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:
- The company’s tagline is “The True Natural.”
- The beef is sold at farmers’ markets as a “natural” beef. It’s also sold direct to restaurants and at gourmet grocery stores, including Dean & Deluca and Cronig’s Market on the East Coast, and Harvest Ranch Markets and Hows Markets on the West Coast.
- If you go to their website now, the first Flash photo you will see is of mountains of corn, with the words “Corn-fed for more than 365 days.”
- If you click on the “About” page of the company’s website, you’ll see a photo of the Brandt family, right in front of the pens they confine their cattle in.
- In the “Commitment to Sustainability” section of the site, you can read about how the farm grows hay to feed to the animals, how the animals’ waste is composted and how the farm makes an effort to create a pleasant and safe environment for local owls. The only line there about the cows is this one: “Brandt Beef maintains a “farm-to-fork” philosophy which involves raising its animals humanely and naturally without hormones or the use of antibiotics.”
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?
Jared Larkin says:
I have no problem eating male dairy cows, I think it is much preferable than something like the "culling" of male chicks that goes on during laying hen-breeding.
I also have mixed feelings regarding the feedlot / grazing argument. It is common to assume that feed animals prefer grazing because it is more like their "natural" environment. However when you look at a lot of domesticated animals, how do you make an argument that they even have a natural environment? These creatures have been modified through breeding to be incredibly different than their natural wild ancestors. While pigs can survive in the wild, most domesticated animals can not. Also, "free-range" and "anti-biotic free" are double edged swords; while the health of the animal may go up, things like infant mortality also sky-rocket.
I am not saying I truly think factory farming is the best thing for the domesticated animals of the U.S. , however I am saying that things are not as black and white as many people would like to believe. While it is understandable to rage against false advertising / misleading consumers, the true motivation behind the rage (aka the rights of the animal) may be mislead.
Amy Westervelt says:
Great comment Jared, thanks. As I was telling some of the TFT editors yesterday, I'm completely torn on this subject in terms of what is "right" or "wrong" from the sustainability and animal welfare points of view. I think the confinement thing is what seems most unnatural to me. Domesticated animals eat different things than they would in nature, sure, and in some cases I suppose you could say they're "confined" -- dogs and cats in small apartments and whatnot -- but those animals are also allowed to live out their natural lives and, for the most part, are pretty pampered. Anyway, all that aside, what it comes down to for me is giving consumers all the information and allowing them to really decide. Big Ag likes to say that factory farming is about giving consumers what they want - cheap food, large chicken breasts, etc. - but consumers aren't generally being given all the information about their food so any supposed consumer preference out there is false. In this case, like I wrote in the piece, Brandt could tell a good enough story about itself without going overboard pushing the whole "natural", "sustainable" and "humane" bit.
Andrew Spurgin says:
Dear Ms. Westervelt,
You refer to "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." However, you go on to say "A few facts, right out in the open on Brandt’s own site". So, amongst other elements of your piece, I find issue.
Have you visited the Brandt operation in Brawley, Ca.? I can tell you, having visited their property several times, it is NOTHING like the shameless feedlots of mass produced cattle. It is clean and well managed, there is no smell aside from that of the animals themselves. They grow their own alfalfa without using any pesticides (they use lady bugs), nor fertilizers. They compost the manure to fertilize their fields. The burrowing owls they support are a natural deterrent to vermin in the fields.
The quality of their beef is excellent. The animal husbandry I have witnessed is respectful and holds no issue for me.
Is it perfect? No, but what truly is? Is it a good choice, most certainly. Is it a LIE, I think that sensationalism sells newspapers, hence it being the first sentence of your article.
No I don't work for Brandt Beef, but I serve it because I believe in their product. The Brandt family cares and take great pride in their operation (as well they should), as for "Natural", or not, that is for the public to decide.
With respect,
Andrew Spurgin
Amy Westervelt says:
Thanks for your response, Andrew. The thing is, how many consumers will bother to go to Brandt's website to get the full story? That's where, in my opinion, the lie comes in. If beef is labeled natural and sustainable, and marketed as humanely raised, etc., consumers tend to take that at face value. And you're right, as I said in the piece, I think Brandt can certainly make claims to being better than an industrial ag feedlot. Their operation is clearly run far better, and they deserve credit for that. In fact, I think companies in the middle of the spectrum between CAFOs and organic need a way (perhaps a label) to identify themselves as such to consumers. But co-opting the labels used by people who are going yet another extra mile--allowing their cattle to graze, not confining them, etc. --isn't quite right either. Thanks again for your response!
Amy
Nicolette Hahn Niman says:
Thank you, Amy for this article, which brings this important issue to light. To make sure this is clear to the two people who commented already and to other readers: I have never suggested that there's anything wrong with male dairy calves being raised for beef. In fact, as long as there is a dairy industry there will be dairy steers and it's far better to raise them for beef than kill them shortly after birth (for "bob veal") or a few months later (for veal). The point is that it's breathtakingly misleading to refer to animals that were taken from their mothers within hours of birth, raised in confinement on MEDICATED veal formula (which is NOT milk, not even close), then put into a feedlot and raised until slaughter weight and then call their meat "NATURAL BEEF". There is absolutley nothing "natural" about that method of raising animals or the meat that comes from it. Go ahead and eat, go ahead and serve it, but don't think you're using "natural beef" and please don't tell your customers you are. That is the point.
Betty Fussell says:
What’s unusual about Brandt Beef is not its inflation of beef-industry jargon into gobbledygook---like hyping of “natural” into “true natural”---and redefining “sustainable” to mean using the whole animal. There’s nothing natural about their feedlots and nothing sustainable about their location. Brawley CA, site of Brandt Beef, is in the Imperial Valley, which is part of the Colorado Desert. This area gets about 2 ½” of rain per year, so it depends entirely on irrigation from the Colorado River.. The main reason that livestock industries are locating there is that dry areas are good for feedlots (less mud). And this particular dry place has a good labor pool (78% of the population is Hispanic since Imperial County adjoins the Mexican border).
The Brandt feedlot may be family owned but it’s not “ a small family farm.” It’s a middling size operation: 85,000 cattle raised on a total of 6000 acres. 180 head killed two days per week at Manning Beef processors in Pico Rivera near downtown LA. The cattle killed at 17 months (about a year and a half) after fattening intensively on corn (and hay, which also grows well under irrigation) for 390 days, with the last 300 days anti-biotic free. This distorts any common understanding of “natural” or “true natural” (which is like saying “really real”), but it is standard industrial marketing practice to use “natural” to mean “no hormones, no antibiotics” for a specified period of time.
Eric Brandt, who runs the place with his brother Mark and his dad Bill, was a cover boy for this year’s April issue of the industry’s trade mag Meating Place. The mag praises him for making “a great sales pitch to high-end chefs.” This he has done over the last 4 years and put a lot of money into it. What is unusual about his pitch is that he’s persuaded chefs that his Holsteins, a dairy breed, are as good for steaks as Angus, the beef industry’s standard breed of choice. Brandt can buy Holstein calves cheaper than Angus for obvious reasons. And with their intensified corn feeding they can produce an industrially consistent product, in which they aim for Prime and Choice.
The problem comes in the hype. The Brandt family claims that it is “dedicated to sustainable practices and is passionate about producing the most consistent, highest quality, 100 percent source verified natural beef on the market----unparalleled in taste, tenderness and consistency.” Whoa there. Hold that hype.
To skeptics, Brandt says, ‘For hundreds of thousands of years the market has been driven toward quality and corn-feeding and the marbling of the beef.” Historically this is nonsense. Feeding steers corn in feedlots for the purpose of marbling did not begin until the 1960s, and with feedlots began the use of antibiotics.
Worse, Brandt cites the Bible as ref: “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,” continues Brandt.
That fatted calf, I tell you right now, did not eat CORN because there was no corn (meaning maize) in Bible country, and there’s no evidence that Middle Easterners fed their cattle a high-protein diet of barley or wheat, either. Cows are born first to drink their mother’s milk and then graze on grass. Brandt’s calves do neither. .
Again, Brandt cites Japan as a ref for corn feeding: “I just got back from Japan and they’ve perfected the art of corn feeding.” Nope. Until the 19th century, beef was forbidden as a food in Japan because draught animals were too valuable. Since Japan had no space for pastures, when they did begin to eat beef, they confined the animals as rigidly as we confine veal in crates and they feed their Wagu breed on a high protein substitute for corn, including beer, because they lack cheap corn. Japan is no model for animal welfare.
But the main thrust of Brandt’s argument is about quality “and quality comes from grain-feeding,” Brandt says. This is pure industry speak. What corn does is put on FAT FAST. This is true. The industry then says that quality IS fat because fat IS flavor. This is NOT true. The fat between muscle (or marbling) conveys flavor but is not in or by itself the source of flavor. Marbling affects texture far more than flavor, which depends on a full array of elements just as the flavor of wine does. Flavor depends on breed, on ecology, on the way the calf is raised, on what it grazes on and for how long and how much it exercises and how long it takes to put on a weight appropriate to slaughter and how it’s treated before and after slaughter etc..
The question remains: Can you call something ‘natural’ and ‘humanely raised’ if it’s raised in confinement on a feedlot?” And the answer is NO. Not if you want those words to mean something other than market puffery. Chefs should take warning. Look at the way they’ve fallen for Creekstone’s PR, which advertises “natural” beef but is a mid-size industrial operation co-owned by Sun Capital Partners, an $8 billion business. For ruminants “natural” means grass-fed and finished, not corn-fed in confinement.
Some ranchers have taken warning. Bill Niman at Bolinas CA among them. He initially defined natural as “no hormones, no antibiotics,” but now with his animal-welfare advocate wife, Nicolette, has converted to grass-finished open-pasture methods. Another important convert from ag-school industrial animal science to full-pasture animal husbandry is Will Harris at www.whiteoakfarms.com in Georgia.
The proof is on the palate and I challenge anyone to a blind tasting before we discuss flavor and how it got that way.
Chris Kysar says:
Thank you for the article. It is my observation that in general the animal protein industry treats animal production more a s products and less as animals. The result of this perspective is that some producers use very creative marketing words and techniques to sell their products. Your article brings to light the conflict between consumer perception and ranch actual practices.
While I do own the nations only 100% third party certified organic service meat case I know that at this time this position is not a realistic position for most retailers or producers it would be a large step forward if operational disclosure would take an equal footing as the marketing position.
Thank you. Sincerely.
Chris Kysar,
California Organics
135 Argall Way
Nevada City, California 95959
530 265-9392
Amy Westervelt says:
Wow Betty, this is amazing. Thank you!
Jay Murray says:
Having purchased beef en masse from the Brandts for the past 9 years when Bill and Eric began their venture into what is now called Brandt Beef, I can tell you that Holstein protein simply tastes as good or better than any other breed of cattle. (I have always tried to convince people that protein = flavor). I certainly prefer it to meat from Angus and Angus crosses, which unquestionably yields better profits off the knife (because of skeletal structure and musculature). I know Bill Niman and Nicolette; I featured them at my restaurant for a Slow Food dinner years ago when I had wanted to switch our supplier to Niman Ranch exclusively. Unfortunately I am under a mandate to sell only USDA Prime beef here, and Bill couldn't meet the demand at the time, so my options were few. I can tell you that nearly all prime beef is feedlot beef; it doesn't matter what pretty label you put on it. So we can look at our "natural" beef USDA establishment numbers and check them against a database and see where our animals are feeding and being processed. And then we see that our XYZ Farms cattle are grain feeding at one Cargill lot, then getting packaged at a Cargill plant and shipped back to our Super Friendly All Natural Megamart with a picture of a nice barn on the package.
Look, Nicolette's and Betty's arguments are valid without question. And Betty Fussell's books are among my favorites. I agree that we'd be better off as a nation - and as a planet - if there was zero demand for higher grade beef. Grass-fed beef is much healthier for us and for our atmosphere, to say nothing of the malignancy of the grain commodity industry. That said, I can't possibly envision an America minus a demand for upper choice and prime beef. What I can do is try to find the best possible solution to an ugly issue. I can't switch to 100% pastured beef. I would go out of business. My competitors, on the other hand, who use only commodity boxed beef, would love that. What I can do is try to supply my customers and family beef from a single operation that raises steer as responsibly as it can. And what I can do is visit that operation to judge for myself, and I have. I cannot say that the cattle at the Brandt's were in any way mistreated. And while they're not in small groups over rolling meadows, the term "confinement" seems inappropriate. They were lively, social, and while I hesitate to anthropomorphize the animals, seemed really happy, for lack of a better term. I saw how the Brandts culled out any animals that needed medical treatment and sold them outside the natural program. I ate the cattle's feed. I saw an extremely clean farming operation. I took many photographs. My very vegetarian wife loved the "feedlot," commenting on how impressed she was with the Brandt's commitment to humane practices. I've visited other feedlots and they make my skin crawl, so I do feel qualified to make a distinction. In no way am I a chef deceived by the Brandt's marketing. I know the product I'm getting. I also know that many of the same chefs who have questions about Brandt Beef are also using XYZ Farms beef instead. I see it on their menus, and I think it's a bigger lie. Like you mentioned, Eric doesn't hide what they do. He's proud of it.
If anyone should take issue with the quality, contact Jeffrey Steingarten or America's Test Kitchen. They have both done blind beef tastings. Ask them what they preferred.
I'll admit the Bible reference was pretty stupid.
Jay Murray
Executive Chef, Grill 23 & Bar
Boston