These 2 notices came in from the Organic Consumers Association:

ALERT: FDA SEEKS TO REMOVE LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR IRRADIATED FOODS
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed new federal regulations that will allow manufacturers and retailers to sell controversial irradiated foods without labeling them, as previously required by law. Consumers are justifiably wary of foods bombarded with nuclear waste or powerful x-rays or gamma rays--since irradiation destroys essential vitamins and nutrients, creates unique radiolytic chemical compounds never before consumed by humans, and generates carcinogenic byproducts such as formaldehyde and benzene. Although irradiation, except for spices, is banned in much of the world, and prohibited globally in organic production, U.S. corporate agribusiness and the meat industry desperately want to be able to secretly "nuke" foods in order to reduce the deadly bacterial contamination that is now routine in industrial agriculture and meat production. OCA and other public interest groups have repeatedly pointed out that the best way to reduce or eliminate America's 78 million cases of food poisoning every year would be to clean up the nation's filthy slaughterhouses and feedlots, stop contaminated runoff from intensive confinement feedlots from polluting adjacent farms (as in the recent spinach e-coli outbreak), and to stop feeding animals slaughterhouse waste and manure. Instead, FDA and corporate agribusiness have apparently decided, with the backing of the nuclear power and weapons industry, to take away consumers' rights to know if their food has been irradiated or not.
Learn more and take action: http://www.organicconsumers.org/rd/irrad-label.cfm


And:

ALERT: FDA SAYS ALMONDS LABELED AS 'RAW' CAN ACTUALLY BE PASTEURIZED
Under pressure from industrial agriculture lobbyists, the FDA has quietly approved a new regulation that will effectively end distribution of raw almonds, while putting many family farmers out of business. The rule requires pasteurization of almonds, including organic, yet allows those same almonds to continue to be labeled as "raw". Nutritionists point out that raw, organic almonds are far superior, in terms of nutrition, than pasteurized almonds. One of the FDA-recommended pasteurization methods requires the use of propylene oxide, which is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is banned in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Organic and family-scale almond farmers are protesting the proposed rule, saying it will effectively put them out of business, since the minimum price for the pasteurization equipment is $500,000. The FDA claims pasteurization is necessary, since there have been two food contamination incidents with raw almonds since 2001. But both of these incidents, in fact, were the result of blatant mismanagement on large industrial-scale almond farms. Take action now to demand that the FDA re-open this proposed rule to public comments: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4859.cfm

I guess its time that the politicians and the FDA get another earful from all of us.

Oh crap. Pasteurizing almonds? This is ridiculous.

I agree.

Original quote from wd8izh - FDA SAYS ALMONDS LABELED AS 'RAW' CAN ACTUALLY BE PASTEURIZED

An update on how to irradiate and fumigate live food, not label it as so, and sell it as raw:

The Day the Raw Almonds Died in North America
September 1, 2007
http://www.naturalnews.com/022035.html

Almond Growers Sue USDA to Halt Mandatory Chemical Fumigation of Raw Almonds
September 10, 2008
http://www.naturalnews.com/024132.html

Almond growers suit dismissed - March 11, 2009
A federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit by California almond growers and handlers challenging a USDA regulation requiring pasteurization of raw almonds to reduce Salmonella contamination.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion holding that almond growers and retailers do not have a right to sue under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act because the regulation in question only applies to almond handlers. The almond handlers, the court said, had not exhausted administrative remedies, and the court therefore has no subject matter jurisidiction.

When this was first going on, I brought it up at my local food co-op and at Raisin Rack (similar to Whole Foods) and the managers were not aware of it.
Paul Turner