273354 Sun Jul 25 21:47:46 -0700 2004 31 28 Kosher 0 1438460 As a secular Jew, I have always wondered what the controversy is over Hebrew National products. Care to enlighten me? Mr. Taster Sun Jul 25 21:47:46 -0700 2004 0 Mr. Taster 1 1438462 The issue is mostly centered on the fact that H/N is not "glatt"...notwithstanding other possible issues. Below is a link to a pretty good synopsis of glatt and some of the issues involved in this matter. Link: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/glatt/ Sun Jul 25 23:00:18 -0700 2004 1438460 0 Eric 2 1438469 I thank you very much for that research into star-K. HOwever, I have an opinion about that. What about the people who DO eat ONLY Glatt Kosher and are not 100% up to date on the hechsherim. Those people are going to go and now buy Hebrew National hot dogs. That is the bad side to the story. It sounds great that the Star-K puts their certification on the hot dogs because Jews will now be eating kosher, but still it should clearly say on the label that the hot dogs are not glatt koshe Mon Jul 26 10:55:31 -0700 2004 1438462 0 chaim 3 1438470 Glatt meat usually, if not always, says that it's Glatt. HN does not say that. A hechsher implies kashrus, not glatt, imo. Mon Jul 26 11:05:07 -0700 2004 1438469 0 DeisCane 4 1438485 I hope no one finds this offensive and I apologise if I have broken into a thread where the keeping of kosher is not the main topic. I was born into a nominal Church of England family but I am now (aged 61) a devout atheist. I have read this section of CH for some time and have started to develop some questions (not all well formed). What are the religious/spiritual consequences if someone accidentally eats non-kosher food? Why are so many adults paying organisations (some of which they seem to mistrust) to tell them what they may - or may not - eat? Bob Moffatt Mon Jul 26 16:23:45 -0700 2004 1438470 0 Bob Moffatt 5 1438486 All very interesting and legitimate questions. I too am agnostic with heavy atheist leanings, but was born Jewish (was bar mitzvah'd), and I work for the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, and am familiar with the culture and practice (though I am hardly an expert). my father is Orthodox and so my perspective on kosher food may be a little different from those you would find from those practicing Orthodox Judaism. Your first question re: "what happens if..." addresses one of the most fundamental differences between Christianity and Judaism... Judaism is not obsessed with the "today's sin = tomorrow consequences" philosophy that is so ingrained in Christianty. Judaism is basically a philosophy of socialism, of communities growing and working together, and the higher goal of every Jewish law serves to keep the community together in some capacity. The dietary laws are a major way in which people can identify themselves as being a distinct people, as being different from others, as being God's chosen ones. The more practical/less spiritual view is that this plays on the basic human psychology of the group mentality, which is that when all your neighbors are doing something (like keeping kosher), it does not seem so strange. It is a way of keeping the outsiders out. So to get back to your main question, people don't keep kosher because they are afraid of the consequences. Quite the opposite, it is part of their identity as passed down from 5000 years of tradition. Plus, it's much easier to do when you live in a community where all your neighbors are doing it. Also, many orthodox Jews find the thought of non-kosher food repulsive/unclean (mixing milk and meat/eating pork etc.) As for your second question, the agencies that provide kosher certification symbols exist precisely for the reasons stated above. A kosher diet is much different psychologically from a weight-loss or even a medically required diet (low salt, for example). The psychology behind Jewish faith is extremely powerful and reinforced by community and tradition. Mr. Taster Mon Jul 26 17:34:04 -0700 2004 1438485 0 Mr. Taster 6 1438491 Thank you Mr Taster and uncle moishy for your detailed and reasoned replies. There is a point that I think uncle moishy made that I might disagree with - the consumer pays in the end. I am better informed if non the wiser. Thank you gentlemen. Bob Tue Jul 27 11:02:26 -0700 2004 1438486 0 Bob Moffatt 7 1438492 "There is a point that I think uncle moishy made that I might disagree with - the consumer pays in the end." The increase in demand should counterbalance the increased cost, and leave prices unchanged. I doubt you'll find any difference in price between similar kosher and non-kosher mass-produced, commercial, mainstream products. Tue Jul 27 12:11:16 -0700 2004 1438491 0 Josh 8 1438496 Bringing up machlokes's just for sport just ain't cool, my Holy Brother. Everyone knows that those who make a habit of doing it never get invited to any of the good parties. Mr. Taster has not responded at all throughout this entire thread, I personally find that kind of interesting and intriging. hugs & knishes, amy t. Tue Jul 27 16:26:28 -0700 2004 1438492 0 amy t. 9 1438497 Oops, saw Mr. Taster's recent comment after all, guess he did respond so forgive me for saying he hadn't...nonetheless, the image of a Red Flag comes to mind. Love, amy t. Fierce Torah Chick Tue Jul 27 16:35:16 -0700 2004 1438496 0 amy t. 9 1438498 What's machlokes? And now that you see that I did respond earlier, how does that affect your "interest and intrigue" ? :-) Mr. Taster Tue Jul 27 17:47:38 -0700 2004 1438496 0 Mr. Taster 8 1438522 I agree 100% that companies do not pass on the cost. When a company thinks that they can sell more product by changing some aspect of that product they do it; if the cost of the change will be offset by the increased sales and also generate increased profit. I used to be responsible for obtaining kosher certification for a food ingredient. Earnings on the additional sales of the "kosher-for-passover" certified product alone more than made up for the cost of certification for the entire year. We never changed the pricing. We knew that without the certifications, we would miss out on a substantial piece of business during the year and at passover. Our big customers told us that without it they would not even consider using the ingredient. SandyW Thu Jul 29 16:11:14 -0700 2004 1438492 0 SandyW 9 1438524 Sorry! I'm not good with money, but if the consumer does not pay, then the whole issue must be driven by good-will. Perhaps at the moment there is an equilibrum, where people think extra sales are balanced by the costs of paying for 'supervision'. If this were a case of quality control, then perhaps there is a rational for it. People may learn that paying for this sort of control may give them a product which performs to specification longer than other products. Word of mouth and Consumer surveys may add to this marketing bonus. In the situation of hescker/kashrut/kosher, when only a small proportion of the served population feel any benefit at all, where there is no measure of success or failure, how the heck can there be any way to make money out of certification? I am sure the organisations, rabbis and others involved do not do it just out of good will, they charge for their efforts. I am fairly sure that the producers don't say 'Never mind, we must keep our Kosher keeping customers happy, we'll pay for certification out of profits.' I have no idea what the Kosher keeping population of the US is (I am a UK atheist and I rarely see any kosher markings on UK foods) but if I were a US non-kosher person I would strongly resent paying a surcharge for having a religious person hovering around/near/might-inspect-anyday/will-read-the-list one-day telling me what I may and may not eat. Now if the whole process is funded by the synagogues, by public subscription, then I retract all I have said. Still a deeply puzzled, Bob Thu Jul 29 17:02:52 -0700 2004 1438522 0 Bob Moffatt 10 1438530 Bob, This is purely a financial issue. Let's say that company XYZ has a product they currently sell. After some research they reach the conclusion that by having the product certified kosher or by changing the packaging or an ingredient they will sell more product. The next question is will the added cost of the change (any one of them) be more than offset by the added sales. If they will make more money they do it. If not they don't. Look at all the companies that added new "Atkins" versions of their product lines to catch sales from that buying segment. They believed the added sales were worth the investment. As a foot-note Empire Kosher (poultry) estimates that only 25% of its sales are to consumers who keep kosher. Sandy Fri Jul 30 11:15:50 -0700 2004 1438524 0 SandyW 10 1438536 This is really not a complicated issue Bob. If Company A can make an additional profit of $1,000,000 by broadening their consumer base to include those who are kosher consious, they would find no trouble in paying a rabbi $5,000 to obtain that. This company would have no reason to raise prices. The certification is NOT costing them money. It is adding to their revenues. If it did not, the company WOULD NOT obtain certification. If you examine kosher more deeply, you will find that company's account for kosher supervision payments as part of marketing expenses, which is what they are. Money a company pays to lure more buyers to their product. So, what's the confusion? Sat Jul 31 00:51:53 -0700 2004 1438524 0 Josh 11 1438537 Thanks for the reply Josh. I am now finding it difficult to state my thoughts in a joined-up fashion. To my mind, for any good product, there must come a point when the base of 'different customers' dwindles when compared with the number of 'not-fussy' customers, then there must come a point when it is no longer cost-effective to (dare I say) pander to the fussy folk. I suspect it all depends on population growth curves. Sat Jul 31 11:38:20 -0700 2004 1438536 0 Bob Moffatt 12 1438538 I still don't see what you're getting at. When a company obtains or renews certification, it analyzes one thing: Will this add more revenue than cost? If the answer is yes the company obtains/renews certification. If not, it doesn't. Maybe you could explain to me the logic by which a company loses money due to certification, yet keeps the certification. Or, perhaps cite some cases of price increases following certification. Sat Jul 31 13:17:52 -0700 2004 1438537 0 Josh 13 1438539 Josh, Josh, I don't want this to become a flame, so I will stop answering after this post. As you say:- >>When a company obtains or renews certification, it analyzes one thing: Will this add more revenue than cost?<< I find it hard to believe that any real organisation will pay an operating cost without passing some/most/all of those operating costs to the end user. It is in my opinion a fine balance. There are many first rate organisations which can afford to operate on a charitable basis until the funds run dry. Most businesses do not have this advantage. If x% of my customers will only buy my yak hair shirts if the yaks have been drowned, rather than killed by another method, and it costs me $1,000 per year per 1,000 yaks to get someone to say that in his opinion most of the yaks were drowned, there comes a point when when I either stop paying the certifier, put my prices up - charge the customer, lie and say the yaks were drowned, or ignore the 'fussy'customers. As x changes, so will the business plan. I have, so far, presumed that you come from the US. Perhaps I am wrong, but the US passed to the UK a phrase: 'There's no such thing as a free lunch.' Regards, Bob Bob Sat Jul 31 15:48:38 -0700 2004 1438538 0 Bob Moffatt 14 1438540 "I find it hard to believe that any real organisation will pay an operating cost without passing some/most/all of those operating costs to the end user." Typically, the cost of obtaining kosher approval for packaged food is VERY small compared to other operational costs. This is not the case with restaurants and kosher meat, and that's why kosher restaurants and butchers are generally more expensive than their non-kosher brethren. Sat Jul 31 20:32:21 -0700 2004 1438539 0 DeisCane 11 1438550 Josh, Send me an email. SandyW Mon Aug 02 18:39:17 -0700 2004 1438536 0 SandyW 10 1438592 Here are a few links - by the way, the number of non-Jews who only buy kosher certified retail products in the US is larger than the number of Jews who do. http://tinyurl.com/5vx5v http://www.utj.org/Kitchen/knexus/knv1n5.html scroll to "speaking of trendy" Thu Aug 05 20:38:09 -0700 2004 1438524 0 Jerome 7 1438493 I agree that the consumer pays in the end. It's a law of economics and you really see it in kosher restaurants, where establishments must pay for on-site supervision -- essentially an extra full-time employee, making decent money, on the books -- and pass their costs on to the consumer accordingly. Manufacturers are better able to spread out the cost over an enormous quantity of product, minimizing the unit cost. But remember your original question: How rational is it for consumers to pay for supervision/certification, then question their trustworthiness? In that regard, consumers don't make the decision whom to hire for supervision, the purveyors do. So when people question trustworthiness, it's not of people they themselves hired. That really would be irrational. Tue Jul 27 12:37:30 -0700 2004 1438491 0 uncle moishy 5 1438490 Your last question is easier, I think. Without certification, observant kosher consumers would not know whether or not the food they might consume was kosher or not. In cases of uncertainty, the default position is to assume that food isn't kosher. The certification agents are paid by the food purveyors (manufacturers, restaurants, etc.), not by the consumers. The fact that there is money to be made from both providing and receiving certifications adds the possibility of venality, corner-cutting, etc. That is why each kosher consumer must answer the question "Whom do you trust?" for her/himself. Once upon a time, a generation or so ago, many kosher consumers (including the family I grew up in) were willing to eat store-bought products solely on the basis of the ingredients listed on the package. Thus, while Nabisco explicitly listed lard or animal shortening in its ingredients, many kosher New Yorkers ate Sunshine brand equivalents, because they were made with vegetable shortening. Even then, the official position of the orthodox rabbinate was that that wasn't good enough, since Sunshine might use non-veg shortening in some of its products (utensils used to prepare non-kosher food become non-kosher themselves, unless they are subsequently "koshered"). Over the last 40 years, the kosher community has gradually drifted towards more stringent observance. Why this has happened is open to debate, but one factor has been a simple one -- they can. The availability of certified products has increased enormously. So has the number of certified eateries, at least in the NYC area. So there's no reason for a kosher consumer to even contemplate eating uncertified anything. In fact, the trend has been towards more stringent certifications (cholov yisroel, pas yisroel, kemach yoshon; some called it the "chumra of the month club"). Meanwhile, the kosher food business is one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. food industry. Getting your product certified makes it available to large numbers of potential consumers in one fell swoop. So not only did Nabisco go to the trouble of getting certified (most ingredients were already kosher; general societal health consciousness had forced them to abandon lard long before), but Keebler has since followed suit! (the elves did not have to convert; they just need to be supervised by a competent rabbinical authority). As for your first question, I can only speak for myself. I would be sorry to learn that I had eaten something unkosher accidentally, but I would move on quickly. Others (perhaps those with less checkered histories than mine) might take it more personally and engage in formal acts of repentence (prayer, fasting, acts of charity), but I do think that it's mostly a matter of individual response. There's no official right thing to do that I'm aware of -- at least not since the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed 1,934 years ago (to the day, I might add). When the Temple stood, there were certain sacrifices prescribed as responses to certain sins (I'm not knowledgeable enough to say which sacrifices for which sins), but even then sacrifice was only one component of repentence, not the be all and end all. This last point was made numerous times by Biblical prophets, mostly to deaf ears. Mon Jul 26 18:08:06 -0700 2004 1438485 0 uncle moishy 6 1438660 I cannot find this product anymore in the Baltimore area. (Giant Supermarkets). Are they still being sold in this area? Wed Aug 11 13:14:03 -0700 2004 1438490 0 Elisa Diener 3 1438473 Maybe spam should specifically say "non-kosher," just in case some Jews want to keep kosher but don't realize that spam is not kosher. Maybe Red Lobster should specifically say "non-kosher" just in case some Jews who want to keep kosher don't realize? Mon Jul 26 11:27:40 -0700 2004 1438469 0 Josh 4 1438474 Let me explain. My comment was directly in response to the long message posted about the Star-K on Hebrew National. I think that it great that we now know that Hebrew National is Kosher (even though not Glatt). I also think that it is great that an organization had the guts to put themselves out there in order to help all Jews (no matter how they practice). All I was responding to was the concern that people had about whether to trust the Star-K or not. As to the idea about spam and Red Lobster stating that they are not kosher.... I sense a little cynism about the issue at hand. Maybe being a little open-minded wouldn't hurt. Mon Jul 26 11:44:47 -0700 2004 1438473 0 chaim 5 1438475 Hebrew National is under the Triangle K. And, people who are concerned enough with kashrut to exclusively eat glatt meat would also know enough to look for the glatt symbol on the meat. I don't see why Hebrew National would need to reaffirm that they're not glatt kosher. They're not trying to fool anyone. They also aren't beit yosef, which they neglect to mention as well. Mon Jul 26 11:51:36 -0700 2004 1438474 0 Josh 6 1438476 I guess that you are right. Star-K does not have to reaffirm their position as being not glatt. And my suggestion was not really "pratical", just hypothetical. All of this was really just in response to a message that was posted. I never have eaten Hebrew National hot dogs (as I only eat Glatt Kosher) and I don't necessarily care that Star-K gave the hechsher but it was all in the spirit of good conversation!! Mon Jul 26 12:15:07 -0700 2004 1438475 0 Chaim 7 1438479 The problem started in the late 70's when Hebrew National hired the late Rabbi (I can not think of his name right now) as an employee of Hebrew National. His salary was paid for by them, and since his livelihood was attached to his certification the ability to judge what was and was not acceptable could have become blurred. There was no outside overseeing body. People, my family included, did not think that the company should have a certifier on staff, and that it should be an independent organization that is not beholden to the company they are certifying. Mon Jul 26 13:02:15 -0700 2004 1438476 0 Ari Cohen 8 1438481 Chaim, please take note-- the hashgacha of Hebrew Nation is Triangle-K, not Star-K. As a matter of fact, as you were speaking of keeping up on hashgachot-- the Star-K is an Orthodox hashgacha-- it is from Baltimore and is a well regarded hashgacha nationwide. The Star-K and Triangle-K are two different supervising agencies. The Triangle-K is based in New York. Link: http://www.trianglek.org/ Mon Jul 26 14:01:20 -0700 2004 1438479 0 Tina 9 1438507 Tina, You are 100% right. I DO know about star-K and I made a grave error in confusing the triangle-K with the Star-K. I am sorry Wed Jul 28 10:46:34 -0700 2004 1438481 0 chaim 1 1438495 Bringing up machlokes's just for sport just ain't cool, my Holy Brother. Everyone knows that those who make a habit of doing it never get invited to any of the good parties. hugs & knishes, amy t. Tue Jul 27 16:19:44 -0700 2004 1438460 0 amy t.