Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 13

 

Up until about 1970, kosher restaurants in the United States, and most other countries, were either 'self-supervised" or had a local rabbi pop in for a spot check, usually once a week. For canned and other packaged goods, the consumer relied on ingredients, especially as to the oil content. If it read "shortening", it meant lard. If it said "vegetable shortening", it was assumed to be kosher. The booklet to which I referred in my last post, slowly had the effect of educating that much more could go wrong with the ingredients besides oil, but also indoctrinated the public into believing that essentially nothing was kosher that didn't have a qualified rabbi carefully examining everything. Butcher shops, at that time, generally had a rabbi or Mashgiach (supervisor) make a weekly visit. From around 1970, that mostly vanished. Supervision was now understood to mean, especially in the case of meat, constant supervision. Those rabbis who were running "Kashrut Agencies" that didn't follow the new guidelines were mostly discredited. Actually, what kind of supervision is halachically required is a moot point. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations (OU), run by rabbis of the Rabbinical Council of America, the RCA (the same folks who, since the 1980s have accepted and promulgated the new and stricter conversion standards), jumped on the new and stricter standards of kashrut. Their Kashrut agencies, once tiny, now became a huge business, with influence on virtually every aspect of food production. What was positive about this, was that they set uniform standards. What was negative about this, was that they set uniform standards. On the positive side of the ledger, charlatans were largely put out of business. Also, since most people did not really understand the ingredient panel of products, there was now no need to worry. The OU on the packaging was all that was needed. The layman, who could not be expected to know that "suet" meant beef fat, would be able to rest assured. On the other hand, standards were set by their own board. Questionable areas, where rabbis disagree, were given a single answer. Local rabbis had their discretionary power taken away from them. Some areas, like cheese production (to be discussed in a later post), have rabbinic opinion stretching from one extreme to the other. For most Orthodox communities, the OU's answer became "THE" answer. More right-wing groups, however, were dissatisfied with the OUs standards, which they saw as too lax. The Satmar Rabbi was reported to have made a bilingual pun; "Der U? Nem you!" (The U? You take it!). Although other national Kashrut agencies have sprung up, none is as influential or powerful as the OU. However, as it is also a business; non-halachic considerations also take a part. Competitors need to be fought (again, like in the story of the restaurant in my last post). I choose not to elaborate. A major problem not just with the OU, but virtually all agencies (other than Satmar and a few others) is that there is an inherent conflict of interests when it comes to the Mashgichim. The way hechsherim (Kashrut certifications) work, is that a representative of the agency first visits the plant, and decides what, if anything, needs to be done to make it kosher. Once an understanding has been reached, a Mashgiach is assigned to the plant. The Mashgiach may or may not be a rabbi, but has been trained in what to look for. Although the agency takes a substantial fee (typically $40,000/year), the Mashgiach gets, in most cases, close to minimum wage. Furthermore, the Mashgiach is paid by the plant, not the agency. If he finds something improper and informs the agency, the plant manager can, and usually will, fire him. The agency will endeavor to place him in another plant, but that is not always possible. Every time a Mashgiach points out a problem, he must put his meager livelihood on the line. Some ultra-Orthodox agencies, on the other hand, pay their Mashgichim directly, thus avoiding this problem. (I was told by one of the top OU executives that if the Mashgichim were not paid by the plants, it would be "too difficult" to ensure the agency's reimbursement). Other conflicts of interest also exist. In the early '80s, the largest producer of poultry products in the U.S., Perdue, was in talks with the OU about becoming Kosher. This would have drastically lowered the exorbitant price of Kosher poultry. The major producer of Kosher poultry found out about this, and told the OU "We made you! For thirty years, we supported you, and essentially put you on the map. Now you're going to put us out of business, and set up a competitor?" The OU dropped the new project, citing a sense of loyalty to their long-standing client. But many consumers were outraged. "Is your loyalty to that manufacturer, or to the Kosher consumer?" The protests were to no avail. One man, adored by many, but hated by many more, especially in the establishment, has been a feared opponent of the Kashrut industry for over fifty years. In my opinion, he is the greatest halachic figure alive today. That will be my next post.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 12

 Trigger warning! I will now tell a horror story. If "The Godfather" was too difficult for you to watch, please skip this post.

The story begins about twenty years ago, in a community that had for many years followed a very liberal, albeit Orthodox, halachic line. In recent years, however, they began a "get tough" policy. Conversion policy, for example, that had essentially been "come Tuesday at three. By five you will be a Jew" now became extremely strict. This went even further in the area of Kashrut. The council of community rabbis agreed to a new policy. Anything in THEIR city without THEIR supervision would be declared non-Kosher. There was a restaurant in town. The owner was both devout and learned. Even the most pious members of the community freely ate there. One day, the rabbis came to him. "You need our supervision, or we will declare you non-kosher. " The proprietor said "I have been in business for many years. There isn't a Jew in this city who doesn't trust me. Why should I give you several tens of thousands of dollars a year for your supervision?" "Believe us; you need it". The man scoffed. A few days later, a large ad appeared in the local Jewish newspaper: "It has been determined that this restaurant can no longer be considered kosher". The man soon went out of business. He lost his livelihood, as well as the respect of the community. I soon heard this story, and could scarcely believe it was true. A relative of mine (I say this with deep shame), was a rabbi in that community. I asked him if the story was true. "Not only is it true, but I was on the committee that made that decision and went to speak with the owner". Seeing my jaw drop, he added "we HAD to do it. That was the only way we could get a unified kashrut policy". What I still don't know is, if the rabbis meant it; a unified policy was so vital that it didn't matter who was destroyed on the way? Or was it the income generated by the supervision "service" ($40,000/year for the agency; Mashgiach [kashrut supervisor] paid separately)? Most people think that "kosher" always means rabbinic supervision. This is pure fiction. What is clear from the Talmud, as well as legal codes is if the people preparing the food are not to be relied upon (e.g. people who themselves didn't keep kosher, or otherwise lacked credibility), a trustworthy person must supervise. Until the mid-1980s, rabbinic supervision was rare, with the exception of wine and meat, and in many places cheese (to be discussed in a later post). Canned and frozen fruit and vegetables, all kinds of packaged goods, were assumed to be kosher, unless a suspect item appeared on the ingredient panel. Everything began to change in the mid-1960s, taking over the Jewish community over the next two decades. Now, even bleach (which few sane people ingest) has supervision. A booklet appeared, put out by an Orthodox student group, under the auspices of a rabbi prominent in the kashrut industry. Through a series of half-truths, as well as downright lies, the booklet "Proved" that virtually nothing can be kosher without supervision. Various chemicals "might" be used in the manufacturing process which "might" be non-kosher (as discussed in my previous post) Machines "might" be dabbed with lard. The booklet even alleged that out of the five species of tuna, only two were kosher (false). If the ingredients read "100% pure vegetable oil", it could, and usually does, contain up to 4% animal oil (false). Any ingredient that is 2% or less of the total package, need not be listed (false. The actual number is two parts per million). The panic spread slowly, but spread it did. In the early '80s, I spoke to a Hungarian Hareidi rabbi of a community that was centered around a Yeshiva. I asked him if canned goods needed a Hechsher (kosher certification). He said "We tell the residents here to buy only with a hechsher. But for the Yeshiva, we get government surplus without a hechsher". The die was cast when Coor's Beer, which had been owned by an outspoken antisemite, applied for rabbinic supervision after the original owner's death. Sales skyrocketed. No other beer had supervision at that time, but had nevertheless been freely consumed. A rumor circulated (and was published in a Kashrut magazine) that some other beers were made from non-kosher wine (!!!!) Most companies then jumped on board. By 1990, nearly anything that could have a hechsher, did. This was a financial boon for the manufacturers, as well as the kashrut agencies. The kosher consumer, who had been disempowered by the false information, was now dependent on these agencies. In what ways was this actually good? How was it bad? (besides the reasons I have already stated), and is anyone fighting it? That will be the topic of my next post

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 11

 When is a part of a non-kosher animal kosher? When it is no longer food. It is clear in the Talmud that although a dead bug is not kosher, a bug that has turned to dust is of no consequence. We also find that the hooves and horns of non-kosher animals may be ingested, if there is no flesh attached. Presumably, these things were for some medicinal purposes, much as Traditional Chinese Medicine (a hobby of mine) uses these things even today. There is a question raised in the Talmud if earth needs to be considered a non-kosher substance, since it contains the remains of countless creatures. The ruling is that it is not a problem, as the creatures have long since decayed. This is all based on Deuteronomy 14:21, which tells us to give non-kosher meat to the GER (Toshav), or sell it to the pagan (Nochri, literally "stranger"), and he shall eat it. The implication is understood that one can only give it, or sell it, if it is edible. One may not eat any non kosher flesh, until it is no longer food. However, if non-kosher food should fall into kosher, if it is spoiled, or even if it does not taste good in that particular mixture, the kosher remains kosher. The non-kosher needs to be removed and discarded, but it has not contaminated anything else. This is called "Noten Taam LiFgam" (imparting a bad taste). So, you would not be able to eat pork, until it had essentially turned to dust. But if edible, yet bad-tasting pork fell into your soup, just take it out and throw it away. This may seem like a very unlikely scenario. But in modern times, this has become a major bone of contention (no pun intended). For example, what is gelatin? It can be made from many things, but usually from pig bones and calf skins. Yikes, isn't that non-kosher?!?! Not necessarily! In the U.S., most rabbis forbid it. In Israel, most rabbis permit it. Nearly all Sepharadic rabbis around the world permit it. How? What it is made from is not the end of the story! It is soaked in an acid bath until it becomes a colorless, tasteless powder. At that point, it is no longer food! Afterwards, other processes are done, which makes it again edible. Does this resurrect its non-kosher standing? The policy of the American Kashrut agencies is that it does. But if we check their references, we can see that they actually say "It's theoretically kosher, but better not to use it". This idea extends to a host of other food products and additives, that are made from non-kosher sources, but have undergone significant chemical changes. One would never guess where they come from! So, one controversy in the Kashrut field is the issue of a vastly altered non-kosher substance. Another issue is "how altered makes it vastly altered?" A good example is whey. When milk is broken down, with the solids separating from the liquid portions (remember Little Miss Muffet?), the liquid part is called whey. But another solid part can be extracted from the whey. This is known as whey powder. It tastes and smells like vomit. But, besides being flavored and sold to athletes and health food addicts as "protein powder", it plays a number of vital roles in the baking industry. Is it Kosher? Sure. But is it dairy, and hence forbidden to have with meat? Virtually all commercial bread has it. Is the final, disgusting powder still milk? These are the kinds of things rabbis love to fight over, and this remains a bone of contention. However, there are certain people who have much to gain by declaring all of these things to be problematic, or even forbidden. They are called the Kashrut Industry, That will be the topic of my next post.