PETA's Response To The OU

PETA has issued a statement in response to the statements issued by the 12 Rabbis and the OU. While I hope to write a more complete analysis of PETA's response sometime today, let me note the following:

1. The OU/12 Rabbis parsing of language has not been beneficial.
2. The byzantine kosher supervision arrangements at the Rubashkin slaughterhouse – along with the parsing of language noted above – create much confusion.
3. Neither Rubaskin or the rabbis have done much – if anything – to clarify that situation.
4. PETA confuses the OU's use of the word "Halacha" with the word "law" or "legal" as it would be used in American English in American society.
5. PETA understands that, because Halakha does not require upside-down slaughter, and because the OU is on record as preferring standing slaughter, that standing slaughter will be instituted by Rubashkin.
6. Clearly, neither the OU or the 12 Rabbis intend to require standing slaughter.
7. Why? Because, a minority of Jews prefer upside-down slaughter based on a Halakhic opinion codified in the commentaries to the Shulkhan Arukh (Code of Jewish Law), upside-down slaughter is therefore a Halakhic issue, and the OU – although it is on record as preferring standing slaughter – will not mandate change. In its own words, it will not compromise "one whit."

And then PETA notes:

Although we have a thick skin, and we are willing to deal with lies, if it will help animals, we must point out that the OU’s statement is rife with transparent duplicity that will be clear to anyone who takes a good look. This is not a case of “he said, she said.” This is a case of the OU making things up that it can’t defend, perhaps supposing that most people will accept its statement without bothering to check into its claims. [Emphasis added. Also, please note #1 above.]

PETA also notes the parsing of the acceptable slaughter failure rate as defined by the USDA:

The OU argues that AgriProcessors is not unique in having a failure rate in rendering animals insensible. This is comparing apples and oranges: One animal who stands up 30 seconds after his throat has been slit, in any plant—conventional or kosher—would warrant shutting the line down to correct an indefensible problem. Although a first stun rate of 95 percent is considered acceptable in conventional plants, animals who are missed are supposed to be immediately restunned. Drs. Grandin and Friedlander, both experts in kosher slaughter, say they’ve never seen anything like what’s happening at AgriProcessors.

In other words, this is not only about the number of animals who are not rendered insensate by slaughter, it is also about how those mistakes are handled – or, in the case of Rubashkin, not handled.

The OU's statement can be read here. For my analysis of the OU's statement, please see here.