Showing posts sorted by date for query agriprocessors. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query agriprocessors. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Latest Issue of Commentator

10:51 PM Gil Student


Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Rubashkin Latest

6:19 PM Gil Student

Iowa's attorney general filed criminal charges (for more than 9,000 violations of child labor law) against Agriprocessors and its owners, which prompted the OU to announce that they will withdraw their kosher certification unless new management is hired (JTA, Forward).

R. Menachem Genack reportedly said, ""Within the coming days, or lets say a week or two, we will suspend our supervision unless there's new management in place."


Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Buying Rubashkin VII

12:05 PM Gil Student

Letters to the NY Times in response to R. Shmuel Herzfeld's Op-Ed (link). Note that I am not reproducing all of the letters. Also, if you are sick of this topic then please skip the rest of this post.
Click here to read more
To the Editor:

We take strong issue with Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld’s suggestions that the Orthodox American rabbinate, including the Rabbinical Council of America, has been indifferent to the accusations against Agriprocessors. The council issued a lengthy public statement on June 3, expressing our concern about the allegations and calling for a full investigation of the facts.

Unlike Rabbi Herzfeld, we believe that no rabbinic body — expert or otherwise — can do a better investigation than the federal and state authorities now engaged in such a review of the legal, non-kashrut aspects of Agriprocessors’ operations.

We are indeed greatly concerned about the ethical implications of the allegations, but they are still allegations — unproved and unverified.

We believe that it is also unethical to rush to judgment and deny due process to Agriprocessors. Jewish law — and the norms of American justice — requires no less than that.

By all accounts, current operations at the plant are in substantial conformity with the law and all applicable regulatory statutes.

(Rabbi) Shlomo Hochberg
(Rabbi) Basil Herring
New York, Aug. 6, 2008

The writers are, respectively, president and executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America.
To the Editor:

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld discusses the troubling accusations that have been raised against Agriprocessors and questions the response of the Orthodox Union. We believe that the various social and ethical issues — such as workers’ rights and safety, protection of the environment and animal welfare — are significant and ultimately rooted in biblical and Jewish tradition.

We also believe, however, that the definition, assessment and enforcement of these standards are best placed in the hands of the governmental agencies that have the expertise, resources and regulatory authority to deal with them appropriately.

There are various investigations in progress at the federal and state level. Due process is something to which Agriprocessors is entitled and with which the Orthodox Union will not interfere. Upon completion of these investigations, the Orthodox Union will take swift and appropriate action as warranted.

Our reaction over the past several years has been to respond with alacrity even to allegations. We were responsible for calling in Temple Grandin, a veterinary authority, to visit the plant and recommend appropriate procedures for the treatment of animals. Recently, we insisted that Agriprocessors install a competent compliance officer, and it appointed James G. Martin, a former United States attorney.

For the company to continue to function, it must do so in total conformity to ethical standards and to civil and kosher law.

(Rabbi) Menachem Genack
Rabbinic Administrator and C.E.O.
Orthodox Union Kosher
New York, Aug. 6, 2008
To the Editor:

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld’s article suggests that the organization that certifies that meat is kosher would have to certify that Agriprocessors is in compliance with secular laws as well.

In my view, the job of rabbis is not to certify that food is healthy, or the workers are fairly paid, or that they can legally work in the place that employs them, or that the treatment of the animals is ethical or even that the laws of the United States are followed.

The job of the rabbis is to certify that the food is kosher — nothing more and nothing less. I trust the government of the United States to make proper decisions about the other matters.

Michael J. Broyde
Atlanta, Aug. 6, 2008

The writer, a law professor at Emory University, is the founding rabbi of the Young Israel Congregation in Atlanta.


Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Buying Rubashkin V

12:08 PM Gil Student

A letter I sent yesterday to Ha'aretz. I can't tell from its website if the letter was published:
To the editor of Haaretz,

Ari Hart and Shmuly Yanklowitz wrote about their efforts in response to an immigration raid on the Agriprocessors plant (Repairing A Sacred Relationship, Aug. 9), actions for which I commend them. However, I was troubled by their unnecessary and inaccurate mention of the Orthodox Union's failure to confront the owners on these issues. The facts are to the contrary. In response to these developments, the Orthodox Union forced management to replace its CEO and install an expert on compliance to prevent any future problems of the type of which the company is accused (for which Hart and Yanklowitz bizarrely take credit). However, the Orthodox Union is waiting for the conclusion of a federal investigation into the accusations before taking punitive action against the company. I believe that this faithfully represents the ethical requirements of Jewish law regarding someone accused of a crime – reserve judgment until an investigation is concluded but protect potential victims in case the allegations are true. In both American and Jewish law, those accused of a crime have the right to a trial before being judged guilty. The Orthodox Union seems to me to be responsibly balancing that right with the obligations it has to other parties.

Gil Student
Brooklyn, NY


Thursday, August 07, 2008

Buying Rubashkin III

10:52 PM Gil Student

Jewish newspapers are reporting on a rabbinic delegation that toured the Agriprocessors plant and, according to these reports, are declaring that there are no issues of concern there (5TJT, Jewish Press, JTA, Forward, Hamodia-PDF, Yated-PDF). If this is being reported properly, I'm simply at a loss. Perhaps what these rabbis meant was that, as of now, there has been insufficient investigation into the matter to justify refraining from buying Rubashkin meat. With my limited understanding, I agree (link).

But I can't fathom how anyone, especially someone with no training or experience, can take a quick tour and render judgment on the matter. It is simply mind-boggling. There are many reports and I haven't read each closely, but I don't recall seeing anything about the rabbis interviewing the accusers. Or about them consulting financial records, medical records, and police reports. Did they speak to anyone at the local emergency room or at OSHA? I'm no expert but don't these seem like things you should do before reaching a conclusion. Did they?

As I wrote before (link), it is a sign of wisdom to know what you don't know. I'm having trouble with this whole episode and the only way I can understand it is by believing that these rabbis were somehow misunderstood and/or misquoted.


Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Buying Rubashkin II

8:11 AM Gil Student

Following up on this post (link), R. Shmuel Herzfeld published an Op-Ed in today's NY Times (link), in which he called for the following:
What is needed is for the Orthodox Union to appoint an independent commission whose members have not in the past been paid by either the Orthodox Union or Agriprocessors. Such a commission would select a team of rabbinic experts to spend an extended period of time at the plant and then make suggestions and recommendations. This independent team would make sure the plant upholds basic standards of kashrut and worker and animal treatment - and that it is in full compliance with the laws of the United States.
Click here to read moreLet me get this straight. The OU and RCA are waiting for the conclusions of a criminal investigation by authorities who are trained and experienced in conducting such an investigation, and R. Herzfeld is faulting them for not appointing a panel of rabbis ("rabbinic experts") to investigate? Does he know any rabbis who are more qualified than federal investigators to conduct this inquiry? What he is essentially, perhaps unwittingly, calling for is the setting of a precedent in which we ignore the police and allow rabbis to investigate criminal matters on their own. To my knowledge, such an approach has not served our community well. A rabbi is not automatically an expert on everything. It is a sign of wisdom to know what you don't know. While R. Herzfeld seems to be calling for a progressive policy, he is actually calling for a regressive attitude. Let's learn from the past, for reasons that don't need repeating.

I appreciate the desire to use headline-outrage as a catalyst for change, but I don't see R. Herzfeld calling for any meaningful change. What is being done to determine at what point of criminal violations a factory or store loses its kosher supervision? How many violations of federal code will breech a limit? What obligation does a rabbinic supervisor have to report such violations to the secular authorities and will his becoming a reporter undermine his primary task of supervising kosher preparations? That is the discussion that we need to be having. However, it seems to me to be the kind of discussion that has to go on behind closed doors until a consensus is reached. I just don't know if anyone is talking about it. That seems like something we should be insisting upon.


Sunday, August 03, 2008

Buying Rubashkin

10:25 PM Gil Student

I was asked what the halakhic implications to the average Jewish consumer are of the accusations against Agriprocessors/Rubashkin. The first thing to say is that right now there are only accusations. There is a danger on many levels to reacting before investigations are completed, just as there is a danger to ignoring the allegations. Right now, it seems to me that our duty is to demand inquiries and refrain from any sort of change in buying behavior.

But if enough accusations are proven correct and it becomes clear that the kosher meat is produced through actions that constitute violations of Jewish law, then we are obligated to respond. If there are violations of kosher regulations, then the food is obviously rendered non-kosher and we may not eat it. It seems to me that this is unlikely, but as I wrote above we should not prejudge the case. If there are violations of business halakhah, then while the food is not non-kosher we may still not buy it.

Click here to read moreThe Gemara (Kiddushin 56b) uses the following analogy: It is not the mouse that causes theft but the hole in which the mouse stores its stolen wares. Without the hole, the mouse would not succeed in stealing. The Beis Yosef (Choshen Mishoat 256) cites this passage as the source for the ruling (Shulchan Arukh, ibid. 4) that one may not buy stolen goods. If thieves have no customers, they will not be able to successfully steal in the future.

The Gemara (Nedarim 22a) calls acting in this way -- i.e. implying there is nothing wrong with a sin -- supporting evildoers (machazik yedey overei aveirah). The Vilna Gaon (Bi'ur Ha-Gra, Choshen Mishpat 356:2) infers from this passage that by buying improperly sourced products, you are supporting their wrongdoings.

R. Hershel Schachter ("Dina Demalchusa Dina" in The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society I [1981] p. 115) offers a relevant practical example of this rule. He quotes R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik as saying that you are not allowed to buy from a store that does not charge sales tax. The owners of such a store are violating Jewish law by not paying sales tax. Therefore, you are not allowed to support their wrongdoing by buying from them. In a similar way, you are not allowed to buy from manufacturers who use sweatshops to produce their products (on sweatshops in Jewish law, see R. Aaron Levine, Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law, pp. 311-315).

If after the investigations are concluded it becomes clear that the practices of Agriprocessors/Rubashkin violate Jewish law and they refuse to change their behavior, then it seems to me -- unless I'm missing something, which is possible -- that we would not be allowed to buy their products. However, this is a matter on which everyone should consult with their own rabbi.

(Please note that the comments section of this blog is not the appropriate place to be discussing allegations against Agriprocessors.)


Tuesday, June 03, 2008

RCA Issues Statement re Agriprocessors

5:05 PM Gil Student

RCA Issues Statement re Agriprocessors

Regarding Recent Developments at Agriprocessors Meat Processing Plant in Postville, Iowa

Jun 3, 2008 -- The Rabbinical Council of America has been following recent developments taking place at the AgriProcessors kosher meat plant in Postville, Iowa. Like many others, both within and beyond the Jewish community, we have been concerned to determine the facts and the realities surrounding the many reports that have appeared in the print and online media, so as to respond appropriately, and responsibly.

Given the gravity of the allegations, and the potential impact on the Jewish community and kosher consumers, it would be inappropriate to rush to judgment before all relevant facts are clarified. It is important to keep in mind that to date conflicting reports have been issued, denials of improper behavior have been heard, and the recent events have occurred against a background of long-standing conflicts involving competing interest groups. Nonetheless it is important even at this time to clarify what in our view should be guiding principles in addressing this issue, once the facts will be known.

Click here to read moreRelevant Principles of Jewish Law

The Torah, Halacha, and our sacred tradition require that we show ethical sensitivity on many levels:
1. We are required to respect our fellow human beings, who must be treated with fairness and dignity at all times. This applies whether they be Jew or non-Jew, rich or poor, and for that legal or illegal immigrants.
2. Inseparable from the requirement of ethical treatment of our fellows is the requirement to not judge them prematurely, without knowledge of the facts, and without providing an opportunity to rebut allegations in appropriate fashion.
3. We are required to obey all of the laws and regulations of the land if promulgated lawfully, and enforced without discrimination, to adhere to them in letter as well as in spirit, whether or not we approve or make sense of them.
4. We must show sensitivity to needless animal suffering, preventing it where possible, and minimizing it when unavoidable. This is particularly true when it comes to practicing humane methods of animal slaughter, a matter of great concern to rabbis in every generation.
5. We must above all take every reasonable step to prevent the disgrace, even in appearance, of the Jewish people and the Torah. Thus even if an act is technically permitted, if it nonetheless brings discredit to us and our faith, be it in Jewish or non-Jews eyes, it must be avoided.

Public Interest Principles

The availability of reliably supervised kosher meat (as with other kosher food) at a reasonable cost to the consumer is essential to Jewish life (and indeed to many who are not Jewish.) This requires an appropriate understanding of current business models as well as the requirements of Jewish law in providing and supervising such products.

Without necessarily impugning the current motives of various parties involved in any given dispute, we must keep in mind lessons learned during the course of the long history of unwarranted attacks on kosher slaughter practices in Europe and elsewhere, carried out by groups with agendas of their own.

In this connection one can raise for consideration whether or not the laws of the land, in themselves entirely legal and proper, have been consistently enforced, or whether a particular group or company has been singled out for such enforcement or legal action.

The Proper Parameters of Kosher Food Supervision

There are some who have called on kosher supervising agencies to take responsibility for comprehensive supervision of all "ethical" aspects of the kosher food industry. They would have rabbis provide informed and reliable judgments regarding financial auditing, human resource department practices involving hiring, firing, promotion, workplace safety issues, treatment of animals, tax and financial compliance, compliance with immigration law, et al. In our view such expectations of kosher supervising agencies are unreasonable, impractical, and without merit. Kashrus agencies do not have the expertise, resources, or enforcement powers to adjudicate such matters.

Extending kosher supervision to the full gamut of business practices raises many difficult questions. For instance, do we want ethical certification of practices involved in the production and distribution anywhere in the world of clothing, appliances, and furniture? This type of certification requires very different skills, and a very different arena of activity, from that involved in kosher certification. It requires looking at the company's books, human resources practices, suppliers and distributors, all by experts in the field – at significant cost to the consumers who, even if such broad-ranging review is possible, will end up paying for such investigations.

On the other hand it is certainly appropriate for supervising agencies to incorporate into contractual agreements from the outset, an expectation of adherence to the principles outlined above. It is also appropriate that if improper practices are found to have occurred as a result of regulatory or other substantiated revelations, the kashrus agencies should review their relationship to the businesses involved. Such review should consider, and balance, all of the relevant factors, including
a. The nature, severity, and frequency of the infractions involved. Who was responsible for them – ownership, management, a failure in oversight by government or other supervisory agencies?
b. The likely impact on kosher consumers of continuation or discontinuation of supervision, including the availability and cost of the products in question.
c. The likelihood of continued improper activity by the company, versus its willingness to improve its record going forward in verifiable fashion.

The Rights and Responsibilities of Individual Consumers

Kosher consumers certainly should be free, at any time, to choose to purchase kosher products based on whatever halachic or ethical criteria they value. Some may choose to withhold their business even on the basis of rumor or media reports until such time as the facts emerge. That is their right.

At the same, in the absence of hard facts, they too should exercise appropriate restraint, and not rush to premature judgments that might unnecessarily imperil the availability or affordability of kosher products and services, or impute guilt where none, or little, exists.

They should also be wary of any group that would seek to exploit the kosher food industry, or any particular company, based on ulterior motives of an economic, philosophical, or even religious, nature. Here the principle of caveat emptor, in its broadest meaning, applies.

Conclusion

In the matter of recent allegations against Agriprocessors and its company policies, the RCA is certainly concerned at news reports published to date. But both Jewish Law (Halacha) and civil law require a presumption of innocence by all parties, including the concerned public, as well as an understanding of the broad implications involved on all sides, until the facts will have been clarified, especially in a case that is as complex as the one at hand.


Friday, May 23, 2008

Announcements #039: From Coca Cola to Postville

12:04 PM Gil Student

Current Issues in Kashrut... From Coca Cola to Postville

Rabbi Menachem Genack, National Rabbinic Administrator and CEO of the Orthodox Union's Dept. of Kashrut will describe what is involved in operating a kosher supervisory organization that certifies some 250 thousand products.

He will then address some current pressing issues in Kashrut supervision, including the Agriprocessors- Postville situation that has been in the news after an ICE raid of the Postville plant and the arrest of more than 300 allegedly illegal workers in what is reported to be the largest such raid of its kind for that agency, as well as suspicion of other plant irregularities.

A question and answer session will follow.

7:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 27
Weiss Auditorium - Jewish Center of Teaneck, 70 Sterling Place, Teaneck, NJ

For more information please call the Center office at: 201-833-0515




(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics and here for instructions on buying an announcement.)


Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Soft News Musings V

10:46 PM Gil Student

Top 36 Somethings
  • I can't figure out what this Jewish Week list of 36 people under the age of 36 is about, but I congratulate all of the winners, especially the two whom I know (Jewish Week). I was clearly disqualified because I will only be under 36 for a few more months.

    • The Kosher Business
  • The OU continues to certify as kosher meat produced at the Agriprocessors plant (link). This is a tough call. Revoking certification for reasons not directly related to the kosher status could cause serious damage to customers. The ensuing shortage will cause prices to rise and the people who will end up losing the most are the poor people who keep kosher and the marginally kosher who might opt for non-kosher rather than pay even higher prices. If the accusations impacted the kosher status of the meat then the OU would have no choice. But in this case, it's a tough call.

    • Click here to read moreReligious Books in Flames
  • The Deputy Mayor of the town Or Yehuda in Israel arranged for the burning of Christian Bibles that were given out by missionaries, and then afterwards apologized when he realized how bad it looked to the world (JPost). I think citizens should be allowed to burn holy books of another religion, even if I personally find it offensive. But public officials should not be involved. They represent the entire public and the government, and should not be offending any religion.

    • Politics and Morality
  • In an opinion piece in the Forward, Yehezkel Dror argues that the "the calculus of realpolitik gives primacy to existence, leaving limited room for ethical considerations" (Forward). The title of the essay is "When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals". I hope that the newspaper chose the title because I think that Dror would be extremely irresponsible for choosing such a misleading and misguided title.

    His point, if I understand it properly, is that Israel's existence has to come first and it overrides other considerations, such as protesting China's treatment of Tibet. However, while I think his argument is essentially correct, I believe that he overreaches. For example, when he states that "It is very likely that the collapse of Israel or the loss of its Jewish nature would undermine the existence of the Jewish people as a whole." I believe that the Jewish people will continue to exist regardless of the fate of the State of Israel. While its demise would be incredibly tragic and would eternally injure the Jewish people, it would not spell the end of the "Chosen People". However, that is irrelevant. Israel as a country must put its continued existence as its number one priority.

    Yet I still disagree with his conclusion mainly because I agree with his statement that this primacy "leav[es] limited room for ethical considerations". "Limited room", not "no room". We can never set aside our ethics due to our need to survive. Instead, we have to include that need within our ethical calculations, much like military ethics include such considerations. Just like a soldier does not automatically kill everyone on the battlefield because of his need to survive but instead balances the different priorities, the State of Israel must do so as well. There are times when the country can fulfill more than one of its ethical priorities and, when possible, it must. Is there really no way to create a relationship with China while still protesting its treatment of Tibet? Cannot the State of Israel act in support while stating its hesitations? Or allow individual citizens to protest while the government remains quiet? There are more ways to maintain a relationship than full support and full opposition. Perhaps Israel would do well to stake out a middle position, even if slightly to the middle, in order to accomplish its multiple ethical priorities.

    I think Dror accepts this in principle. He writes, "Responsible decisions in such difficult situations require clear recognition of the involved moral issues, careful pondering of all relevant values and acceptance of responsibility for one’s autonomous judgment. They also demand an effort to reduce to a minimum the violation of moral values." But then he proceeds to demand full compliance by Jewish leaders and organizations with Israel's full support of China and Turkey. Is there really no middle ground?


    • Thursday, December 30, 2004

    Shehitah Controversy V

    4:26 PM Gil Student


    Friday, December 17, 2004

    Shehitah Controversy IV

    1:05 AM Gil Student

    Questions about the (illegally produced) PETA videotape, after I did a bit of research and consulted with experts on the subject:

    The video shows a cow that continues to walk and wail (presumably in pain) even after its kosher slaughter.

    One questions whether:

    1) an animal whose windpipe has been cut, as is the case in kosher slaughter, can bellow to the extent shown in the video and

    2) a slaughtered cow can walk after both carotid arteries have been severed, as is the norm in kosher slaughter. After an animal's carotid arteries are severed, it loses balance and falls to the ground within seconds (8-10, after which it starts to involuntarily spasm). This animal did not.

    One can only conclude that the slaughter shown in the video is an aberration - an invalid slaughter that was subsequently declared non-kosher. Like all human beings, slaughterers sometimes make mistakes and kill the animals improperly or perhaps fail to initially kill the animal.

    If an animal is properly slaughtered it will react in the same way as a person whose jugular vein is cut, going into shock and feeling nothing. This has been verified by use of electroencephalograms. In that case, when shehitah is done properly, further cutting of the throat causes no additional pain because the animal is in shock and will fall to the ground within seconds. (I've been injured and in shock, and I vividly remember not feeling any pain at all and just touching my blood and looking at it. It took a good minute until I started to feel the pain.)

    The USDA classifies a slaughterhouse that maintains the percentage of improper slaughters below 5% as "good" and kosher slaughterhouses, because of the financial incentive to maintain the kosher status of the animals, are well below this 5% mark.

    PETA's use of this video to characterize all slaughtering by Agriprocessors is unfair and misleading. Before we accept the video as representative, we must investigate whether it shows the standard practice or merely an unfortunate mistake. So far, inspections by kosher certifying agencies and other knowledgable officials have deemed it an aberration. Therefore, the condemnation belongs not at the doorstep of Agriprocessors, for inhumanely slaughtering, but at the address of PETA, for misleading the public.


    Friday, December 10, 2004

    Shehitah Controversy III

    1:45 PM Gil Student

    The OU and Israeli Chief Rabbinate have issued statements declaring that Rubashkin slaughter is considered kosher shehitah. In other words, those homes and stores that have Rubashkin meat may still eat it and need not kasher all of their utensils. This is a significant statement.

    Shmarya is unsatisfied with this response. He writes:
    In Jewish law, the ends do not justify the means, and a technically correct shechita that regularly involves tzaar baalei hayyim both immediately before and immediately after the ritual slaughterer makes his cut should not be sold as kosher.
    This is incorrect. I challenge anyone to find a normative source in posekim that justifies such a statement. Perhaps, as a matter of policy, it would be proper to act that way. But that is public policy and, in our case, the public policy setters disagree with Shmarya's judgment.

    Shmarya continues:
    Kosher consumers, ask yourselves the following question: Can rabbis who disregard the laws of tzaar baalei hayyim/cruelty to animals be trusted for kosher supervision?
    Interestingly, the Gemara and Shulhan Arukh answer "yes" to this question. The general rule is that "mumar le-davar ehad eino mumar le-khol ha-Torah kulah," loosely: someone who violates one law of the Torah is not suspected of violating all of the laws of the Torah. There are exceptions, but tza'ar ba'alei hayim is not one of them.

    Furthermore, the OU announced that "the OU and AgriProcessors, Inc. have worked together to make certain changes, namely that the trachea will no longer be removed following shechita, and that any animals that appear to have survived the procedure will be promptly stunned or shot [and not sold as kosher]."

    Problem solved. Thank you PETA for bringing this to our attention.


    Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Favorites More