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.
Relevant 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.
10 Responses
A LONG ARTICLE TO WRITE NOTHING
Anyway you cut it ,it came out bad for Torah Jews.The RCA long rational piece is hot air.Agri says their not Guilty.The dont know whats going on at thier plant????????????? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!
#3 is right on the money, so to speak.
Processing animals K’Halacha (i.e. not simply Hilchos Kashrus) ncomes with a price tag. Treating employees and animals in accordance with Torah requirements does not come cheap, just as keeping Hilchos Kashrus does not.
If the true Halachic cost of a steak is $20 instead of the current $10, so be it (just as the $10 reflects a premium over Treif meat).
Is there some sort of Hefsed Merubah (Miut?) Heter with respect to Tzar Ba’alei Chaim or Chosen Mishpat of which I am unaware? Is there a Gemara that says that one may mistreat employees or animals in order to save a buck?
The RCA is not saying that it is acceptable to lie, cheat and steal. They are saying that if kashrus organizations have to hire lawyers to review human resources documents and accountants to go over the financial statements, those costs will be passed on to the consumer. Sure, a company is halachically prohibited from engaging in unlawful business practices. But is that the hechsher’s responsibility to make sure they don’t?
The issue the RCA is addressing goes beyond following the law, into the gray area of corporate ethics. There have been recent calls for “ethical kashrus” that would, for example, certify that farmers are paid fair wages for their crops, or that a restaurant is handicapped accessible. These are personal decisions which can properly be considered within the framework of halacha, but they are not mandated by halacha. Such extra-legal considerations divert attention from the essential halachos of kashrus, which is not unexpected considering that that the movement is driven by agendas that are sometimes antithetical to Torah-true Judaism.
If you want to buy a $20 steak from a free-range grass-fed cow, go for it. It will be tastier, healthier, better for the cow and better for the environment. But a $10 steak from a pen-raised corn-fed cow is still a kosher steak.
can someone please explain to me What does the hiring of hundreds of illegal workers have anything to do with animal suffering i.e. PETA…
thanks in advance
The RCA presented, I believe for the benefit of the tzibur, a well researched halachic analysis of the situation. The RCA are Rabbanim. Whether or not any particular rav is my rav, it is appreciated when a rav takes the time to present relevant halachic information. For what purpose? To help those of us who want to follow halacha and keep mitzvos clarify the issues – and if necessary, know how to ask an informed shaila to our own Rav.
Not everything is intended to be argumentative!
“b. The likely impact on kosher consumers of continuation or discontinuation of supervision, including the availability and cost of the products in question.”
It really bothers me that the “availability” of prducts is an issue in deciding kashrus concerns. As for cost, it seems to me they charge way more than they need to, even for a “higher” standard.
A well written, well articulated article with practically no content. Allow for this brief synopsis, “we do not know the real facts, so let’s just talk theory regarding possible outcomes of the accusations”.
As sophisticated as the RCA is attempting to sound, no halachic sources, or halachic content were actually discussed or quoted. Not bad for a thesis or an editorial, but hardly a halachic opinion.
It seems that the motive of this useless article is to reflect the higher and deeper understanding that the RCA has over the typical frum Jew. Unfortunately, it relays an elitist and condescending feeling.
Reality check. Nobody was waiting for, or anticipating their opinion. Their “Supreme Court” attitude is imaginary.
Additionally, it certainly is easy to speculate and criticize others. Can the RCA confidently say that the cleaning help in their office building was not performed by illegal immigrants?
ChanieE — Good, clear post.
Of course I wasn’t suggesting that the corn-fed feedlot steak is treif, just that it does not (certainly in the case at hand) reflect the breadth of Halachic issues affecting steak.
The fact that Violation A (hole in the lung) renders the meat Treif, while Violation B (unnecessary animal abuse or worker mistreatment) does not, in no way excuses the commission of Violation B.
That Violation A has steak-specific ramifications is a matter of Halachic practicality, not a reflection of the unimportance of Violation B.
I would disagree with your assertion that “extra-legal considerations divert attention from the essential halachos of kashrus” (and perhaps make the case for the reverse!).
It is news to me that Tzaar Baalei Chaim and the laws of Choshen Mishpat are “extra-legal,” even if they are often treated as such.
#13
don’t know where (or when) you grew up bur Rav Soloveitchik was THE posek for the RCA AND the OU while he was alive.
now you can re-write your post correctly.