BREAKING! OU Contradicts Itself On 'Throat-Ripping' Rationale – Was Humane Slaughter Act Violated?

The OU's website has a 'clarification' of the second cut (i.e., throat-ripping with a hook) done at AgriProcessors that contradicts a written statement made by the head of the OU's Kashrut Division, Rabbi Menachem Genack:

Clarification of the Second Cut at Agriprocessors

We, at the OU, have received several phone calls asking to explain the purpose of the second cut done at Agriprocessors.

There are two reasons for this cut: kashruth and commercial.  The additional cut accelerates the flow of blood and its depletion from the animal and that helps facilitate a more effective, subsequent, salting.  It also improves the quality of the meat by avoiding blood spotting.

The second cut into the carotid arteries, though halachically significant, need not be done by a “shochet” (as explained in Yoreh Deah, Siman 22).

In other words, the result of shechita that cuts the esophagus and trachea but not the carotids – in itself a violation of the Humane Slaughter Act that contradicts claims on the process of shechita made by rabbinic groups to the US Government since 1904 – can be made more commercially viable by a second cut.

But why have shechita that does not cut the carotids?

A source in the kosher industry has told me that a shallow cut that does not cut the carotids is faster for the shochet – one of the highest paid employees on the line – and has a reduced possibility of causing an imperfection in the knife, which would result in the animal being declared non-kosher. According to this source, a shallow cut both speeds up the line – allowing each shochet to kill more animals per shift – and results in a higher kosher output because the knife is less likely to become defective.

According to my source:

• Properly done shechita should not require a second cut.
• Shallow shechita – which arguably may save Rubashkin tens of thousands of dollars per year – does require a second cut to make the meat commercially viable.

It therefore seems that any claims for a Halakhic reason for a second cut must first be based on performing shallow shechita, which is in itself a violation of US law.

The OU's statement also contradicts a written statement just issued by Rabbi Menachem Genack, head of the OU's Kashrut Division, that asserts the second cut was done only for commercial reasons.

Comments

[FNU LNU]

This second cut 'debate' between two parts of the OU's own website ( ft. 1) shows intellectual sloppiness on that is unacceptable. The status of the second cut should have been resolved years and years ago, and obviously was. If they are - after over 3 weeks of public attention - to claim that there is religious significance to the cut, then they are either great fools or lyers. Or both. But thats okay, cause they won't really be questioned about this by anyone so life will go on and we will be the OU's stupid sheep. Thank you OU for treating the kosher consumer as fools.

(1) http://oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single/2710/ versus http://www.ou.org/other/5765/shechita5-65.htm

[Camp Runamok]

FNU LNU,

You should go back and read the two statements in parallel again. The first statement, while stating that the 2nd cut is for kashrus purposes, does not mention shechita. Rather, it mentions that the cut is done to facilitate blood removal. However, AFA shechita is concerned, there is no contradiction with the second article which states that shechita is finished as soon as the trachea and esophagus are severed.

That difference is certainly somewhat nuanced, even irrelevant because the second cut would not be an issue if the shechita were done completely. However, there is no "intellectual sloppiness" evidenced by these articles.

[FNU LNU]

Camp Runamok,

Please don't accuse me of not reading carefully unless that is actually true.

You asked me to read the two statements in parallel. Fine. Here:

R’ Genack of OU: After the shechita … an additional cut is made … to further accelerate the bleeding. This is not done for kashrut reasons … but rather for commercial reasons.”
Unattributed OU statement: “The purpose of the second cut done at Agriprocessors ...There are two reasons for this cut: kashruth and commercial … The second cut into the carotid arteries, though halachically significant, need not be done by a “shochet” (as explained in Yoreh Deah, Siman 22).
So lets look at the words here. R’ Genack says the cut is “not done for kashrut reasons.” The unattributed statement says a reason is “kashrut.” That is a contradiction.

Your nuance is irrelevant. Please do not raise slaughter versus slaughter. In and of themselves, who cares? The issue is kosher and the dispute is clear.

This is intellectual sloppiness for one of two reasons.

The first, and more charitable interpretation is that, despite this being an issue that should have been resolved years ago, despite the OU’s involvement in lobbying on this issue, there is still dispute within the OU on this subject, whether there is kashrut issue. And this dispute somehow was illustrated in public statements meant to assuage the kosher consumer. Here, the sloppiness is that the OU is issuing two different responses to one question – something unacceptable in a kosher certifier with one reputation.

The second interpretation is that the unattributed statement is a purposeful distortion, aka a lie. Who cares why .. maybe to defend the OU from charges of needless cruelty, maybe to put the OU’s past decisions beyond reproach. Here the OU, distorts things to its consumers and members. They can not be trusted and their words are meaningless. What then their certification?

One more thing: R’ Genack, as an OU official, has every reason to say the second cut is halachic – it puts those who critique on the defensive. Yet he does not. Why?

His statement lacks the obvious self-serving motivation. He put his name behind his statement (something neither of us are doing here)

To me that makes it the more credible comment.

[FNU LNU]

Camp Runamok,

Please don't accuse me of not reading carefully unless that is actually true.

You asked me to read the two statements in parallel. Fine. Here:

R’ Genack of OU: After the shechita … an additional cut is made … to further accelerate the bleeding. This is not done for kashrut reasons … but rather for commercial reasons.”

Unattributed OU statement: “The purpose of the second cut done at Agriprocessors ...There are two reasons for this cut: kashruth and commercial … The second cut into the carotid arteries, though halachically significant, need not be done by a “shochet” (as explained in Yoreh Deah, Siman 22).

So lets look at the words here. R’ Genack says the cut is “not done for kashrut reasons.” The unattributed statement says a reason is “kashrut.” That is a contradiction.

Your nuance is irrelevant. Please do not raise slaughter versus salting. In and of themselves, who cares? The issue is kosher and the dispute is clear.

This is intellectual sloppiness for one of two reasons.

The first, and more charitable interpretation is that, despite this being an issue that should have been resolved years ago, despite the OU’s involvement in lobbying on this issue, there is still dispute within the OU on this subject, whether there is kashrut issue. And this dispute somehow was illustrated in public statements meant to assuage the kosher consumer. Here, the sloppiness is that the OU is issuing two different responses to one question – something unacceptable in a kosher certifier with one reputation.

The second interpretation is that the unattributed statement is a purposeful distortion, aka a lie. Who cares why .. maybe to defend the OU from charges of needless cruelty, maybe to put the OU’s past decisions beyond reproach. Here the OU, distorts things to its consumers and members. They can not be trusted and their words are meaningless. What then their certification?

One more thing: R’ Genack, as an OU official, has every reason to say the second cut is halachic – it puts those who critique on the defensive. Yet he does not. Why?

His statement lacks the obvious self-serving motivation. He put his name behind his statement (something neither of us are doing here)

To me that makes it the more credible comment.