Re: The Sad Death of a Raw Food
- From: Marshall Price <d021317c@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:10:41 -0500
Dave wrote:
Something like 85% of the almonds in the world are grown in the USA,
in Northern California.
Most of us who read and write about health subjects have touched on
the health benefits of almonds. It's a great food -- but one that
changes very dramatically, from good to bad, when heated. As Dr. Oz,
Oprah's favorite physician has said, they should not be roasted
because that can change the chemical composition of the almond oil,
making it unhealthy. Heating almonds also destroys other beneficial
nutrients. For those who are on a raw food diet, healthy almonds have
been a staple.
But now, buying almonds in the USA means that you are getting, by law,
pasteurized almonds. That's right, the government has outlawed its
first raw food. Any almond shipped in the USA has to be pasteurized,
according to new regulations passed in September. This means that the
almonds you buy will be heat-treated, or else chemically treated with
propylene oxide (PPO) a chemical that was once an ingredient in race
car fuel. PPO has been found to cause tumors in rats, but for some
reason the FDA considers it safe for human consumption.
These kinds of "safe for human consumption" things always amaze me.
Are you going to purposely ingest a component of race car fuel? No
way . . .
What we are left with is "treated" almonds, whether it is
pasteurization by heat or chemicals. Not a good prospect for a
delicious taste treat that once had been known as a substantially
healthy product. The jury is not out . . . more research needs to be
done on just exactly has been done to our favorite nut. But it
certainly doesn't bode well for a big, California industry.
Dave
Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/
I perused that article (at http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html ), and consider it very biased. The headline, "Food Scam: Almond Board of California to falsely label pasteurized almonds as 'raw,'" tells what they're upset about: contesting their definition of "raw."
The "raw foods community" goes too far, in my opinion, by considering 108 degrees Fahrenheit the upper limit for all "raw" foods. I have almonds in my back yard that get hotter than that sometimes; it doesn't affect them as far as I know.
They say, "Pasteurization...exposes foods to temperatures of *up to* 158 degrees for durations *up to* 30 minutes." (Emphasis mine.) I've been in saunas at 230 degrees; 158 degrees for half an hour is no problem. I always thought pasteurization was a *lot* hotter than 158.
They go on to say, "NaturalNews *does not know* the precise temperature that will be used for pasteurizing almonds." So clearly, it's the fact that 108 degrees will be exceeded ("without question") that has them upset. They group almonds with limes and avocados, apparently convinced that 108 degrees affects all food alike. The Almond Board of California, they say, threatens to deprive them of "our basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
(I won't go on, but NaturalNews does. For them, this is war!)
As the article stands now, it doesn't mention propylene oxide (PPO), but it's a tiny, three-carbon molecule (C3H6O). The passage above says "the FDA considers it safe for human consumption." That's absurd! /The Merck Index/ says, "Potential symptoms of overexposure are irritation of the eyes, skin and respiratory system; blistering and burns." "This substance is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." NIOSH lists it as hazardous. After all, it /is/ a fumigant!
But its boiling point, at 34 deg C, is lower than ordinary body temperature (37 deg C). If you *could* drink a glass of it (Shiver me timbers!), it would evaporate halfway down your throat. That must be why it was added to race car fuel: to make it more volatile. I suspect the reason it was proposed for fumigating almonds (assuming it was) is that it evaporates away quickly and thoroughly with minimal aftereffects. (NaturalNews says it would prefer using ozone, but ozone's oxidizing; PPO isn't.)
I doubt Mehmet Oz said what NaturalNews suggests he said; I don't think 108 degrees (warm for a bath; tepid for hand-washing) would freak him out. What we usually eat is sweet almonds, but under "bitter almonds" in the /Merck Index,/ I find "Caution: Cyanide poisoning from ingestion of burnt bitter almonds has been reported" -- and sweet almonds are closely related, from different varieties of the same species.
Perhaps what he had in mind was that roasting almonds carelessly in a dry pan could burn them, causing risky chemical changes. My bottle of sweet almond oil (imported from Italy) says, "Excellent in salad dressings, this rich, subtle oil [both!] goes very well with baked fish. It also enhances the flavor of cakes, cookies, and stir fries." It must have a low smoke point.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Coming soon: Anti-Microbial Food Coatings -- Is this a Good or Bad idea?
- Next by Date: The best cholesterol lowering diet?
- Previous by thread: Re: Coming soon: Anti-Microbial Food Coatings -- Is this a Good or Bad idea?
- Next by thread: The best cholesterol lowering diet?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
