Scandals That Shook The Nut Industry

Nuts are a healthy and tasty snack, with plenty of varieties to choose from. The terms nutty and earthy, in a culinary sense, are great descriptors of flavors that add depth and interest to a dish. Whether it's pine nuts, almonds, walnuts — you name it — nuts are a staple in the culinary industry and beloved snack food. Salty and crunchy, you can't really go wrong with a good assortment of nuts (as long as you're not allergic). 

Surprisingly, the nut industry is bountifully riddled with scandal, intrigue, drama, and shocking secrets. The minds and actions of some of the higher-ups have left society in a position to question their ethics and wonder if those that oversee our food production can be trusted. Unfortunately, it seems that, in many cases, companies have proven that they may not be as trustworthy as we would like to think. From contaminated products to sketchy business transactions, here are some of the most ridiculous and shocking scandals that shook the nut industry. Fair warning — they may make you think twice before buying your next jar.

Diamond Foods touts the name of a flawless gemstone that stands for pure and true love. Unfortunately, its business practices have not met such a noble standard. Diamond Foods is a notable American snack company recognized for its premium nut products, notably the Diamond of California walnuts. Established in the early 20th century, the company gained fame for its range of nut-based snacks and culinary offerings. In a later development, Snyder's-Lance acquired Diamond Foods, incorporating its renowned products into its lineup. The company's heritage is linked with superior nuts and inventive snack creations but is not without scandal and intrigue. Back in 2011, Diamond Foods fell under scrutiny for some questionable money transfers and payments. Questions emerged about clients, unusually quick business expansion, and reports of unusual payments to growers.

As is the case with many large corporations, it seems that Diamond Foods fell into the trap of securing large bonuses for executives at the cost of the workers on the ground. With the suspicious transfer of large sums of money at bizarre times for their grower schedule, Diamond Foods found itself the source of a lawsuit. The Securities and Exchange Commission ended up charging the company with an accounting scheme to make up walnut costs in order to achieve a larger payout for their higher-ups. Needless to say, word got out and caused quite a rift in business for Diamond Foods.

Brazil nuts are harvested from forests across the world, including Amazonian environments. Many parts of the Amazon forests are at high risk of deforestation, so there are multiple regulations and safeguards in place to ensure that deforestation is kept to a minimum, even with the harvesting and production of various products. The same rules apply to the harvesters of Brazil nuts, who are allowed a certain amount of timber processing per harvest. The scandal with Brazil nuts emerged when it was discovered that the nuts were an attempted cover to illegally take down more trees than they were allowed to.

Recent data indicated a concerning uptick in deforestation in Brazil, attributed partly to accelerated South American initiatives in utilizing the Amazon rainforest for extensive Brazil nut harvesting. This surge prompted questions about the effectiveness of Brazil's environmental safeguards in preserving the Amazonian biome in the face of mounting deforestation pressures. Specialized environmental prosecutors realized what was happening and quickly intervened. They found that while the individuals in question were permitted to take nuts from the particular forest areas, they were taking too much timber to warrant their extraction of Brazil nuts. In the end, they implicated 21 people, which unfortunately included several of the officials from the Department of Forestry and Wildlife of Tahuamanu. Those that were supposed to protect the Amazon forests ended up contributing to the destruction under the cover of Brazil nuts.

The St. Ives Apricot Scrub lawsuit revolved around allegations made by plaintiffs against Unilever, asserting two key points. First, the plaintiffs claimed that the inclusion of crushed walnut powder in the scrub led to skin damage in the form of tiny tears and rips from the rough inclusion of walnut fragments. The claim was that these micro-tears made skin more prone to infection and issues like irritation. Additionally, they contested the product's label claim of being non-comedogenic, suggesting that this assertion was inaccurate. The plaintiffs contended that the use of St. Ives as a facial exfoliant had the potential to cause lasting damage to the skin, outweighing any purported benefits.

While crushed walnut powder might seem innocuous due to its powder form, a dermatologist that was interviewed about the case suggested that finer walnut particles would lead to more powerful exfoliation. This perspective confirmed that potential over-exfoliation (aka, tears or rips in the skin) could, in fact, be attributed to the crushed walnut powder. Regarding the claim of non-comedogenicity, another consulted dermatologist clarified that products must undergo rigorous testing to earn the non-comedogenic label. Therefore, if a product advertises itself as non-comedogenic, it signifies that it has indeed passed such tests. While walnuts in your face wash may not have popped up as your first worry, apparently, it is another scandalous occurrence that has been known to occur.

Blue Diamond almond milk faced a scandal involving allegations that the product did not contain as many almonds as its packaging and marketing suggested. The lawsuit contended that the packaging's images of almonds and the phrase "made from real almonds" were misleading, leading customers to believe they were purchasing a predominantly almond-based product. The lawsuit argued that the deceptive packaging deceived consumers, who believed they were buying healthy, premium almond milk.

The lawsuit compared Blue Diamond almond milk's almond content to recipes for homemade almond milk, which typically call for a ratio of one part almonds to three or four parts water, resulting in approximately 25-33% almond content. The false advertising lawsuit alleged that Blue Diamond's product contained a meager 2% almonds, with the majority being water, oil, and other filler ingredients. While the lawsuit did not specify the exact percentage deemed acceptable, it highlighted the alleged disparity between customer expectations and the actual almond content. In response, Blue Diamond defended its product. They pointed out that similar ratios are observed in other milk alternatives like soy and almond milk. The company indicated that the issue wasn't unique to their brand and acknowledged that water is a prevalent ingredient in most popular beverages. In the end, Blue Diamond remained free and clear. The general consensus was that customers could easily expect and understand the need for the existing almond-to-liquid ratio. 

Britain's food supply network faced a significant crisis when authorities were called in to investigate an undisclosed use of nuts that could pose severe risks to individuals with allergies. This situation placed the UK's extensive nut and legume allergy sufferers in jeopardy. This time, concerns revolve around suspicions that cheaper peanuts and almonds were being covertly substituted for the more expensive cumin seeds in various dishes, all in an attempt to cut costs. Cumin, a staple ingredient in British cuisine, is widely employed to enhance flavor in diverse dishes, from soups to processed meals. Substituting it with allergenic peanuts or almonds can result in symptoms ranging from mild irritations to life-threatening situations.

If consumed by someone with allergies, both almonds and peanuts can lead to serious consequences, including cardiac arrest (from the Mayo Clinic). The Food Standards Agency (FSA) initiated an inquiry after instances of undeclared nut ingredients were discovered in products supposedly containing cumin. For instance, Morrisons' Fajita Meal Kit was recalled due to undeclared almond protein found in the "seasoning mix." While it remains uncertain whether this substitution was accidental or fraudulent, the potential risks have led to widespread concern. A new food crime unit was established by the FSA in response to the scandal and addressed the critical issue. Despite uncertainty about the extent and intention of this practice, the risk to public health remained a central concern.

The cashew production industry, a vital component of global agriculture, harbors concerning ethical issues. Presently, Nigeria, India, and Vietnam stand as the primary cashew nut producers, collectively contributing more than half of the world's supply. However, the lucrative nature of this industry is overshadowed by questionable labor practices and worker exploitation. The cashew production process involves arduous manual labor, particularly in the shelling process. In countries like India, over one million workers laboriously shell cashews by hand, each producing around 175 pounds of nuts daily.

Tragically, these workers lack the necessary protective equipment to shield them from the harmful caustic chemicals present in cashew shells, which cause painful skin conditions and respiratory issues (from Healthline). Moreover, the subsequent roasting process exacerbates health hazards by releasing further chemicals into the air, leading to breathing problems and chronic coughing for those exposed. The human rights aspect of the industry takes a dark turn in Vietnam, where citizens with drug addictions are forced into inhumane labor conditions. This exploitation extends to cashew workers who lack protective gear, endure chronic pain, and suffer from injuries related to contact with the fruit's corrosive properties.