contain health promoting mono and polyunsaturated fats, >that when heated to a hot enough temperature, degrade and turn >rancid. Im sure that there are people out there that are also >concerned about this. There are a lot of people right here who're concerned about it, about the entire ghastly phenomenon. Once again I recommend the list archives. And this too (some list members have said it saved their lives, literally): http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html Small Farms Library - Journey to Forever Best wishes Keith > > Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Forwarding > > > > As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! > > Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns > > and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Phone: 202-720-3631 > > Fax: 202-720-2166 > > > > Contact the Almond Board and let them know your thoughts, too. > > http://www.almondboard.com/utilities/FORMContactUs.cfm > > (209) 549-8262 > > > > This article gives a great overview on the issue. Thanks for taking > > action. > > Time is running out to save raw almonds. > > Even if you don't eat almonds, please speak up anyway. > > If there is a precedent for pasteurizing almonds, we may soon find more > > of our foods mandated for pasteurization. > > > > -S. > > > > > > The Almond Board of California, which oversees virtually 100 percent of > > the almonds grown and consumed in the United States and Canada, is now > > implementing plans to pasteurize all almonds at temperatures up to 158 > > degrees (F) and yet have them intentionally and falsely labeled as > > "raw." The decision was made following the 2001 and 2004 outbreaks of > > salmonella in almonds, and is based on the intention of the Almond Board > > of California to provide a "safe, nutritious product to consumers" but > > not, it seems, an accurately labeled food product to consumers. > > > > Although it seems unthinkable to anyone familiar with the fundamentals > > of nutrition, the Almond Board fails to recognize any distinction > > between raw almonds and cooked almonds. In statements received by > > NewsTarget, the Almond Board explained that, "raw almonds that have been > > pasteurized do not differ in any significant way from untreated raw > > almonds." > > > > Except, of course, for the fact that they are dead. Stating that live, > > raw almonds are the same as dead, cooked almonds is equivalent to > > stating that a living human being is the same as a corpse. > > > > Raw foods are widely understood by virtually the entire food community > > to mean food items kept below 108 degrees (F), beyond which the living > > enzymes in foods are destroyed. Pasteurization, in contrast, exposes > > foods to temperatures of up to 158 degrees for durations up to 30 > > minutes. (Faster "flash" pasteurization can involve much higher > > temperatures for shorter durations: 280 degrees (F) for two seconds, for > > example.) NewsTarget does not know the precise temperature that will be > > used for pasteurizing almonds, but it will without question be a > > temperature higher than 108 degrees (F), which means the almonds can no > > longer be considered raw by any reasonable person familiar with the > > definition of raw. > > > > Outcry from the raw foods community > > > > The raw foods community, not surprisingly, is alarmed at the new rules, > > which openly condone the false labeling of a food product. Dr. Gabriel > > Cousens, author of several top-selling books on raw foods and founder of > > the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona ( www.TreeofLife.nu ), > > told NewsTarget, "This mandatory almond pasteurization is an effort by > > the powers that be to limit access to healthy food. It is a serious > > attack on people's ability to eat what they want and support their > > health. In this important way, it deprives us of our basic rights of > > life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a serious incursion > > of rights for a trivial and preventable reason, this being that the > > [past] contamination of the almonds was from a single source." > > > > The issue at hand here is not merely that all California almonds
Re: [Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
I agree. what ever happened to "natural food", soo many things these days are procesed, heat treated or altered from their natural state in some way or another. We are protected, inhibiting our own imunity from doing its job. I suspect that pasteurization could escilate the health problems by feeding humans "dead" food. One part of health is eating live food. I see this in the same boat as white bread, white flour, white sugar, white rice, etc. Foods need to be less procesed and offered in their natural states. Almonds also contain health promoting mono and polyunsaturated fats, that when heated to a hot enough temperature, degrade and turn rancid. Im sure that there are people out there that are also concerned about this. > Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Forwarding > > As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! > Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns > and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 202-720-3631 > Fax: 202-720-2166 > > Contact the Almond Board and let them know your thoughts, too. > http://www.almondboard.com/utilities/FORMContactUs.cfm > (209) 549-8262 > > This article gives a great overview on the issue. Thanks for taking > action. > Time is running out to save raw almonds. > Even if you don't eat almonds, please speak up anyway. > If there is a precedent for pasteurizing almonds, we may soon find more > of our foods mandated for pasteurization. > > -S. > > > The Almond Board of California, which oversees virtually 100 percent of > the almonds grown and consumed in the United States and Canada, is now > implementing plans to pasteurize all almonds at temperatures up to 158 > degrees (F) and yet have them intentionally and falsely labeled as > "raw." The decision was made following the 2001 and 2004 outbreaks of > salmonella in almonds, and is based on the intention of the Almond Board > of California to provide a "safe, nutritious product to consumers" but > not, it seems, an accurately labeled food product to consumers. > > Although it seems unthinkable to anyone familiar with the fundamentals > of nutrition, the Almond Board fails to recognize any distinction > between raw almonds and cooked almonds. In statements received by > NewsTarget, the Almond Board explained that, "raw almonds that have been > pasteurized do not differ in any significant way from untreated raw > almonds." > > Except, of course, for the fact that they are dead. Stating that live, > raw almonds are the same as dead, cooked almonds is equivalent to > stating that a living human being is the same as a corpse. > > Raw foods are widely understood by virtually the entire food community > to mean food items kept below 108 degrees (F), beyond which the living > enzymes in foods are destroyed. Pasteurization, in contrast, exposes > foods to temperatures of up to 158 degrees for durations up to 30 > minutes. (Faster "flash" pasteurization can involve much higher > temperatures for shorter durations: 280 degrees (F) for two seconds, for > example.) NewsTarget does not know the precise temperature that will be > used for pasteurizing almonds, but it will without question be a > temperature higher than 108 degrees (F), which means the almonds can no > longer be considered raw by any reasonable person familiar with the > definition of raw. > > Outcry from the raw foods community > > The raw foods community, not surprisingly, is alarmed at the new rules, > which openly condone the false labeling of a food product. Dr. Gabriel > Cousens, author of several top-selling books on raw foods and founder of > the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona ( www.TreeofLife.nu ), > told NewsTarget, "This mandatory almond pasteurization is an effort by > the powers that be to limit access to healthy food. It is a serious > attack on people's ability to eat what they want and support their > health. In this important way, it deprives us of our basic rights of > life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a serious incursion > of rights for a trivial and preventable reason, this being that the > [past] contamination of the almonds was from a single source." > > The issue at hand here is not merely that all California almonds will > now be sterilized, but that cooked almonds will be deliberately and > falsely labeled as raw. It's like opening a carton of fresh eggs and > finding out they've already been hard-boiled. This is a clear case of > deceptive labeling that should, by any common sense definition, be > illegal. Yet the FDA seems perfectly happy with this deception and will > apparently allow consumers to be blatantly misled about the food > products they are purchasing. > > Raw doesn't mean raw > > The Almond Board of California (ABC) is aware of the outcry concerning > the new pasteurizatio
[Biofuel] Time is running out to Save Raw Almonds!
Forwarding As of Sept 1, 2007, all almonds are to be pasteurized! Please take a moment to contact US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and ask him to use his influence to reverse this ruling. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 202-720-3631 Fax: 202-720-2166 Contact the Almond Board and let them know your thoughts, too. http://www.almondboard.com/utilities/FORMContactUs.cfm (209) 549-8262 This article gives a great overview on the issue. Thanks for taking action. Time is running out to save raw almonds. Even if you don't eat almonds, please speak up anyway. If there is a precedent for pasteurizing almonds, we may soon find more of our foods mandated for pasteurization. -S. The Almond Board of California, which oversees virtually 100 percent of the almonds grown and consumed in the United States and Canada, is now implementing plans to pasteurize all almonds at temperatures up to 158 degrees (F) and yet have them intentionally and falsely labeled as "raw." The decision was made following the 2001 and 2004 outbreaks of salmonella in almonds, and is based on the intention of the Almond Board of California to provide a "safe, nutritious product to consumers" but not, it seems, an accurately labeled food product to consumers. Although it seems unthinkable to anyone familiar with the fundamentals of nutrition, the Almond Board fails to recognize any distinction between raw almonds and cooked almonds. In statements received by NewsTarget, the Almond Board explained that, "raw almonds that have been pasteurized do not differ in any significant way from untreated raw almonds." Except, of course, for the fact that they are dead. Stating that live, raw almonds are the same as dead, cooked almonds is equivalent to stating that a living human being is the same as a corpse. Raw foods are widely understood by virtually the entire food community to mean food items kept below 108 degrees (F), beyond which the living enzymes in foods are destroyed. Pasteurization, in contrast, exposes foods to temperatures of up to 158 degrees for durations up to 30 minutes. (Faster "flash" pasteurization can involve much higher temperatures for shorter durations: 280 degrees (F) for two seconds, for example.) NewsTarget does not know the precise temperature that will be used for pasteurizing almonds, but it will without question be a temperature higher than 108 degrees (F), which means the almonds can no longer be considered raw by any reasonable person familiar with the definition of raw. Outcry from the raw foods community The raw foods community, not surprisingly, is alarmed at the new rules, which openly condone the false labeling of a food product. Dr. Gabriel Cousens, author of several top-selling books on raw foods and founder of the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona ( www.TreeofLife.nu ), told NewsTarget, "This mandatory almond pasteurization is an effort by the powers that be to limit access to healthy food. It is a serious attack on people's ability to eat what they want and support their health. In this important way, it deprives us of our basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a serious incursion of rights for a trivial and preventable reason, this being that the [past] contamination of the almonds was from a single source." The issue at hand here is not merely that all California almonds will now be sterilized, but that cooked almonds will be deliberately and falsely labeled as raw. It's like opening a carton of fresh eggs and finding out they've already been hard-boiled. This is a clear case of deceptive labeling that should, by any common sense definition, be illegal. Yet the FDA seems perfectly happy with this deception and will apparently allow consumers to be blatantly misled about the food products they are purchasing. Raw doesn't mean raw The Almond Board of California (ABC) is aware of the outcry concerning the new pasteurization rule, but believes that the outcry is without merit. "The almond board understands there is an outcry, but we maintain that the quality of the almond is substantially the same as it is raw," said Marcha Venable of the ABC. With this decision, the Almond Board of California seems surprisingly out of touch with the California lifestyle, which is significantly based on fresh, raw food products like limes, avocados and almonds. The living foods / raw foods movement in the United States is largely a product of the natural California lifestyle, and yet the Almond Board seems to have no hesitation in intentionally mislabeling its cooked almond products as raw, misleading consumers into thinking they're buying live almonds when they aren't. This isn't something that's being covertly pursued, either. The Almond Board is blatantly and openly stating that cooked almonds will be labeled as "raw." If all these almond deceptions seem a bit hard to sw
