There are nanoparticles used in over 1,000 everyday products and counting, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies . Three particles in particular are currently raising the most concern with regards to public health: nanosilver, titanium dioxide, and carbon nanotubes. The primary issue, as with nanotechnology in general, is not that these particles are inherently “bad” or should be banned from use full-stop, but that it would have been better to know far more about them before they were released into the world. Nonetheless, we’ve pulled together the information that is known about these three, what sorts of products they’re in, and their respective risks and benefits, in an effort to arm consumers with at least some knowledge. One caveat: With no labeling in place for nanomaterials, it can be difficult to determine whether a particular product does or doesn’t contain a given nanoparticle.

Because they are just smaller versions of existing particles, nanoparticles are not regulated as separate entities. In fact, according to Michael Vassar, a scientist and former collaborator for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, the term “nanoparticle” is more of a marketing ploy than anything else, essentially cooked up by scientists looking for research funding. “It’s not a question of ‘are nanoparticles dangerous?’,” he says. “But more, what is the size at which this or that particular particle becomes a risk to human health. Asbestos is a good example of that–it’s dangerous because at small sizes it grows fibers that can infiltrate the lungs. But no one talks about nano-asbestos.”

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnology (PEN) has done a great job compiling a database of products with manufacturer-specified nanomaterials; you can find that database here, or download the PEN’s new “FindNano” app on your iPhone.

We start our series with nanosilver, not because it’s more or less worth studying than the others, but because it’s in such a wide range of products, and because the EPA seems to be the most comfortable with it being in consumer goods.

Nanosilver and Human Health

Nanosilver is added to products from pesticides to toothpaste to kitchen equipment because of its antibacterial properties. A key-word search for “nanosilver” in the PEN database delivers over 200 products, ranging from razors to food storage containers to slippers to soaps, shampoos and toothpastes.

As Vassar points out, people have been ingesting silver for its antibacterial properties since the Middle Ages. “Chances are, it’s not terrible for you,” he says. Vassar adds that because nano-sized silver particles are inert and don’t tend to form long fibers, they are likely less of a health risk than particles that do form fibers, like asbestos or carbon nanotubes. “Still, it would be great to see a reliable study done on it, and to see some sort of government oversight and labeling. Unfortunately, I just can’t see that happening in the United States.”

In fact, some nanosilver proponents go beyond saying “it’s not terrible for you,” and claim that nanosilver could be a cure for viruses ranging from MRSA (the so-called “superbug” Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus) to HIV to cancer. In a study published in the Journal of Nanotechnology, scientists from the University of Texas at Austin and Mexico University Nuevo Leon found that silver nanoparticles one to 10 nanometers in size, when attached to HIV-1, prevented the virus from bonding to host cells. A study of nanosilver published in 2007 in International Immunopharmacology found that nanosilver particles can alter the production of immune signaling compounds known as cytokines. The authors’ conclusion: “These experimental data suggest that nano-silver could be used to treat immunologic and inflammatory diseases.”

That’s great if their use is very well-controlled, but opponents of nanosilver fear the consequences of poorly controlled use of nanosilver in medical settings. A number of studies released over the past two years have revealed that if it runs loose in the body, nanosilver can interfere with healthy cells, adversely affecting human immune systems. Christopher Perkins, a scientist at the University of Connecticut, began researching nanosilver’s effect on human cells when he learned that the particles were already used in various types of tubing used in hospitals. He found that at the 10nanometer or smaller size, the particles did in fact attack “bad” cells, but that they also increased the production of free radicals, which is not good. “You’ve got all of these free radicals that have to go somewhere,” he told Science News. “And they’re pretty nonspecific in what they target. Which means they’ll kill healthy cells as well as bacteria or other pathogens.”

Nanosilver and the Environment

In 2009, scientists began voicing concern that the volume of nanosilver unleashed on the world in the last few years could lead to negative impacts on ecosystems, including everything from degrading wetlands to causing fish kills. A new study by Bernd Nowack, published this month in Science, however, evaluated wastewater treatment plants and found that the wastewater treatment process converts potentially dangerous nanosilver into benign nano silver sulfide particles. He adds that more study is needed to determine how these particles behave in the environment, but concludes that, from an environmental standpoint, the use of silver nanoparticles in consumer products is no different from the use of silver in other forms.

The problem, according to Jennifer Sass at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), is that nanosilver isn’t simply replacing silver in various manufacturing applications, it’s being used for entirely new things. The environmental impact of increased silver–nano or otherwise–in groundwater and soil are as yet unknown, and should be better understood before more uses for nanosilver are found. Unfortunately, the pace of innovation in terms of using nanoparticles to make products better or to streamline manufacturing in some way far outstrips the pace of research and regulation.

Companies are now beginning to tread lightly around nanotechnology for fear of consumer backlash. Some are even specifically calling out nanotechnology, or particular nanoparticles, in their sustainability reports. In the 2010 Sustainability Report from Colgate, for example, there is an entire section on nanotechnology, in which the company states, “At the present time, Colgate does not use any such ingredients or materials in its products anywhere in the world, although from time to time it has such ingredients or materials under study.”

Regulation of Nanosilver

Scientists and environmentalists have been calling for better regulation of nanoparticles for at least the past five years. In 2007, the NRDC’s Sass authored a report outlining a three-part framework for regulating nanomaterials. Countless other organizations have released similar reports, including the National Research Council, which concluded in its 2008 report that 18 government agencies, including the EPA and the FDA, had failed to prove that nanoparticles were not dangerous, and thus shirked their duties in regards to protecting the American people. Also in 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment filed a legal petition with the EPA to halt the sale of consumer products containing nanosilver. At the time, Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, said: “Nanosilver and its use as a pesticide has got to be better regulated. It seems to be slipping under the radar.”

But in the United States at least, the cautions of the scientific community seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Or at least on broke and politically powerless ears. It’s not that as though the EPA is sitting around and doing nothing. In fact the agency is currently researching the big three nanoparticles, producing detailed case studies of each. The case study on nanosilver (as used in disinfectant sprays) was released August 18, 2010. The agency plans to host a public meeting to discuss its findings this month, and to refine its case study, releasing a final study in June.

The problem is that the agency is continuing to make regulatory decisions about nanosilver in the meantime, which seems like quite a dangerous example of putting the cart before the horse. Case in point: On August 12, 2010, six days before releasing its draft case study of nanosilver, the EPA announced its intention to conditionally register a pesticide product containing nanosilver. This would allow this product to be sold in the US for 4 years on the condition that the company provides data now lacking on toxicology, exposure, and environmental impacts.

According to Sass, in order to “conditionally register” a product, EPA must show three things:

In the case of nanosilver, she says, EPA has failed to meet these criteria, which is why the NRDC plans to sue the agency should it choose to proceed with the conditional registration.

In case the agency does move forward with its plan, and the lawsuit doesn’t go anywhere, scientists at Oregon State University and Ireland’s Centre for BioNano Interactions have published a list of recommendations for ensuring public safety if nanosilver-based pesticides are widely employed:

Although comprehensive and sensible, their recommendations are wildly optimistic in parts. It seems ludicrous to think that, while regulators have no problem opening the gates to nanoparticles, manufacturers will be extra careful as they include them in products, because we just don’t know what they do yet.

The post The Big Three Nanoparticles, Part One: Hi-Ho Nanosilver appeared first on The Faster Times.

Earlier this week the Natural Resources Defense Council’s resident nanotech expert, scientist Jennifer Sass, sent us off in 10 new directions for more information. The thing about nanomaterials, according to Sass, is that, like most things, they have the potential to be both beneficial and dangerous. “When anyone talks about nanotech, it’s usually in terms of a major scientific breakthrough or in a terrified, the sky is falling sort of way, and really neither is substantiated by the research that’s out there,” Sass says.

Friends of the Earth’s latest report is a prime example. While Sass calls the fundamental information contained within the report extremely well-researched and valuable, she says some of the general conclusions, particularly that using nanomaterials is more energy-intensive than it’s worth, just aren’t borne out by the research. “They also didn’t really talk about anything that’s remotely good news in the nanotech sphere,” Sass says, pointing to cleantech wunderkind A123 Systems as a prime example. The company uses nanomaterials to build its super-small and energy-efficient lithium batteries, which are used in everything from consumer electronics to electric vehicles.

“They’re building batteries for everything from watches up to hydroelectric dams, and they aren’t using all the toxic materials usually used in batteries,” Sass notes. “Also they’re scaled up and going–their batteries are being used all over the world. Friends of the Earth just sort of off-handedly mentioned them, and that to me is very one-sided reporting. It doesn’t empower the public to evaluate these things.”

According to every environment expert out there, more study is required to ensure that we effectively regulate nanomaterials. Unfortunately, in the meantime, thousands of them are in products that are already on the market.

“Regulators will tell you they have it under control but they don’t even have chemicals under control so they’re addressing nanomaterials within a system that’s already out of control just in terms of dealing with conventional, non-nano chemicals,” Sass says.

The first order of business for those looking to understand and then regulate nanomaterials should be the study of nanoparticles used in food products and packaging, followed closely by cosmetics and personal care products, according to Sass. You read correctly: food products.

A fascinating and frightening series by Pulitzer-prize-winning investigative journalist Andrew Schneider on AOL News (they are, in fact, still around) hints at how many nanoparticles may be in the U.S. food supply. The Food and Drug Administration, which does not regulate cosmetics or nutritional supplements, says no nano-containing food is sold in this country. But according to Schneider, some of the agency’s own risk assessors say that’s not true, pointing to growing evidence that the particles are already showing up on grocer’s shelves in a number of products. Meanwhile, a U.S. Department of Agriculture scientist who has first-hand knowledge of Latin American food packers told Schneider that the packers routinely dip U.S.-bound produce in a nanocoating to increase its shelf life. “We found no indication that the nanocoating, which is manufactured in Asia, has ever been tested for health effects,” the researcher says.

Nanocoating, eh? In addition to dipping foods in the stuff, large food product companies are excited at the prospect of nanocoatings for processing equipment. “Nanocoatings can be applied to machinery to inhibit bacteria growth, which means they need less cleaning,” Kathy Groves, project manager of microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research told FoodProductionDaily.com. “They do not kill bacteria but prevent the microorganisms from adhering to surfaces.”

In so doing, nanocoatings could not only cut down on maintenance and down-time at factories, but also reduce the need for cleaning detergents. Germany-based company Nanopool notes that sales of its nano-scale silicon dioxide liquid glass product to the food industry have picked up over the past year. “We already have a number of clients in the food industry such as McDonalds, as well as other major players in the biscuit, drinks, ready meals, meat and fish processing sectors,” Neil McClelland, a U.K.-based product manager for the company has said. “There have been barriers to the uptake of nanotechnology in the food industry – but we are seeing those barriers fall daily as people recognize the value and benefits of our product.”

Nanopool’s product contains no carbon nanotubes or nanosilver, the two nanoparticles most associated with heath risks, but that’s not to say that its environmental or health impacts are known or understood.

Nanocoatings are also popular in the food packaging realm, where antimicrobial materials such as nano titanium dioxide are prized for their ability to keep bacteria out and freshness in. Yum.

Know anything about nanomaterials in consumer products? Know someone who knows something? Leave a comment here, or email us at investigations@thefastertimes.com.

The post Tiny Particles in Your Food – The TFT Investigation Continues… appeared first on The Faster Times.

Okay, so maybe “How scary is nanotechnology?” is a leading question. The truth is, nanotechnology, like most things, is neither all bad nor all good.

But first of all, what is nanotechnology? It’s one of those catch-all terms that refers to an extremely broad branch of science in which physicists study and then attempt to control matter on an atomic or molecular scale. Generally nanotech involves dealing with structures that are 100 nanometers or smaller, and producing materials that are of a similar size. One of the most commonly used and studied structures, for example, is the carbon nanotube, a nano-sized cylindrical structure made from carbon molecules. Because of their structure, carbon nanotubes are extremely strong, and are great thermal conductors. Those two properties would be handy in materials for all sorts of things, from body armor to solar panels.

Nanoparticles have already been released into the world en masse. Nanosilver imbues many Americans’ socks with antimicrobial properties. Quantum dots and nanocrystals are found in all sorts of self-cleaning appliances. Nano-iron (also known as Zero Valent Iron) has been tested in remediation fluids at Superfund sites.

According to a 2008 survey by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (a partnership between the Woodrow Wilson Center at Princeton and Pew Charitable Trusts), products containing nanoparticles are already flooding the market, with more than 800 products on shelves today. This includes food packaging, disinfectants, and clothing with nanosilver; cosmetics and sunscreen with nano zinc oxide.

But you’re not likely to see “nanosilver” anywhere on those packages of tube socks at CostCo. Because nanosilver is not a new chemical or ingredient–it’s a smaller version of an existing, and already regulated, particle–there’s nothing that requires companies to list the inclusion of the chemical on their packaging.

Yep, that’s right. There is absolutely no regulation of nanoparticles. When I first read that fact, I thought it must be hyperbole. But, although there are (thankfully) plenty of researchers studying how nanoparticles behave, no one seems to regulate them. The EPA is allowed to regulate new commercial chemicals before they enter the market, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act most nanomaterials don’t qualify as new materials.

This doesn’t necessarily mean nanotechnology is bad. Nanoparticles could be used to do all sorts of good things, like making solar panels more efficient. Unfortunately, there are also legitimate concerns, and they all basically boil down to this: We just don’t know enough about how nano-sized particles will behave in the real world.

It is this lack of knowledge that sparked the latest TFT Investigation. We hope you find the topic as important as we do, because we need your help researching it. Have you read anything interesting about nanoparticles or nanotechnology lately? Send us links. Know anyone doing nanotechnology research? Introduce us, please! Discover a nanoparticle ingredient in a product? Let us know – we’ll add it to the chart we’re working on, which lists various common household items that contain nanoparticles.

I can’t stress enough that we’re not interested in just freaking out about nanotechnology: nanomaterials have a huge potential to solve some of our most pressing problems. Our interest is to educate ourselves and our readers about what’s out there and about the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology. All contributions welcome!

Okay, so maybe “How scary is nanotechnology?” is a leading question. The truth is, nanotechnology, like most things, is neither all bad nor all good.

But first of all, what is nanotechnology? NEED SHORT ANSWER

Nanoparticles have already been released into the world en masse. Nanosilver imbues many Americans’ socks with antimicrobial properties. Quantum dots and nanocrystals are found in all sorts of self-cleaning appliances. Nano-iron (also known as Zero Valent Iron) has been tested in remediation fluids at Superfund sites.

According to a 2008 survey by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (a partnership between the Woodrow Wilson Center at Princeton and Pew Charitable Trusts), products containing nanoparticles are already flooding the market, with more than 800 products on shelves today. This includes food packaging, disinfectants, and clothing with nanosilver; cosmetics and sunscreen with nano zinc oxide.

But you’re not likely to see “nanosilver” anywhere on those packages of tube socks at CostCo, though. Because nanosilver is not a new chemical or ingredient–it’s a smaller version of an existing, and already regulated, particle–there’s nothing that requires companies to list the inclusion of the chemical on their packaging.

Yep, that’s right. There is absolutely no regulation of nanoparticles. When I first read that fact, I thought it must be hyperbole. But, although there are (thankfully) plenty of researchers studying how nanoparticles behave, no one seems to regulate them. The EPA is allowed to regulate new commercial chemicals before they enter the market, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act most nanomaterials don’t qualify as new materials.

This doesn’t necessarily mean nanotechnology is bad. Nanoparticles could be used to do all sorts of good things, like making solar panels more efficient. Unfortunately, there are also legitimate concerns, and they all basically boil down to this: We just don’t know enough about how nano-sized particles will behave in the real world.

It is this lack of knowledge that sparked the latest TFT Investigation. We hope you find the topic as important as we do, because we need your help researching it. Have you read anything interesting about nanoparticles or nanotechnology lately? Send us links. Know anyone doing nanotechnology research? Introduce us, please! Discover a nanoparticle ingredient in a product? Let us know – we’ll add it to the chart we’re working on, which lists various common household items that contain nanoparticles.

I can’t stress enough that we’re not interested in just freaking out about nanotechnology: nanomaterials have a huge potential to solve some of our most pressing problems. Our interest is to educate ourselves and our readers about what’s out there and about the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology. All contributions welcome!

The post The New TFT Investigation: How Scary Is Nanotechnology? appeared first on The Faster Times.

The post Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies appeared first on The Faster Times.

“Despite claims that nanotechnology can limit climate change and promote energy efficiency, we’ve found that the use of nanotechnology actually comes at a large environmental cost,” said Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth U.S., a coauthor of the report. “Rather than substantively reducing our environmental footprint, it instead allows people to continue with ‘business as usual’ and avoid serious improvements in energy efficiency and behavioral changes.”

In essence the report accused the nanotechnology industry of greenwashing. While nanoparticles could be helpful in the advancement of renewable energy, they’re most often being used by the petrochemical industry to find more oil and create more chemicals. Moreover, any manufacturing process making use of nanoparticles requires a large amount of energy. So no matter what the result, the process itself is energy-intensive.

“Very few people have looked beyond the shiny promise of nanotechnology to try and understand how this far-reaching new technique is actually developing,” says 350.org founder Bill McKibben.

Above and beyond the energy costs associated with nanotechnology, the report delved further into public health risks and came out with some disturbing conclusions.

“Early research has shown that nanotubes – for use in electronics, specialty car parts and the like – can cause mesothelioma, the deadly cancer associated with asbestos exposure,” the report’s authors wrote.

They also found that, in addition to concerns over its toxicity to humans, nanosilver is fairly toxic to the environment. “The release of nanomaterials, particularly nanosilver, into the environment, drastically increases greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere,” according to the report.

The post Friends of the Earth on Nanotech: It’s No Friend of the Earth appeared first on The Faster Times.

Over the course of this investigation, we’ve uncovered a number of details about how the private-label food business works, not least of which is information about who makes what for which stores. We’re working on uncovering more information about Wal-Mart and CostCo, so please drop us a line at investigations@thefastertimes.com if you happen to know anything about how either of those stores sources food, or want to help us find out more.

In the meantime, we’ve put together a decent guide to Trader Joe’s products, pasted below. If any of you would like a pdf to print out at home, just email us and we’ll send you one. And of course, please feel free to leave a comment here or email us with any additions to the guide.

One bit of news: This morning reader Amy Carson wrote to give us a heads-up on a bit of Trader Joe’s trivia that’s very important for those on a raw food diet. Apparently, whether products in Trader Joe’s stores are labeled raw or not, they are pasteurized, which makes them off-limits for those on a raw food diet. This includes all of the stores’ nuts and its “raw” almond butter as well. In Trader Joe’s defense, this is probably part of an effort to protect itself from any liability incurred by people eating unpasteurized items, getting sick and then suing the store, but nonetheless the labeling should match the product. Amy pointed us to this site for more information.

(Please support this investigation and independent journalism by becoming a member of The Faster Times — and choose your gift.)

And now, the guide:

The post Trader Joe’s Shopping Guide – The TFT Reader Investigation Continues… appeared first on The Faster Times.

As our food systems have grown increasingly complex over the past 50-odd years, it has become more and more difficult for consumers to know where their food comes from and how it made its way from a farm to their table. Even if you’re buying directly from the farmer, there comes a point in time where the consumer simply has to trust that what the producer is telling them is true. The same goes for retailers, which have to assume that, for example, the dairy selling them certified organic milk is actually certified. Not every store can have its own team of food auditors out there ensuring that everything is as it appears to be. That job is supposed to belong to the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but both of those departments are understaffed and over-influenced by industrial agriculture.

That leaves the job of evaluating food claims essentially to consumers and consumer watchdog groups. Unfortunately, in many cases, consumers have to be food experts to decipher food labels, much less to find the information not printed on labels. In the case of milk and meat, however, there are tracking numbers that will give consumers at least a bit more information. The numbers have to be there in case of food recalls, but they also help give consumers a clearer picture of where their food comes from.

In a comment on our Trader Joe’s story, one reader shared the website Where Is My Milk From?, a great resource for tracking milk cartons back to their source. Just go to the site and type in the code stamped on your carton (see image below) – sometimes it is printed or stamped on the label, sometimes it’s stamped on the carton and sometimes it’s indented into the carton, but it’s always two numbers followed by either a dash or a space and then two to five other numbers. The first two number correspond to the state, and the following numbers correspond to the plant.

I punched in the numbers from a Whole Foods 365 organic milk carton and got California as the state (that makes sense, I live in California), but the plant number (187) was listed as invalid. Frankly, it was almost impossible to see the plant imprint on the carton (it was indented into the cardboard carton at the top, near the mouth), but I tried every permutation of that number and still came up with nothing. The Trader Joe’s-brand organic milk was much easier to trace. The number 06-691 was printed in clear black ink on the label. When I punched it in I got a map showing me the location: Clover Stornetta Farms in Petaluma, California. It’s a great dairy whose branded products I buy with confidence all the time–so that’s peace of mind on my milk purchase and a new item for our expanding list of Trader Joe’s items (I’ll post an updated version this week for those of you who want a copy).

Unfortunately, while many dairies process their own products, ranches do not typically process their own meat. Instead, carcasses are shipped to a processing plant where meat is cut (or ground) and packaged. To trace your meat packages, look for the little white USDA circle: It will say “U.S.” in bold and then “Inspected and passed by the Department of Agriculture,” followed by a bold “EST” and a number (see image below). That number corresponds to the packing house the meat came from. If you search on Google or Scribd, you’ll find the plant name, but you’ll need to contact the plant to find out where the meat actually came from and you’re not guaranteed answers.

As part of the TFT Reader Investigation, we have been trying to find out if any dairies are illegally selling converted organic cattle as organic beef (a dairy cow can be converted to organic over the course of three years, but to be certified organic beef, a cow has to be managed organically from its third trimester on). So far, we’ve managed to track Trader Joe’s private-label ground organic beef to a packing house in Southern California called Culver City Meats.

When I called and emailed to find out where the meat was coming from, I got the following answer, via email: “All of our cattle is raised in the USA 100% Angus mostly from the Midwest.”

I followed up to ask where their organic beef came from in particular and got no response. I’ve been following up, but if a few readers could join the effort, that might convince them to share more information. Following is information for the account executive I’ve been dealing with:

Melissa Permut Account Executive (323)973-4049 (direct line) (818) 917-9922 (cell)

melissap@gwtinc.com

While I’m waiting for Melissa to get back to me, I tracked a few other packages of Trader Joe’s 100% Grass Fed Organic Ground Beef back to Culver City Meat Company as well, so they seem to be the primary supplier for California stores at least. I also tracked Whole Foods grass fed organic ground beef to Panorama, which lists the following information on its site: “Panorama Organic Grass-Fed Beef™ cattle are raised by family ranchers in Northern California, Southern Washington, Southern Oregon and Wyoming on USDA Certified Organic pastures of natural grasses, legumes and range forage. Panorama’s beef is sold at Whole Foods Market stores throughout Northern California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Utah, and to independent retail grocers. We also sell direct to the consumer through Abundant Harvest Organics, an alliance of small family farmers in central California.”

The North American Organic Ground Beef I found at Costco I traced to Dakota Farms Natural Beef, one of the few ranching operations in the country that births, raises and processes its cattle all within its own facilities. But while the company uses no antibiotics or hormones, manages its land responsibly and plans to participate in the forthcoming Certified Humane labeling program, it has no information on its site about whether its cows are in confinement throughout their lives or not, or what the cattle are fed.

Next up: Wal-Mart. In the meantime, a free package of ground beef to the first five readers willing to either trace a package or help me pester Culver City Meat Company for information. Just post a comment here or send an email to investigations@thefastertimes.com.

Please support this and future investigations by becoming a member of The Faster Times today. You can join for as little $12 and you’ll receive at least $25 worth of gifts— plus the good feeling that comes with supporting a team of independent journalists who are trying to create a new model for the newspaper. (Sign up right away to make sure you’re on the list for our first members-only event.)

About TFT Reader Investigations: First we asked you to vote on the topic you wanted to investigate together with our reporter. It was a new experiment in journalism, which caught the attention of the Columbia Journalism Review. Now the voting is over and we have a winner: generic and private label foods. To track our progress, please check out the earlier installments of the investigation series.

We need your help. Tips can be sent to investigations@thefastertimes.com – And please sign up on The Faster Times e-mail list (see sign-up box to the right) to make sure that you receive updates on the investigation as it progresses.

The post Tracing Your Food: Farm to Table Is Not as Easy as It Sounds. The TFT Reader Investigation Continues… appeared first on The Faster Times.

Every once in awhile when I’m researching a story, I come across a lie told so openly no one suspects it to be anything but the truth. This one is a whopper. A company called Brandt Beef, which markets itself as “The True Natural,”and is the primary supplier to Dean & Deluca, supplying what the gourmet retailer describes as “high-quality sustainable beef,” operates what is pretty clearly a standard feedlot. Its corn-fed steers are male dairy calves, raised almost entirely in confinement … not exactly what springs to mind when you think of “natural, sustainable beef.”

If you’re a regular reader of this series, you know by now that a few weeks ago a reader referred us to an ace source in the meat industry, who we refer to as Beef Throat. When we spoke with him, Beef Throat referred us on to Nicolette Hahn Niman, wife of rancher Bill Niman and author of the book Righteous Porkchop. Although she’s a vegetarian herself, Niman is an outspoken advocate of sustainable meat production. We talked to her last week about private-label foods, and our ongoing investigation into whether or not some private-label organic dairies are illegally selling converted dairy cows as organic beef. But Niman also suggested we look into Brandt, a company she said chefs were always asking her about and which seemed to be operating in a pretty unnatural way for a company that marketed its beef as natural and sustainable.

We took her suggestion and contacted Brandt to get some more details about how their steers are raised. Managing partner Eric Brandt was happy to oblige and confirmed everything Niman had said. It’s a clear case of consumers just needing to look past marketing and labels a bit. Or of the FDA needing to enforce labeling laws that protect consumers, not companies.

First off, it’s important to point out that the label “natural” doesn’t really mean anything. On its website, the USDA defines the use of the term: “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and that is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product) may be labeled natural. The label must explain the use of the term natural (such as – no added colorings or artificial ingredients; minimally processed.)”

Last year the agency revised its rules on using “natural” or “naturally raised” on meat products, stating, ““Livestock used for producing meat and meat products have been raised entirely without growth promotants or antibiotics (except for ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control) and were never fed animal byproducts.”

Unfortunately, recommendations that Niman and many other sustainable ranchers made, encouraging the USDA to include such things as humane management and grazing to the term, fell on deaf ears.

Brandt, to its credit does not use antibiotics or hormones in the raising of its steers. “We do allow antibiotics when they’re babies; in their first three months they can get a therapeutic antibiotic if they get sick,” Brandt says. “We feel like it’s too early to not use antibiotics if they get sick. But for the next 18 months or whatever their lifespan is there’s no antibiotics.”

The company also only has steers and it knows where every one of them comes from. Brandt sells every part of its steers, and uses their waste as compost to grow the alfalfa the steers sometimes eat. It’s a family-run, independent business.

The thing is, up to that point, their story is pretty good. They can make some claims to sustainability, they’ve got the family-run business thing going, and they don’t use hormones or antibiotics. On the other hand, their steers are all male dairy calves that are taken from their mothers after a day or so and placed in a nursery where they’re fed artificial milk until they go to the Brandt feedlot and start eating corn. Were they not making a big point of marketing how sustainable and natural their meat is, that might not be such an issue, but that appears to be the company’s primary marketing strategy and it seems patently misleading to consumers.

A few facts, right out in the open on Brandt’s own site:

That last sentence is where the problems begin. For most people, raising a cow humanely does not correlate to keeping them in crowded confinement pens and never allowing them to graze. When I asked Brandt if his steers ever graze, his answer was simple and straightforward: “No, they’re on a feedlot.”

The odd thing is that Brandt has gotten so many people to buy its “natural” image without really making any effort to hide its practices.

The reason I’m especially annoyed about Brandt beef is that I’ve had chefs–more than three or four–who are committed to sustainable sourcing ask me what I think about Brandt,” Niman explains. “They were told either by distributors or by Brandt salespeople that this was this great natural beef that they should try, and they wanted to know if I had heard of it and what I thought. I was sitting on the Chef’s Collaborative national board for the past three years, and the organization’s mission is to encourage sustainable sourcing, so I was doing a lot of direct work with chefs, and I wanted to get them answers. The first thing I did was look at the website carefully and they acknowledge there that their stock is all male dairy cows grown in feedlots.

Brandt, however, is unapologetic about both the feedlot and the corn feeding.

For hundreds of thousands of years the market has been driven toward quality and corn-feeding and the marbling of the beef and now some people overdo it, yes, and they’ve used antibiotics to speed things up and are feeding to excessive levels, which isn’t healthy for the animal, and because of that it’s created a stigma, and in certain respects it’s not correct,” Brandt explains. “The industry has gone too far, but you can do it correctly – you can give them a balanced feed and not have to give them antibiotics their whole life. I just got back from Japan and they’ve perfected the art of corn feeding.

It’s about quality, and quality comes from grain-feeding,” Brandt continues. “I disagree with the argument that cattle are not meant to eat corn; if you put cows in a field of corn they’ll mow it down, because there’s nutrition there. It’s all a vegetarian diet. If you go to the Bible and read about the slaughter of a fatted calf–the fat one didn’t eat grass, I’ll tell you that right now.”

The corn question, while interesting, is somewhat irrelevant in this case. The bigger problem is: Can you call something “natural” and “humanely raised” if it’s raised in confinement on a feedlot?

The post How Natural Is that Dean & Deluca Beef? The TFT Reader Investigation Continues… appeared first on The Faster Times.

About TFT Reader Investigations: First we asked you to vote on the topic you wanted to investigate together with our reporter. It was a new experiment in journalism, which caught the attention of the Columbia Journalism Review. Now the voting is over and we have a winner: generic and private label foods. To track our progress, pleas check out the earlier installments of the investigation series.

We need your help. Tips can be sent to investigations@thefastertimes.com – And please sign up on The Faster Times e-mail list (see sign-up box to the right) to make sure that you receive updates on the investigation as it progresses.

Thanks to some truly amazing reader researchers, and a stroke of good luck, I got the chance last week to speak at length with Nicolette Hahn Niman, author of Righteous Porkchop and wife of sustainable rancher Bill Niman, about both private-label foods and our ongoing look at the organic ground beef conundrum.

First, a little background on Niman: She is a lawyer by trade, and she was the Senior Attorney for the environmental organization Waterkeeper Alliance, under Robert Kennedy, Jr., where she was in charge of the organization’s campaign to reform the concentrated livestock and poultry industry. Before that, she was an attorney for National Wildlife Federation. She’s also an author, and a blogger for HuffPo and The Atlantic. She has been a vegetarian for 20-odd years, but is nonetheless a tireless advocate for sustainable ranching. Through her decades of research, including the several years she has spent on a sustainable ranch in California, she says she has come to realize that animals are an integral part of sustainable farming, and that the idea that you can eat in such a way that no animals will be harmed in the production of your food is a myth.

Her views have made her controversial at times, but Niman tends not to voice an opinion unless it’s backed up by scientific research and buoyed by her own decades of work in the field. Plus, most people find it difficult to argue with a nearly lifelong vegetarian who is as committed as Niman is to promoting sustainable meat production. When I mentioned the whole dairy cows being sold as organic beef thing to her, she said she and her husband had just been discussing that very thing.

“The first thing people need to realize is that, for the most part, all dairy cows eventually become ground beef,” she says. “That’s something that vegetarians often don’t realize and don’t particularly like to think about. I myself didn’t realize it for a long time.”

At one point in the not so distant past, about half of the beef in the United States came from dairy cows, according to Niman. Then the dairy industry set about making dairy cows bigger–a lot bigger. Now, Niman says the amount a dairy cow produces has increased almost sevenfold in the last few decades. “What that means is we actually have fewer dairy cows and a lower proportion of dairy cows vs. beef cattle, but they’ve [dairy cows] always played a major role in beef production,” she explains.

But while Niman has known for some time that most dairy cows wind up as ground beef, she says she was unaware until recently that dairy cows in today’s organic milk industry are going into organic meat sales. “That’s something I just found out within the last year,” she says. “I’m not troubled by that if those are pasture-based dairies–I’ve been on quite a few and read about and seen photos of totally grass-fed dairies and those are excellent environments; the cows have a high quality of life and grass is a very natural diet for cattle.”

“I think to label the beef from those cows as organic is an okay thing to do because it meets consumer expectations for animal welfare and I also think it meets largely their expectations as far as food safety and health advantages when they’re buying organic,” Niman continues. “But, there have been a large number of organic dairy cows in the US that are living in confinement–for example, at the Aurora and Horizon dairies–where the operators had to let them outside in order to meet the National Organic Program’s pasture requirement, and they were just letting them out on dirt lots. The grazing time was zero or close to zero. So selling that beef to consumers as organic? I think that is misleading to customers and should not be permitted.”

Even with the pasture-raised example, I think most consumers would be surprised, so I think you could definitely say that that information should be available to consumers, but I don’t think it’s AS concerning as the idea of the confined dairy cows being sold as organic ground beef.

With regards to private-label foods in general, Niman says the problem is really information and quality assurance. “The Niman Ranch model is such that there’s a set group of farms they get meat from and they don’t get it from anywhere else and all of those farms have to follow certain standards,” she explains. “That’s a great approach stores could take. They could say something like ‘We only source from within 100 miles and here are the standards we demand.’ Consumers still have to rely on the store to enforce those standards, but I think it’s a strong system and I do think they’re kind of moving in that direction. I mean Whole Foods has put a lot of effort into drafting their humane standards, and I know Trader Joe’s is following standards for their sourcing as well.”

According to Niman, Trader Joe’s is probably more able than most stores to move in the direction of having standards and transparency because it’s part of their business model to have relatively few products on their shelves. “They do almost everything in private label. They had Niman Ranch do stuff and didn’t private label it because the brand has so much value, but there was a lot of discussion about that – they really wanted it to be private label, as much as they liked having the brand,” she says.

But while other TFT sources have said the store, like Wal-Mart and other retailers, often applies pressure on suppliers to lower their prices, Niman says her husband’s experience was not that at all. “What Bill found was that they were not constantly applying price pressure on them; they have ways that they reduce their costs in order to deliver lower prices, so it’s not about trying to nickel and dime their suppliers, in our experience.”

As for super private-label producers–companies that only do private-label items for stores, and about which it’s difficult for consumers to find any information at all–Niman says consumers should put the pressure on stores to tell them more. “I think it really boils down to the idea that consumers really need to do some homework and see what they can trust,” she says. “If it’s a store that people have faith in–and consumers should really think about that and ask themselves: Is this a store that demonstrates to consumers that it’s doing its homework? That it’s trying to be transparent, has animal and land stewardship standards in place, that sort of thing? If you can see a store is doing that, then I don’t think it’s necessarily problematic that a farm doesn’t have its own brand. But with a private label product, consumers should be asking, literally at the meat case or dairy counter, ‘How do you know this is organic?’”

Teaser: Niman also let us in on yet another beef scandal. We’re digging into it a bit more and plan to bring you the scoop this week.

Please support this and future investigations by becoming a member of The Faster Times today. You can join for as little $12 and you’ll receive at least $25 worth of gifts— plus the good feeling that comes with supporting a team of independent journalists who are trying to create a new model for the newspaper. (Sign up right away to make sure you’re on the list for our first members-only event.)

The post Nicolette Hahn Niman on Private Label Food and Organic Beef – The TFT Reader Investigation Continues… appeared first on The Faster Times.

About TFT Reader Investigations: First we asked you to vote on the topic you wanted to investigate together with our reporter. It was a new experiment in journalism, which caught the attention of the Columbia Journalism Review. Now the voting is over and we have a winner: generic and private label foods. To track our progress, pleas check out the earlier installments of the investigation series.

We need your help. Tips can be sent to investigations@thefastertimes.com – And please sign up on The Faster Times e-mail list (see sign-up box to the right) to make sure that you receive updates on the investigation as it progresses.

This weekend I tested out a suggestion from a reader-recommended source, about how to trace where private label meat comes from. On every package of meat, the USDA places a code that can be traced back to the source of the product. Unfortunately, in the case of private-label products, the code only gives you the location of the packing house, not the origin of the meat. Nonetheless, it’s a good first step in trying to figure out a question we raised in an earlier investigation post: Are organic dairies illegally pawning off old dairy cows as certified organic ground beef?

Our source is extremely knowledgeable about the meat industry, but since he’s still very much professionally involved, he prefers to remain anonymous. Which gives me no choice but to give him the best off-the-record, anonymous source name in the history of reporting: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Beef Throat.

“We know that every dairy is always going to sell their meat,” Beef Throat tells us. “And we know they just went through a large culling process in the organic milk business due to a dip in organic milk prices.”

But did those culled organic dairy cows — some of which could never qualify for organic meat status because they were not born organic — end up in your “organic” dinner?

Mark Kastel, of the watchdog group The Cornucopia Institute, has told us that if we can figure out which organic milk dairies are selling organic ground beef, he’ll be able to tell us whether they’re doing so illegally.

So, our next goal is to find out which organic dairies are selling organic meat. And Beef Throat has some good advice: “Every package of meat in the country needs to have a USDA bug on it, and from that you can trace precisely where any meat is coming from – you can gather who the manufacturer/processer is,” Beef Throat explains. “But then it’s the next part that’s tricky – where they’re sourcing it. There are traders in the middle and there’s so much inscrutiny there.”

“I think if you call up the packing houses, though, they might be inclined to tell you, especially if they know that if they don’t you’re going to write ‘I traced this beef to this packing house, but they wouldn’t tell me where they got it from,’” Beef Throat says.

As a first step, we’re buying and tracking packs of ground organic beef and tracing the USDA bug on the package – it’s a little decal at the bottom of any meat product, and we’re hoping you can help as well.

Once you’ve got the number, just go to Google or Scribd and type in USDA# and then the number. I tried it on a package of Trader Joe’s brand organic grass-fed beef and found it came from Culver City Meat Company, which is affiliated with Golden West Trading Company. My next step is to call them up to see if I can get them to tell me where their organic beef comes from.

So there you have it. I’ll be making a call to Culver City Meat Company this week and will report back on what I can find. In the meantime, I’ll also be tracing other packages of meat, and I hope you’ll give it a shot as well and share your findings.

(As a side note, it’s not just organic dairies that are selling off their older cows as ground beef. According to Beef Throat, the majority of ground beef on the market comes from dairies – “definitely at McDonalds and those sorts of places,” he says.)

Please support this and future investigations by becoming a member of The Faster Times today. You can join for as little $12 and you’ll receive at least $25 worth of gifts— plus the good feeling that comes with supporting a team of independent journalists who are trying to create a new model for the newspaper. (Sign up right away to make sure you’re on the list for our first members-only event.)

The post Introducing Beef Throat – The TFT Reader Investigation Continues… appeared first on The Faster Times.