When Kosher Isn't Kosher
The State of Georgia's Kosher Food Labeling Act (KFLA) mandates that any food labeled kosher in that state must be certified to be in accordance with "orthodox Hebrew religious rules and requirements."
Which isn't a problem, unless you're a Reform or Conservative or other, non-Orthodox Jew in Georgia.
Today the ACLU and the ACLU of Georgia filed a lawsuit (PDF) against Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, Attorney General Thurbert Baker and Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Agriculture, Tommy Irvin, charging that the KFLA discriminates against non-Orthodox Jewish communities by requiring adherence to Orthodox kosher standards.
Our client in the case is Shalom Lewis, Rabbi of Congregation Etz Chaim in Cobb County, who, as a Conservative Jew, can't fulfill his rabbinical duties because the Conservative interpretation of kosher differs from that of Orthodox Judaism. One of the most important services Rabbi Lewis provides to his congregation is serving as its mashgiach, supervising and monitoring the kosher food operations. As he is Conservative, not Orthodox, Rabbi Lewis can't certify kosher foods for his Conservative congregation under the Georgia statute.
If Rabbi Lewis were to follow his faith and certify products kosher according to Conservative standards, he would be violating state law, risking exposure to criminal fines and imprisonment.
Our lawsuit argues that the KFLA therefore impairs Rabbi Lewis's religious freedom, violating the U.S. and state constitutions by endorsing Orthodox rules and requirements for kosher products and banning — indeed, criminalizing — all others. We're asking the court to find the act unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Aug 7th, 2009 at 12:44pm
I noticed that in the article you were careful to distinguish between "orthodox" and "Orthodox," one is an adjective and the second is a specific branch of Judaism. Does the law capitalize Orthodox, such that it would specify that branch's rules and regulations, or orthodox as an adjective?
Aug 9th, 2009 at 8:39pm
Great analysis.
Why is government regulating kosher food processing anyway?
Aug 12th, 2009 at 12:02pm
"Why is government regulating kosher food processing anyway?"
Because food is sold advertised as "kosher" which makes the food more valuable. If the state did not regulate it, you could put "kosher" on a pork chop and there would not be anything anyone can do about it.
It is unfortunate that this could not be resolved without a lawsuit. It is obvious that the intention of the law is to protect people from fraud, not to discriminate between different Jewish groups. Without the word "Orthodox" anyone claiming to be Jewish could certify the kosher label.
Aug 13th, 2009 at 1:43pm
Bob, observant Jews, and anyone seriously interested in eating kosher or halal food for their presumed value, knows that "kosher" stamped on a product is meaningless. They look for the trademark-protected symbols used to guarantee proper kosher or halal foods.
I know some Jewish people for whom the trademark symbols are inadequate. They insist on seeing the name of the rabbi overseeing the processing.
Aug 15th, 2009 at 1:17pm
Isn't it true, though, that anything that is kosher under Orthodox rules is also kosher under the rules of the non-orthodox groups, but that the non-orthodox groups accept as kosher items which are not acceptable under Orthodox rules? Thus all the State law does is assure that anything labelled kosher conforms to the rules of ANY denomination. Makes more sense to me than requiring a different set of labels for every different group. Labeling something as "kosher" when it is not kosher by all standards should be considered misleading and deceptive.
Aug 16th, 2009 at 6:09pm
As Bob pointed out, civil laws on kosher are, in fact, consumer protection laws. They provide a means to certify to food buyers that the products indeed meet a minimum standard which they are represented as having complied with. To a buyer of kosher food, "almost kosher" or "nearly kosher" isn't good enough. The expectation of a consumer of kosher food is not one of degree.
Consider another certification: If a light switch needs to meet a set standard in order to be stamped with the Underwriters Laboratories symbol to certify its safety, you can't have someone else come along and say "well, it's safe enough for me, even if it doesn't pass."
Now, it's said that if you ask two Jews the same question, you'll get three answers. We all, whatever our faith, make choices about degree of observance, even if that choice is to make no choice, no allowances, and go "by the book" 100 percent.
The expectation of kosher food consumers is just that: 100 percent. If they choose to make adjustments or 'waivers,' that's fine. But you can't make an informed consumer decision about what to eat, or what to buy, if the standards are not defined.
What's more, the Rabbi has not been harmed. He can perform all his ministerial duties for the congregation, and he can grant his congregants his blessing over whatsoever they choose to accept. But he cannot go out into the marketplace and say that his view of kosher is what is expected.
As a passionate member and supporter of the ACLU, and a Jew in whose own home 'kosher' meant something of our own construction, I'm dismayed that the GA chapter sees an injustice here. I think there's none.
Aug 17th, 2009 at 2:13pm
ChiRaven and Scott, the trademarked symbols on the package are a guide to the strictness of the kashrut inspection similar to the UL, CSA, or whatever trademark symbol is a guide for electrical equipment. I use the one I need to help me decide what meets my needs.
When the State interferes, it is establishing a preferred sect. It does harm the Rabbi, as he cannot be employed to certify kashrut to the standard accepted by his branch. There are other branches who do not accept food as kosher unless they or their Rabbi personally knows the Rabbi inspecting the facility. When that Rabbi's name is affixed, with our without the OU or triangle K symbol, those people accept the food as kosher, even though the State does not. Terrific irony.
Nov 9th, 2009 at 12:38pm
ChiRaven makes sense to me.If it meets the strictest requirements, then it should make everyone happy. It's kind of like a one size fits all. They're trying, it seems to me, to make sure people actually get what is advertized. It's like regulating "vegan" or "organic," this particular description just happens to have a religious denotation and connotation. The only one who can declare a food kosher is a rabbi, and this leads to the necessary cooperation between government and religion to ensure the food companies do not deceive consumers. They (companies) are trying to sell as much of their product to as many people as possible. I don't understand the dilemma. Isn't consumer protection the government's responsibility?
Post new comment