• The primary risk in the almond flour market is allergen adulteration, particularly with peanut powder, which can cause severe allergic reactions; approximately 150,000 Americans are affected annually, highlighting the need for stringent allergen testing protocols.
• Climate change is increasing supply volatility and commodity prices, with reports of up to 80% year-over-year price spikes in related agricultural products, which may incentivize economic adulteration and complicate quality assurance efforts.
• Microbial contamination, especially from Salmonella and mycotoxins like aflatoxin, poses significant health risks and regulatory challenges; compliance with U.S. limits (20 ppb total aflatoxins) is critical for market access.
• Implementing a tiered testing strategy that combines non-targeted spectroscopic methods with targeted allergen and mycotoxin assays is essential to mitigate risks and ensure product safety in an increasingly volatile market.

Risks & External Shocks

Almond flour risks and external shocks: An evidence-based assessment and risk management plan

Executive summary

In my assessment, the most material public‑health risk in the almond flour value chain is allergen adulteration with peanut, which can be life‑threatening even at trace levels; the most pervasive quality and safety risks are microbial contamination (notably Salmonella in a low‑moisture matrix) and mycotoxins (aflatoxin) governed by stringent regulatory limits; and the most consequential external shock shaping these risks is climate change–driven water stress and extreme weather, which elevate supply volatility, prices, and incentives for economically motivated adulteration. A modern assurance strategy should combine supplier controls with multi-tier analytics: (1) targeted assays for allergens and aflatoxins to protect consumers and regulatory compliance, and (2) non‑targeted spectroscopic surveillance (NIR/SWIR chemometrics and one‑class models) for rapid, wide‑net screening, supported by incident‑driven escalation. Newer portable NIR instruments can achieve high sensitivity/specificity for adulteration above roughly 5% w/w, while benchtop and hyperspectral methods improve coverage; however, because life‑threatening allergenic hazards can occur below those levels, non‑targeted tools should complement—not replace—targeted testing. External shocks from climate change and transport disruptions are already increasing commodity price spikes and volatility across food systems, plausibly heightening adulteration incentives and stressing safety systems; almond supply, heavily reliant on irrigation in California, is particularly exposed. Practical mitigation includes upstream climate risk monitoring, adaptive sourcing, and early‑warning analytics integrated with quality management.

1. Context and scope

Almond flour (ground almond kernels) is widely used in premium, gluten‑free, and keto‑positioned products. Its high unit value and powder form make it attractive for economic adulteration with cheaper nut powders of similar texture and color. Two adulterants recur in the scientific literature and enforcement cases: apricot kernel powder (reduces value/nutrition) and peanut powder (introduces a severe allergen hazard). Spectroscopic non‑targeted methods combined with chemometrics have matured rapidly for authenticity screening, while targeted methods remain essential for allergen/mycotoxin compliance. In parallel, climate and supply‑chain shocks are reshaping commodity risk profiles, contributing to volatility that can drive fraud incentives and safety lapses. This report integrates these threads to propose an actionable, evidence‑based risk management approach for almond flour stakeholders (Non‑Targeted Detection…, 2020; Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).

2. Material risk categories for almond flour

2.1 Adulteration and allergen cross‑contamination

• Economic adulteration targets: Apricot kernel powder (similar color/texture; cheaper) and peanut powder (cheaper; similar composition). Although apricot adulteration primarily dilutes nutritional value, peanut adulteration poses life‑threatening risks to allergic consumers (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020; Non‑Targeted Detection…, 2020).
• Prevalence context: An estimated 22% of foods are adulterated globally each year—powdered foods are especially vulnerable because visual detection is difficult (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).
• Health impact: Peanut allergy can induce anaphylaxis; older statistics cited in the literature estimate ~150,000 Americans affected annually and approximately 100 deaths per year from peanut allergy, and the prevalence has reportedly doubled over five years in Europe and the U.S. Recent UK incidents linked fatal outcomes to peanut-adulterated sauces marketed as peanut‑free—illustrating real‑world stakes when allergens infiltrate supply chains (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).
• Case relevance: In an enforcement case, a manufacturer supplied ground peanuts instead of pure almond powder to a restaurant wholesaler in the UK and was fined €18,000, highlighting supply chain vulnerability and liability exposure (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).

2.2 Microbial hazards in low‑moisture foods

• Pathogens of concern: Low‑moisture foods such as nuts can harbor Salmonella and Listeria. Process and environment contamination can persist through the chain, necessitating rigorous hygiene and lethality steps where applicable (Hort Innovation—Managing Food Safety Risks in Almonds, 2017).
• Environmental growth conditions: Salmonella spp. can grow between ~5.2–46.2°C (optimum ~35–43°C); Aspergillus flavus (a mycotoxin‑producing fungus) grows ~10–38°C (optimum ~32–33°C). These conditions can occur in orchards, soils, and production environments, underscoring the need for moisture control and good agricultural/manufacturing practices (Hort Innovation—Managing Food Safety Risks in Almonds, 2017).

2.3 Mycotoxins (aflatoxins)

• Hazard and regulation: Aflatoxin is a potent human liver carcinogen. The U.S. limit is 20 ppb total aflatoxins in foods; EU limits for ready‑to‑eat almonds are 10 ppb total and 8 ppb for aflatoxin B1. Meeting these standards requires vigilant orchard hygiene, sorting, and testing because fungal contamination can originate pre‑harvest and persist post‑harvest (American Society of Baking—Almond Flour, n.d.).

2.4 Chemical and quality risks

• Oxidative rancidity and moisture: Almond flour’s high oil content increases susceptibility to oxidation; maintaining recommended moisture (typically ~5–7%) and appropriate packaging/storage reduces rancidity and microbial risk (American Society of Baking—Almond Flour, n.d.).
• Process variability: Reference materials from NIST note that almond flour composition varies with source and pretreatments (defatting, roasting, blanching), and further processing (baking/frying) alters composition; analytical methods and specifications should account for such variability (NIST RM 8404 SDS, 2021).

3. External shocks shaping the risk landscape

3.1 Climate change and water stress: direct risks to almond supply

• Water scarcity and geographic shifts: IPCC AR6 reports increasing drought frequency and limited irrigation access as emerging constraints. California almond orchards have already seen tree removals due to water scarcity; while warming may expand potential geographic range, realized production is constrained by water and extreme events. The combined effect elevates supply risk and cost volatility for almond products, including flour (IPCC, 2022, Chapter 5).
• Transport and multi‑hazard exposure: Flooding risks to road/rail infrastructure are projected to increase, disrupting domestic and international transport of agricultural commodities—a critical consideration for almond export logistics and “just‑in‑time” inventories (IPCC, 2022, Chapter 5).

3.2 Price spikes and volatility: fraud incentives and operational strain

• System‑wide price shocks: Trade publications report substantial climate‑linked short‑term price spikes across commodities in 2022–2025, including an 80% YoY increase in vegetable prices in California/Arizona after hot summers and water shortages, and a 50% increase in European olive oil prices after prolonged drought. Such shocks indicate the magnitude of volatility faced by food manufacturers and the potential financial pressure that can drive adulteration in high‑value ingredients like almond flour (SupplyChainBrain, 2025). Similarly, extreme weather and shifting growing regions are reshaping exports, tightening volumes, and stressing manufacturers to adapt rapidly (FoodNavigator, 2025).
• Mechanism linking shocks to food fraud: When prices rise and supply is tight, economically motivated adulteration historically increases, as with the widely cited melamine adulteration in baby milk (fatalities/illnesses) and colored agents in paprika (hospitalizations). Almond flour’s powder form and high price make it susceptible under similar conditions (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).

3.3 Operational impacts

• Food safety systems under strain: Climate‑driven variability (e.g., heat, humidity, floods) increases the complexity of maintaining strict environmental controls, storage conditions, and transport integrity needed to minimize Salmonella, Listeria, and mycotoxin risks, potentially raising non‑conformance rates when resources are stretched (IPCC, 2022, Chapter 5).

4. Detection and assurance technologies: state of the science

Non‑targeted spectroscopic tools have emerged as fast, minimally destructive screens for authenticity that can operate at‑line or in‑line. These are particularly valuable for broad surveillance and triage, with confirmatory targeted tests for critical hazards.

4.1 Benchtop spectroscopy and chemometrics

• FT‑IR and NIR with multivariate models (e.g., PCA, SIMCA, OCPLS, PLSR) can separate authentic vs. adulterated almond powder non‑targetedly; such workflows can flag anomalous samples without prior knowledge of a specific adulterant identity—useful when fraudsters change tactics (Non‑Targeted Detection…, 2020).

4.2 Hyperspectral shortwave infrared (SWIR) imaging with one‑class classification

• Hyperspectral SWIR captures both spatial and spectral features, improving the ability to detect heterogeneity and low‑level admixtures. One‑class classification (OCC) methods model “authentic” almond only, flagging deviations as suspect—ideal for open‑world problems where adulterants are unknown a priori (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).
• Relevance to allergens: While OCC can flag anomalies consistent with peanut or apricot adulteration, it does not quantify allergenic proteins or guarantee detection at trace levels that matter clinically. Therefore, OCC/SWIR is a screening tier; targeted allergen tests remain mandatory for consumer protection (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).

4.3 Portable NIR devices: performance for almond flour adulteration

• A 2023 review reports that three portable NIR devices, benchmarked against a benchtop FT‑NIR, achieved 100% sensitivity and >95% specificity for classification when adulterant levels exceeded 5% w/w in 54 adulterated almond flour samples; PLS regression models achieved R² > 0.90 and RMSEP 3.2–4.8% for estimating purity. This indicates field‑deployable tools can robustly screen for moderate‑level adulteration in real supply contexts (Frontiers Review—Miniaturized NIR & Chemometrics, 2023).
• Practical takeaway: Portable NIR is valuable for supplier intake checks and in‑process surveillance to reduce the window of exposure. However, because allergen safety requires detection at much lower levels than 5%, portable NIR screening must be paired with targeted allergen testing (e.g., ELISA, LC‑MS) on a risk‑based schedule (Frontiers Review—Miniaturized NIR & Chemometrics, 2023).

4.4 Targeted assays for critical hazards

• Allergen detection: ELISA and LC‑MS methods targeting peanut proteins provide sensitive detection at trace levels relevant to anaphylaxis risk; they should be applied routinely where cross‑contact risk exists or where non‑targeted anomalies are flagged (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).
• Aflatoxin testing: HPLC‑FLD/LC‑MS or validated rapid test kits can ensure compliance with U.S. (20 ppb) and EU (8–10 ppb) limits for RTE almonds and derivative products (American Society of Baking—Almond Flour, n.d.).

5. Risk register and controls

The table below summarizes key risks, their impacts, drivers, and practical controls.

6. Assurance architecture: how to integrate tools effectively

• Tiered testing strategy

  • Tier 1 (screening, high frequency): Portable NIR on receipt and in‑process to flag anomalies; OCC/SIMCA models trained on authentic almond to minimize false negatives for out‑of‑spec matrices. Targets: >95% specificity and near‑perfect sensitivity for adulteration ≥5% w/w per published performance benchmarks (Frontiers Review, 2023).
  • Tier 2 (targeted, risk‑based frequency): ELISA/LC‑MS for peanut proteins and HPLC/LC‑MS for aflatoxins, with sampling plans weighted by supplier risk, price volatility, and screening anomalies (ASB—Almond Flour, n.d.; Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).
  • Tier 3 (forensics/escalation): Hyperspectral SWIR imaging to localize adulterant particles and support root cause analysis; confirmatory multi‑method testing when non‑targeted results indicate issues (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).

• Supplier and process controls

  • Tighten ASL criteria under external shocks: drought years, flood‑affected geographies, or transport disruption periods should trigger enhanced testing and more conservative sourcing (e.g., fewer brokers, more direct growers) (IPCC, 2022, Chapter 5).
  • Contractual requirements: allergen control plans, dedicated lines or validated cleaning for nut processors, traceable batch‑level CoAs for aflatoxin and allergen absence as applicable.
  • Environmental monitoring and lethality validation for Salmonella in nut processing; maintain moisture within recommended ranges and avoid wet conditions that encourage microbial growth (Hort Innovation, 2017).

• Data and early‑warning

  • Integrate commodity climate and price signals into the quality risk register. The 2022–2025 period demonstrates how extreme weather can drive rapid price spikes and supply unpredictability; linking procurement dashboards to QC escalation rules can proactively increase sampling during high‑risk windows (SupplyChainBrain, 2025; FoodNavigator, 2025).
  • Periodically re‑train chemometric models on current harvests to maintain detection power as composition drifts with geography/season (NIST RM 8404 SDS, 2021).

7. My considered opinion: prioritization and investment

• Priority 1: Protect against allergen risk with targeted assays. Even the best non‑targeted spectroscopic tools currently demonstrate strong performance mostly above ~5% w/w adulteration. This is not sufficient for life‑threatening peanut allergens that can harm at trace levels. I recommend routine peanut ELISA/LC‑MS testing for all high‑risk lots (new suppliers, price spikes, spec anomalies), plus any lot flagged by non‑targeted screens. Reliance on non‑targeted tools alone would be a critical gap (Frontiers Review, 2023; Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).
• Priority 2: Maintain strict mycotoxin compliance despite climate variability. Heat and drought can increase aflatoxin risks. Enforce orchard and post‑harvest best practices through supplier audits and require lot‑level aflatoxin results aligned with U.S./EU thresholds. This protects brand and legal exposure (American Society of Baking—Almond Flour, n.d.; IPCC, 2022, Chapter 5).
• Priority 3: Deploy portable NIR/OCC screening ubiquitously. Given their speed and minimal sample prep, portable NIR devices materially reduce exposure time to adulterated or off‑spec lots. The literature‑reported 100% sensitivity and >95% specificity for >5% adulterants is fit‑for‑purpose for broad surveillance, cost‑effectively narrowing what requires expensive targeted testing (Frontiers Review, 2023).
• Priority 4: Integrate climate and logistics risk into QA planning. As extreme weather and transport disruptions increase, align procurement with QA—e.g., adaptive sampling plans keyed to real‑time climate/price indices. This anticipatory stance is more effective than reactive testing after incidents (SupplyChainBrain, 2025; FoodNavigator, 2025; IPCC, 2022, Chapter 5).
• Priority 5: Strengthen allergen management across facilities. Where multiple nuts are processed, invest in dedicated equipment or validated clean‑in‑place regimes, allergen mapping, and verification swabs. Given the severity of peanut in almond flour, prevention is superior to detection for cross‑contact control (Hyperspectral SWIR One‑Class Classification, 2020).

8. Conclusion

Almond flour’s risk profile reflects both its intrinsic characteristics (nutrient‑dense, oily, low‑moisture matrix) and extrinsic pressures (price/value, powder form vulnerability, and climate‑driven supply shocks). The highest‑severity hazard is peanut adulteration or cross‑contact, which requires targeted allergen testing and stringent allergen management. Aflatoxin compliance remains non‑negotiable under tightening climate constraints, necessitating vigilant supplier programs. Non‑targeted spectroscopic methods—bolstered by recent advances in portable NIR and hyperspectral SWIR with one‑class chemometrics—offer a powerful surveillance net for economic adulteration and specification drift. However, they should be deployed as part of a layered assurance architecture, not as a substitute for targeted tests where human health is at stake. External shocks from climate change and transport disruptions are no longer hypothetical; they are demonstrably reshaping commodity markets, amplifying the importance of adaptive, data‑informed QA strategies. With disciplined execution of supplier governance, tiered analytics, and climate‑aware procurement, manufacturers can materially reduce risk while preserving the quality and authenticity that define almond‑based products.

References

• American Society of Baking. (n.d.). Almond Flour. American Society of Baking. https://asbe.org/article/almond-flour/
• FoodNavigator. (2025, July 28). Extreme weather reshaping global food supply. FoodNavigator. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/07/28/extreme-weather-reshaping-global-food-supply/
• Frontiers. (2023). Miniaturized NIR spectroscopy and chemometrics: A smart combination to solve food authentication challenges. Frontiers in Analytical Science. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/analytical-science/articles/10.3389/frans.2023.1118590/full
• Hort Innovation. (2017, April). Managing food safety risks in almonds. Horticulture Innovation Australia. https://www.horticulture.com.au/globalassets/hort-innovation/resource-assets/al16001-managing-food-safety-risks.pdf
• IPCC. (2022). Chapter 5: Food, Fibre and Other Ecosystem Products. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (AR6 WGII). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-5/
• NIST. (2021, November 23). RM 8404: Almond Flour for Allergen Detection—Safety Data Sheet. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://tsapps.nist.gov/srmext/msds/8404-MSDS.pdf
• Non‑Targeted Detection of Adulterants in Almond Powder Using Spectroscopic Techniques Combined with Chemometrics. (2020). National Library of Medicine (PMC). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7404781/
• SupplyChainBrain. (2025, July 23). Climate Crisis Drives Global Spike in Food Prices. SupplyChainBrain. https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/42202-climate-crisis-drives-global-spike-in-food-prices
• Hyperspectral Shortwave Infrared Image Analysis for Detection of Adulterants in Almond Powder with One‑Class Classification Method. (2020). National Library of Medicine (PMC). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7589775/

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main risks associated with almond flour production?

The primary risks include allergen adulteration, particularly with peanut powder, which poses severe health threats even at trace levels. Additionally, microbial contamination, especially from Salmonella, and mycotoxins like aflatoxin are significant concerns, governed by strict regulatory limits.

How does climate change impact the almond flour market?

Climate change leads to increased water stress and extreme weather events, which elevate supply volatility and prices. For instance, California almond orchards have already experienced tree removals due to water scarcity, indicating a direct risk to almond supply.

What is the prevalence of food adulteration in almond flour?

Globally, an estimated 22% of foods are adulterated each year, with powdered foods like almond flour being particularly vulnerable due to the difficulty of visual detection. This highlights the need for robust testing and quality assurance measures.

What are the regulatory limits for aflatoxin in almond flour?

In the U.S., the regulatory limit for total aflatoxins in foods is 20 ppb, while the EU imposes stricter limits of 10 ppb for ready-to-eat almonds and 8 ppb for aflatoxin B1. Compliance with these limits is crucial to mitigate health risks and legal liabilities.

How can businesses mitigate the risks of allergen contamination?

Implementing a robust allergen management plan is essential, including the use of targeted assays like ELISA for peanut proteins. Routine testing, especially for high-risk lots, can help ensure consumer safety and regulatory compliance.

What role does economic pressure play in food fraud related to almond flour?

Economic pressure, particularly during price spikes and supply shortages, can increase the likelihood of economically motivated adulteration. Historical data shows that when prices rise, the incidence of food fraud tends to increase, making vigilance crucial for manufacturers.

How can businesses effectively monitor and manage these risks?

Businesses should adopt a tiered testing strategy that combines non-targeted screening methods, like portable NIR devices, with targeted assays for critical hazards. Integrating climate and price signals into quality risk management can also enhance proactive measures against supply chain disruptions.