Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Kosher >
Jun 16, 2012 01:09 PM

Hebrew National hot dogs are... Kinda Kosher? Mostly Kosher? Or, "not completely Kosher?" A pre-4th of July heads-up.


class action lawsuit: "Hebrew National hot dogs are not completely kosher"

  1. "there were certain things that weren’t conducted properly, in a systematic way, from the way cows were slaughtered, to the way the lungs were inspected or not inspected for imperfections, as is required to meet the standard that the meat is 100 percent kosher,” as defined by the most stringently observant Orthodox Jews following kashrut"

    So the meat is not glatt and the lawsuit is trying to claim that they can't call it kosher as a result. That's stricter than even the unconstitutional versions of the NY kosher law. The lawsuit will be thrown out in a second. And as this thread is about kashrut standards, not food, so will this thread.

    3 Replies
    1. re: avitrek

      Or the meat is not kosher at all. What makes you think this is only about glatt?

        1. re: KosherVeg

          So. Claim and counterclaim. We still don't know what exactly is being alleged, and what basis might exist for the allegation. We don't even know who is doing the alleging, so that we could assess their credibility. And yet, if there's a chance that there's a real problem, why risk it?

    2. this is bogus, Quanifying whether or not meat is kosher is for the Hashgachas, not the government. if you dont hold by the triangle k, dont eat the hot dogs, simple.

      4 Replies
      1. re: Moishefrompardes

        Yep. Whether the claims are real or not doesn't matter. There is a rabbinic organization claiming it's kosher. The government will not step in and decide it knows kashrut better than the certifying organization.

        1. re: avitrek

          If there's provable fraud then it is a matter for the courts. The first recorded consumer fraud suit in New York history was a case of a woman suing a butcher for misrepresenting a treife chicken as kosher.

          1. re: zsero

            If there is "provable" fraud. If a butcher tries to sell Purdue as kosher that is provable. The minute you start to quote the shulchan aruch to argue what makes something kosher the courts will say it's a religious matter and dismiss the case.

            1. re: avitrek

              There's no reason for them to do so. Hilchot kashrut is an objectively determinable standard. It's got nothing to do with theology, so there's no reason a court couldn't inquire into it.

      2. um...when in doubt, go without? try the international glatt version instead.

        2 Replies
        1. re: ahuva

          They are going to kill this thread, but before they do here's my 2 cents. If indeed it is only an issue of glatt/non glatt based on the lung inspection issue, I believe the case will settle for very little - perhaps no more than a "this is not glatt" disclaimer. If however, there are some more serious issues, it could be reasonably provable civil fraud and lead to big bucks. Although it is a little fuzzy, I don't see anywhere in the web page re-printed in the DailyPlanet article that is terribly fraudulent unless you stretch the meaning of strict beyond its plain meaning. The question is after so many years of suspect Kashrut why does Hebrew National insist on continuing to produce actually or allegedly sub-par "kosher products". Pay a little more, tighten up the production values and get an acceptable hechsher! Even Manishewitz eventually got the OU supervision.

          1. re: Arinoam

            CH does NOT let us discuss which is an acceptable hechsher and which is not? The Triangle K is acceptable to many Jews. NOT all Jews who observe kashrut demand glatt. Before the Hungarian onslaught after WWII, glatt was not a factor in the American kosher marketplace.
            There is NOT enough glatt beef available to meet the production requirements of Hebrew National so The OU or OK are not viable suggestions. Personally, I don't care whether an item is Glatt or staam kosher, but will buy glatt for certain guests.
            Not only isn't there enough glatt beef to meet the needs of Hebrew National, there isn't enough kosher beef to meet their needs. If you look at old threads on the chains board you will see that Hebrew National asked Costco to drop the Hebrew National 1/4 pound hot dog from the Costco food courts because Hebrew National cannot get enough raw kosher meat to meet the demand.
            With the terrible state of the kosher slaughtering facilities in this country it is a great feat that Hebrew National can supply the huge amount of kosher product to the American Jewish consumer who has no interest in or desire for a glatt product.
            Remember, A few years ago Sara Lee closed down the Best Kosher operation that provided most of the other brands of non-glatt kosher hot dogs sold in America. No more Best, Shofar, Shop-Rite or Pathmark private label or the kosher variety of Ball Park.
            As long as the majors won't certify non-glatt, the bulk of American Jews must rely on products from conglomerates such as Con Agra and the available kosher supervision.

            BTW>>>The current Hebrew National product is no way as tasty as in the old days when it was an independent company and producing in Maspeth, Queens, but it is available nationwide. I have a daughter who is working this summer in Oregon, Washington and Idaho and she is sure glad she can kind Hebrew National when she wants a hot dog!

        2. You all might find these links interesting:

          One wonders, however, how it is that among a sub group of people that is supposedly so observant, that we see multiple comments on each message board by people on both sides of this issue, who are clearly lying.

          I thought it worthy of note that the accusers have thus far remained entirely anonymous and have not described what kind of loss they exactly have taken, monetarily or religiously. One can conjecture, but it is necessary for them to both identify themselves and provide the details of their loss. Oddly, they have also provided no evidence other than hearsay.

          I have no side in this issue but I find it surprisingly offputting the amount of deception here. It is up to the accuser to prove their claims, not the defendant to defend themselves.

          In this country we all have the right to confront our accuser, and anonymous accusations without evidence are generally not the work of credible individuals.

          The accuser(s) may have a point, indeed, but they are going about this all wrong. I don't think most people would be surprised to find that a huge meat company (owned by ConAgra) that specialized in hot dogs might be doing something not quite ... errr ... kosher.

          1. If the porcine isn't in it, you must acquit it

            1 Reply