Almonds: The Good & Bad About Healthy Nuts

Photo from: www.wisegeek.com - Thanks, guys!

Nut Check

Health crazes sprout likes weeds in the spring these days. I've covered Greek Yogurt in the past, and will get back to that later; and as soon as my hebetude abates, I'm going to explain why your healthy cereal is making you fat. But right now, I'm going to give a very brief info-mash about healthy nuts. The best nuts. And while my inner child (who, incidentally, is very superficial) could go on and on with an Austin Powers prowess in making too many crass innuendoes and puns about nuts, I'm going to get right to some straightforward info on almonds that you won't find on About [dot] com.

In doing some research to develop package copy for a cool new brand of California almonds, I stumbled upon a rather condemning article, not condemning of almonds, condemning of the Almond Board of California (ABC) and the FDA, the regulators of production, distribution, nutrition and nearly all aspects of food control; in regards to the ABC, just almond control.

Salmonella Scare

By reading the above headline, you assume almonds may contain salmonella. That's how easy it is to fearfully belie the public. Read on: 

The author vents and vexes that new regulations demand pasteurising and irradiating almonds grown in California (about 95% of all almonds nation-wide, and a significant percent of over-seas consumption). This I wish were not true, and harbour like sympathies with the author. Then, he seems to flip errantly out with some pointed liberalism that's even a bit much for me - and there're two left-sides of my socio-political brain! See, these ABC and FDA regulations are to ensure that salmonella doesn't periodically or accidentally make its way into the consumer market. As of yet, none has via almonds. (Just wanted to make that clear.)

So rather than take the risk that a few raw almonds might occasionally be contaminated and harm a few individuals, the industry believes that it’s better to harm everyone equally by making sure all almonds are pasteurized or irradiated, rendering them nutritionally deficient. Or, to put it another way, the industry will knowingly put out a nutritionally inferior product to the masses in exchange for a little legal immunity of its own. - Mike Adams, the Health Ranger (author of aforementioned article. Awful moniker.) 

I find Adams' words just a bit insensitive: "rather than... risk... a few raw almonds might occasionally... harm a few individuals..." Here's the thing, Mike: salmonella kills, bro. Do your research. He's right in one regard: these mandates are "a way to insulate the almond industry from lawsuits stemming from rare salmonella outbreaks that afflict a tiny number of consumers with compromised immune systems." (Ouch. Anyone else without a bullet-proof immune system feel a bit singled-out here?) Because, if one little kid, one senior citizen, let alone a panoply of "compromised" persons, were to get sick and die the almond industry as a whole would receive a media whiplash that would take years to recover from. Case in point: Spinach. When a particularly virulent salmonella outbreak was traced to spinach, media headlines read, to the effect of: Is Spinach Safe To Eat!

If consumers suspected almonds and other healthy foods of being E. coli vessels, those on the fence of eating well might opt for McDonalds, etc., not wanting to get sick. Saving the lives and lifestyles of "a few" people is certainly worth ensuring that many more switch to healthy dieting.

Not Harming, Just Not Helping

"[T]he industry believes that it’s better to harm everyone equally by making sure all almonds are pasteurized or irradiated"

Again, Mike, while I'm a fan of sticking it to The Man (well, nowadays, in such a bureaucracy, The Men), this is pushing it. While irradiation may in the future prove to be harmful--I, for one, don't use a microwave, for just such a reason--and pasteurising may diminish the full nutritional effect of raw almonds, it's not "harming everyone equally;" it's just not helping everyone get the full nutritional benefits of almonds. Raw-diet enthusiasts (and I'm an advocate, despite my sausage and potato dinner last night) will certainly see this as "killing" almonds (though the term is a bit too 70s-tree-hugger-ish for me) and they're not wrong: the heating process raises temperatures to a point that essentially begins to cook away the nutrients; indeed, raw almonds aren't technically raw. But they still hold a hellovalot of their nutritional value, no matter what the Raw opposition says. 

Thought This Would Be A Brief Post? Wrong.

The article is worth a read, though I can't say I agree with everything he vehemently claims. I agree that too much goes into the production process of our foods, but looking at the abundance of people in our country, let alone the world, it's seemingly impossible that small-farm methods could possibly feed a even a city. That's not to say that efforts should not be made, like signing the petition to cease FDA ties with corporate monsters such as Monsanto.

Also, as of yet, I don't entirely buy into the idea that leading world governments are purposefully devaluing the nutrition of food products as a means of shortening life spans in pursuit of a smaller population and a more economically feasible future wherein beach-front condominiums are cheaper. Government officials are too greedy; the process would take generations, and they would be long dead. I also don't think a speedier eradication process would be to force the populous "to watch endless reruns of televised speeches from President [George W.] Bush, [which] would drive countless voters to kill themselves far more quickly." I don't know about you, Mike, but nearly every sentence uttered by the former president has me rolling on the ground, LMFAO-ing (laughing my fucking ass off, that is). And laughing leads to longevity of life. An expunging government just wouldn't want that.

Famous Last Words

Read previous sentence.