10 Comments

  1. wow,our gov and their convenient “outbreaks” requiring immediate mandatory purchase and use of chemical industry toxins ,while it took them 40 years and the deaths of entire communities to figure out asbestos wasnt a real smart thing to make us breath.hundreds of thousands reporting immediate and permanent harm from smartmeters and absolute harm to all creatures with living cells immediately following deployment ,vaccines causing far more deaths and disabilities than the “outbreaks” they purport to protect from,mercury amalgam fillings causing mental illness and chronic crippling disease accross the board ,yet they can trace a salmonella “outbreak” from a california almond grower clear to canada and remedy the problem effective immediately with the “aid” of the petrol chemical industry …how convenient ,what “trustworthy ” and “brilliant science” we have not to mention and absolute efficient work in protecting life here …from local non corporate business …right?

    1. hmmm, add a pinch of Salmonella &CCO acts as a supercharger:’Propylene oxide has been found to be a direct-acting mutagen(i.e., it does not require metabolic activation) in Salmonella and Escherichia coli assays. ‘http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/89-111/ yikes! Not good news for the masses.

  2. RockyMtSpirit says:

    Ya know, I am totally pro-organic, and a mentally-ill pro-health believer, and I also drink Almond milk instead of “nasty-a**” modern cow’s milk.
    First of all, even though propylene oxide may be a nasty fumigant. there’s no way it can cause almonds to be contaminated by salmonella.
    This is totally two separate things.
    Sorry, but this report confuses instead of “enlightens”.

    1. the propylene oxide gas is used to prevent salmonella. this article never said it caused the contamination

    2. rick spalding says:

      reading comprehension is not your forte

  3. So, this is crappy news. What about almond milk? (The kind without carrageenan in it, of course)

  4. Does anyone know if almonds sold in the shell from the US are fumigated?

  5. The EPA has estimated that, if an individual were to be continuously exposed to propylene oxide at an average of 0.3 μg/m over his or her entire lifetime, that person would theoretically have no more than a one-in-a-million increased chance of developing cancer as a direct result. Only acute exposures are known to be a risk. If you live your live worrying about one in a million chances, you should never drive, walk or bicycle on a public road again….and you’ll starve.

    1. crosswind says:

      It’s 1 more RISK added to the Mixing bowl of Risks & toxins. Combined in total, as we accumulate toxins it’s NOT worth it. No Thanks. Some of us are finding via updated genetic tests no wonder we can’t detox very well. WE have to be careful. I’ll choose less risky foods. Heating it damages the fat too so it can oxidize too = inflammation.

  6. I don’t see any sources cited for this article. Am I missing them in all the ads or are they not listed? How can we verify this article is reputable if we can’t see your sources? I’d love to research this more if you could be so kind and post them. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *