FailedMessiah.com

PETA Claims Defamation

PETA is threatening to sue Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin for defamation. You can read PETA's letter to Rubashkin after the jump.

What The AP Saw

Todd Dvorak, the AP reporter who toured AgriProcessors with Iowa's Secretary of Agriculture, other politicians and press describes the slaughter he witnessed at Rubashkin:

Cattle are killed by trained rabbis once every three minutes, said Sholom Rubashkin, company president.

Once an animal is secured, the barrel pen rotates 180 degrees. The animal is upside down, its neck exposed to rabbis wielding 2-foot knives. After rinsing the neck with water, rabbis make a quick cut, severing a pair of arteries, the esophagus and windpipe. The cut releases a massive spill of blood from the cow's brain.

Another rabbi immediately steps in to make a second cut, targeting arteries only. It is described as a fail-safe cut to ensure rapid blood loss and quick and painless death.

"The animals I saw were unconscious within one or two seconds," Judge said after the 90-minute tour.

After slaughter, the barrel rotates again and a door opens. The animal slides to the floor, where a worker wraps a hind leg with a chain. The animal is hoisted and carried away for butchering.

None of the five animals viewed during the tour thrashed or tried to regain its footing.

What Judge and the press saw does not appear to be how the Rubashkin slaughterhouse normally operates. Please note that:

1. "Cattle are killed by trained rabbis once every three minutes." This appears to be a much slower rate than seen on the PETA video. The 30 plus seconds added to the slaughter time seems to have been used to restrain the animal in the pen after shechita until bleed-out is complete. This would minamize thrashing, etc. after shechita. In fact, this is one of the recommendations Dr. Grandin and others made after seeing the PETA video.
2. "Another rabbi immediately steps in to make a second cut." In the PETA video, the second cut was done by a low-paid, poorly trained worker, not a rabbi. Rather than using the extremely sharp knife used by rabbis for shechita, that worker used a hook and gouged out the animal's throat. The AP saw a rabbi make the second cut with a very sharp knife and no throat-ripping.
3. "[U]nconscious within one or two seconds." After the properly done second cut, but not after the throat-ripping practiced by Rubashkin until the PETA video exposed it.
4. "None of the five animals viewed during the tour thrashed or tried to regain its footing." It should be evident that five animals slaughtered under highly controlled circumstances with a hand-picked shochet and altered procedures cannot be considered representative of how the slaughterhose operated last month or last year.

During the event, Rubashkin also released its long-promised "independent Humane audit." According to the AP:

Rubashkin also released an audit of the company's slaughter policies done last spring by ASI Food Safety Consultants of St. Louis. Among 100 cattle killed, inspectors found no cases of inhumane treatment.

Without seeing a copy of the audit its difficult to render any judgement on its findings. Although Rubashkin announced the audit and promised to make it available to anyone who wanted to have it, he has consistantly refused to make it available to me (and, according to PETA, to PETA). But, briefly, my questions about the audit are as follows:

1. Did the audit take place over a three-hour period in one day?
2. Did Rubashkin know in advance the time and day of the audit?
3. Was there an earlier audit that found fault with AgriProcessors?
4. Were any HACCP violations uncovered in that audit? Were they audited?
5. Was a worker safety audit done? If so, what were the results?

In short, it appears to me that what the press tour saw at AgriProcessors is a representation of how the plant should run, not a representation of how the plant was running before the PETA video was released.

It also seems that Iowa's Agriculture Secretary Patty Judge knowingly lent her name to Rubashkin's PR efforts. Is that a violation of Iowa law? We'll see.

You can read the entire AP article here.

The Late Founder Of KAJ Speaks Out On Glatt Meat

A new friend has informed me that the late founder of the KAJ, Rabbi Breuer, ztz"l, was opposed to glatt kosher becoming the standard for his community. During a city-wide campaign to institute glatt as the standard for all Orthodox homes, Rabbi Breuer wrote the following: (Please click on the thumbnail to see a larger document. A plain text version can be read after the jump. Thank you.)

This essay, written by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer, ztz”l, originally appeared in Volume XI 1949/50 of the Mitteilungen. It was reproduced on pages 238 to 239 in Rav Breuer: His Life and Legacy.

If only it were so.

Click on the link below for a plain text version of the essay.

The Spin Goes On

Arutz Sheva, Israel's popular news service, has a report on the visit of Iowa Ag Secretary Patty Judge to the Rubashkin slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa. The report incorrectly states that:

1. The Ag Secretary "changed her mind." According to her office, that is simply not true.
2. That she had originally called for a state investigation of AgriProcessors and had now changed her mind. Again, not true. The State of Iowa has no legal control over AgriProcessors. Because AgriProcessors ships out of state and worldwide, it is under the sole regulatory jurisdiction of the USDA.
3. That Ms. Judge had problems with kosher slaughter and, after seeing AgriProcessors changed her mind. Again, not true. She had no previous problem with kosher slaughter. She had "previous problems" with the slaughter shown on the PETA video.

Further, the Arutz 7 report failed to mention the following key facts:

1. Ms. Judge saw only three cattle slaughtered, apparently under new procedures instituted by the OU and Rubashkin last week. The cattle were killed without throat-ripping and were held in the rotating pen for a longer time to ensure proper bleed-out and to ensure the cattle were insensate when dumped from the pen. It is by no means clear that the slower pace of slaughter Ms. Judge saw will be the new standard, or that the procedures she saw will remain in place.
2. She had a personal tour given by Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin at his personal invitation. It seems that the shochet and other personnel were hand-picked by AgriProcessors.
3. Agriculture is Iowa's largest business.
4. The Iowa Department of Agriculture's chief function is that of a booster for the state's agri-businesses, not as a regulator of them.

And then we have this quote from the OU:

Officials at the Orthodox Union, the world's largest Kashrut-certifying organization, expressed satisfaction at Secretary Judge’s comments. “We are gratified that a personal inspection tour of AgriProcessors by Iowa’s Secretary of Agriculture, Patty Judge, made it clear that kosher slaughter there is done humanely,” declared Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Executive Vice President of the Orthodox Union, and Rabbi Menachem Genack, Rabbinic Administrator of the OU Kosher division. "Clearly, humane slaughter goes on at the AgriProcessors plant, in conformity with the laws of Torah which make it clear that humanity to animals is a religious requirement in Judaism.”

The official statement of Secretary Judge reads:

(Des Moines, IA)  Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge toured the AgriProcessors Plant at Postville on Sunday afternoon.  Secretary Judge was invited by Agriprocessors to tour the facility and to learn more about kosher slaughter of cattle.  The Secretary’s visit was strictly as a guest, and not as a regulator.  Plant officials extended the invitation and because she had not previously had an opportunity to visit the Postville facility, she was glad to accept the invitation.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture has no legal authority to inspect or regulate the Postville plant. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) holds the federal grant of inspection on the Postville plant and is in charge of all regulatory matters pertaining to it.

The USDA is conducting a thorough investigation of the plant and they alone will make a determination as to what, if any, action is taken.

You can read Arutz 7's report here or after the jump.

The Talmud Explained – Saving Rubashkin Money Just Does Not Cut It

I just looked up the section of the Babylonian Talmud (Hullin 33a) cited by Tzemach Atlas in his post. (Please see my post immediately below this.) It is referring to removing a small section of flesh from the throat immediately after shechita, soaking it, salting it, and then eating it only after the animal has died.

Why was this done?

For a medical reason. This flesh was considered to be a tonic, probably a way of consuming part of a living animal without violating the Halakha of eiver min ha hai.

(Flesh and blood from living – or mortally wounded – animals was commonly thought of in the ancient world as containing the animal's life force. Its consumption was thought to transfer some of the animal's strength to the eater.)

As the Talmud says, if one wanted to remain in good health, one would do this. As with all medical advice given in ancient sources, this no longer applies (unless it has been confirmed by modern medicine). Further, it is important to keep in mind that this was not done because the meat tasted good, was a delicacy, or for financial reasons. It was done for medical reasons only and, as such, no financial or non-medical lesson should be learned from it.

The Law Behind The Second Cut

Tzemach Atlas has a new post on tzaar baalei hayyim (causing suffering to animals) after shechita. He consulted with two different Halakhic authorities. What he found boils down to the following:

Rubashkin Misses The Cut

Rubashkin's spokesman Mike Thomas agreed to let me know by 5:00 p.m. CST today if I would or would not be able to get a copy of the "independent Humane audit" Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin claims AgriProcessors passed in November of this year. AgriProcessors has repeatedly refused to answer requests made by reporters for copies of the audit, even though Rubashkin made the existence of the audit public and invited anyone to contact him to get the results.

It's 5:21 P.M. and still no answer.

Intrigue At The Highest Levels Of Government

Update:

Representatives of the OU, KAJ, Star-K and Lubicom (the kosher industry trade and PR orgainzation that puts on Kosher Fest and publishes Kosher Today) appear to have been in a meeting just over one year ago with the United States Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman.

The purpose of the meeting?

Allegedly to amend UDSD Directive 6900.2 to favor AgriProcessors/Rubashkin and allow the throat-ripping and other procedures seen on the PETA video. This meeting occurred shortly after PETA's first complaint to Rubashkin and the OU, but before PETA filed a complaint with the USDA.

The first version of the USDA Directive 6900.2 was issued on October 7, 2003. The revised version was issued on November 25, 2003. The rabbis' meeting with USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman allegedly took place sometime between those two dates.

PETA's first written correspondence with Rubashkin is dated June 18, 2003. PETA's threat to go public with its findings is dated November 3, 2003, right in the time-period specified above.

Why didn't PETA file a complaint earlier with the USDA? Because PETA was trying to keep the issue quiet and to work with the rabbis and with Rubashkin.

But when that proved impossible, PETA sent in an undercover investigator to video the plant. That process – trying repeatedly to work with Rubashkin, failing to gain cooperation from AgriProcessors, finding the volunteer and sending him in undercover, getting the video and trying to work with Rubashkin and the OU again – took just over one year.

More to come as this story develops.

The Humane Society Of The United States Weighs In Against Rubashkin

The Humane Society of the United States weighs in against Rubashkin.

Read it here.

Rubashkin On Parade

The Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge was invited by Rubashkin to visit AgriProcessors in Postville. She was given a personal guided tour by Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin but saw only three cattle slaughtered. Her office will not comment on whether throat-ripping occurred. She saw no problems with the slaughter of those three cattle.

The Secretary's official statement follows:

BREAKING! Rabbis Alleged To Have Lobbied USDA To Permit Throat-Ripping And Benefit Rubashkin

When the OU said they did not know about the throat-ripping, was it telling the truth?

According to a source in the food science community close to the USDA, on the afternoon of October 23, 2003, rabbis from the OU, Star-K, CRC (Chicago), Agudath Israel, and from other haredi kosher supervision agencies met in Washington, DC with senior USDA staff including some of the most senior political appointees in the agency.

[UPDATE  1-31-08 – As I later mentioned on other posts, I was able to confirm this meeting with both the USDA and with two rabbis who attended. But, despite FOIA requests, the USDA was unable to provide an agenda for the meeting or to state with clarity which senior staff were present. The rabbis themselves were unable to say whether then-Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was there for the meeting or not, although it appears she did attend part of it.]

The rabbis wanted to change USDA directives governing ritual slaughter, apparently to benefit Rubashkin and allow throat-ripping.

In the extended post below you will find two versions of the same USDA directive covering kosher slaughter. The first is the current language, approximately one year old. The second is the original version. [Emphasis added to both.]

You'll see the so-called "second cut" is specifically permitted in the new version of the directive.

USDA FSIS inspectors are also instructed to not stop the production line for violations of the Humane Slaughter Act. Instead, line inspectors are told to call their regional office for a ruling on whether a kosher line can be stopped.

In practice, staff are reluctant to do this which means kosher lines will rarely be stopped, even for good cause.

Similarly, sources tell me it is unlikely a regional office will order a line stopped because that regional office itself must contact Washington to notify USDA staff of the stoppage.

It appears the rabbis and senior USDA staff have in effect succeeded in gutting the Humane Slaughter Act for glatt kosher production.

The documents posted after the jump in the extended post…

Audit (NOT) Available On Request?

In a long article on the Postville Shechita-gate Scandal written by Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin and published on Shmais.com, the widely-popular Chabad-Lubavitch website, Rubashkin claims that:

Agri processors has an independent Humane audit done in February 04 and has passed with excellent marks. It is available on request.

As I've noted before, PETA, the AP and I have all tried to get copies, but Rubashkin has not cooperated (or, at least in my case, responded).

I reached Rubashkin's spokesperson, Mike Thomas, today. After a moment of hesitation he acknowleged that the audit exists, but he would not commit to sending me a copy or tell me who the auditors were because he is "familiar with my work" and he's "not sure he wants to." I asked him if he had responded to the AP's request for the audit. "It's none of your business," Thomas said.

He did promise me that by 5:00 p.m. CST today he would tell me if Agriprocessors/Rubashkin would share the audit with me or not.

Stay tuned.

A.A. Rubashkin Family Foundation

The A.A. Rubashkin Family Foundation is a 501 (c) (3) charitable nonprofit organization. As such, its records are public. Here are the five most recent 990 filings for the Foundation. All provide no financial information and close with requests for filing extensions, which are granted.

What does this mean?

I'm not sure. If you have expertise in this area, please let me know.

Download rubashkin990_1998.pdf

Download rubashkin990_1999.pdf

Download rubashkin990_2000.pdf

Download rubashkin990_2001.pdf

Download rubashkin990_2002.pdf

Another Rubashkin Statement

Another Rubashkin statement on the scandal, this time from Heshy Rubashkin.

Best quotes:

Agriprocessors is, and always has been, committed to the highest standards of humane treatment of animals as a matter of moral conviction, federal law, and religious faith.

In the face of the scurrilous charges leveled against it, Agriprocessors will depend on outside expertise, like these rabbinic authorities, to judge objectively, free from political agendas or personal bias, the humane nature of the processes it uses and will communicate those judgments to our retailers and customers. We will rely on the ongoing assessments of the United States Department of Agriculture to judge our compliance with the law, the rabbinic authorities to judge our adherence to kosher law and practice, and outside auditors to monitor our treatment of animals.

As we always have, we will follow the recommendations and directions of our regulators to make any additional changes they recommend or require to guarantee animals are treated humanely. We are confident that our regulators will conclude, as they have in the past, that Agriprocessors lives by the highest principles of kosher law and humane animal treatment.

Of course, those rabbis are paid by Rubashkin for their supervision.

Read it all here.

Previous Rubashkin Trouble With The USDA

It seems that a Rubashkin-owned beef and poultry processing establishment has in the past been cited by the USDA for violations of HAACP food safety regulations.

Iowa Ag Secretary Changes Mind … AFTER BRIEF GUIDED TOUR GIVEN BY RUBASHKIN

My suspicions noted in the previous post have been confirmed: Iowa's Ag Secretary saw only three cows slaughtered, apparently by a hand-picked shochet, with Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin standing next to her.

How's that for an impartial inspection by government of a suspect business?

Then we have these quotes from Rubashkin:

Rubashkin noted that muscles on the barely recognizable heads continued to twitch more than an hour after the heads had been separated from their bodies. "Look. It's breathing. It's calling for help," Rubashkin said, referring sarcastically to PETA's claim that videotaped movements of cattle after their throats had been cut constitutes evidence they were conscious and suffering. "You will see head, feet and body movement after the animal has been slaughtered. It is reflexive. It is not evidence of consciousness," Rubashkin said.

The article closes this way:

After consulting with the USDA and the Orthodox Union, a group that certifies kosher products, the company agreed to let rabbis use an air bolt gun on animals that attempt to regain footing after slaughter. Although Agriprocessors denies ever having done so, it also agreed not to remove the esophagus and trachea immediately after the ritual throat-cutting.

Amazing.

Read it all here.

Iowa Ag Secretary Changes Mind

Of course, this visit (note: "visit," not "inspection") took place after throat-ripping was banned and after shochtim (ritual slaughterers) had been warned. In other words, apples and oranges, not apples and apples:

POSTVIILLE, Iowa After visiting an embattled kosher slaughterhouse over the weekend, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge said the animals she saw slaughtered died quickly and were treated humanely. Her comments signal a significant shift in her opinion on the treatment of cattle at Agriprocessors Incorporated in Postville. It's the world's largest supplier of certain kosher meat products.…

Agriprocessors, along with rabbinic leaders, scientists and kosher certification groups, have defended the plant's slaughtering techniques, saying it's natural for animals to experience involuntary reflexive movements after slaughter.…

Read it all here.

Rabbis Band Together To 'Protect Shechita' From Themselves

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Some of the rabbis who spoke to The Jerusalem Post have a heartfelt concern that procedures at AgriProcessors may be faulty.

But they are also concerned that PETA's highly successful media campaign might be a springboard for a general attack on shehita.

In an attempt to protect shehita from a groundswell of public criticism, rabbis are sidestepping the issue of whether its methods should be revised and, instead, are coordinating public announcements in its defense.…

Dr. Temple Grandin, assistant professor of animal science at Colorado State University, who provided expert advice to PETA [and to the kosher meat industry], told The Jerusalem Post that incompetent kosher slaughterers and shoddy quality control at AgriProcessors is giving shehita a bad name.

"What really makes me mad is when Orthodox Jews try to hide behind religious rhetoric to try to justify sloppy slaughtering procedures," she said.

"You know what that's called? Bulls**t. I've seen kosher done right and all it takes is responsible management."

In other words, the rabbis are hiding the truth and banding together to 'protect' shechita. Funny how this 'attack against shechita' started with rabbis failing at their jobs and has now devolved into other rabbis parsing language and spinning in order to protect them. Sad.

Read it all after the jump.

The Conservative Movement Speaks Out On Rubashkin

Am Echad has the Conservative Movement's response to the PETA video. It was published before the OU's official statement, issued late Thursday, and does not reflect anything in that statement.

The Conservative Movement's teshuva against shackling and hoisting can be found here.

Stonewalling At AgriProcessors?

In his article on the Postville Shechita-gate Scandal, Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin, the CEO/V.P. of AgriProcessors wrote that:

Agri processors has an independent Humane audit done in February 04 and has passed with excellent marks. It is available on request.

So far, AgriProcessors has not responded to my requests for a copy of the alleged audit. PETA has also requested a copy but has not received a response. I'm also told that an AP reporter requested a copy and received no response.

I have also seen no mention of this "independent Humane audit" anywhere in the media.

Immediately after the mention of this "independent Humane audit," Rubashkin closes his article – written specificly for Shmais.com, a widely popular Chabad-Lubavitch news site – this way:

E-Mail to your supermarket the truth of this issue. This is not against Agriprocessors. It’s a war against Shechita! Agriprocessors has the Z’chus to be able to give support to our Rabbonim and help them stave of this vicious attack of defamation of our religion. First explain the right to religious freedom and the need to unite and defend. Then explain the humane of Shechita both by faith and science.…

I wonder what is in that "audit."

Rubashkin Press Release

Under the headline "Israel's Chief Rabbinate, Orthodox Union Refute Charges Against Agriprocessors," Rubashkin has issued a long press release claiming vindication from the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and the OU. However, the statements of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate as quoted by by Rubashkin refer to the kosher status of the slaughter itself, not to the surrounding issues of animal welfare (tzaar baalei hayyim). It should be noted that the violation of tzaar baalei hayyim is a quite serious infraction in Jewish law, and a system of slaughter that mandates unnecessary animal suffering – as Rubashkin's does – should be forbidden.

In Jewish law, the ends do not justify the means, and a technically correct shechita that regularly involves tzaar baalei hayyim both immediately before and immediately after the ritual slaughterer makes his cut should not be sold as kosher.

That Rubashkin, the OU, and the other kosher supervising agencies working at the Rubashkin slaughterhouse are misrepresnting this issue should give the kosher consumer pause.

Kosher consumers, ask yourselves the following question: Can rabbis who disregard the laws of tzaar baalei hayyim/cruelty to animals be trusted for kosher supervision?

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.

Analysis Of The OU's Statement

I find aspects of the OU's statement on Shechita-gate to be troubling. For instance:

• The OU writes that PETA "recently released an undercover video showing scenes of cows staggering in apparent agony for several minutes after their throats were cut." [Emphasis added.]
• And then, "The Orthodox Union is very concerned about these accusations. We are      sensitive to the inhumane treatment of animals, and empathize with those who are upset by the images of apparent cruelty recorded on this video." [Emphasis added.]

Were those animals walking around free of pain? For many of the animals shown on PETA's video thrashing and even walking after shechita, the answer is no. They felt pain. Every scientific expert I've spoken with has confirmed this.

• The OU writes: "The Orthodox Union is committed to maintaining the highest ritual standards of shechita without compromising the halacha one whit. In keeping with these standards, we will strive to the best of our ability to  see to it that animals are treated humanely and to see that, at all the plants we supervise, any halachically unnecessary practices which may be seen to be objectionable, are ceased." [Emphasis added.]

"[M]ay be seen to be objectionable"? Again, the OU admits no wrong and attempts to paint the issue as one of squeamish animal rights activists overreacting to normal slaughter procedures, not poor practices at an OU-certified slaughterhouse.

As for questionable practices at other OU-certified plants please see here.

And then, we have this:

• "The United States Department of Agriculture, with which we have a very cooperative working relationship, supervises this slaughterhouse and has found nothing amiss in its practices. Its on-site inspector, Dr. Henry Lawson, has confirmed to us his opinion that the conditions there are humane and that the shechita method of slaughter employed there renders the animal insensate."

The USDA's spokesman, Stephen Cohen, told me yesterday that:

1. No USDA inspector is allowed to speak to the press.
2. The USDA has formed no opinion on the AgriProcessors situation.
3. The USDA is in the middle of its investigation of AgriProcessors.
4. Dr. Henry Lawson is not allowed to speak for and does not speak for the USDA.

Further, I told all of this to the OU's Rabbi Menachem Genack yesterday.

Why? Because Rabbi Genack told me in an earlier conversation that the USDA had found nothing wrong at AgriProcessors and that Dr. Henry Lawson the USDA's chief inspector there had also found nothing wrong.

When I challenged him, Rabbi Genack said, "So? So he's speaking as a private individual, not as the USDA. So what?"

Now, 24 hours after that exchange, the OU is again presenting Dr. Lawson as representing the USDA. This is far from honest.

Further, if the USDA's inspection finds fault with Rubashkin/AgriProcessors, Dr. Lawson, who was in charge of on-site supervision, may also be found to be at fault. He is hardly an independent witness.

As for the assertion that kosher slaughter as performed at AgriProcessors "renders the animal insensate," the question is not if the animal is rendered insensate, it is when the animal is rendered insensate.

The OU's parsing of the English language is reprehensible.

And then, the statement closes this way:

When this story broke, several rabbis, in Israel and Europe as well as in the United States, at first commented negatively on the kashrut of this shechita. Almost all of them, including the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, have now said that their initial statements were based on misinformation, and have retracted them. [Emphasis added.]

For more on at least one of these 'retractions,' see my interview with the Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen, here.

ShechitaUK told me yesterday that they stood by their statement. David Rosen, the former Chief Rabbi of Ireland, has not retracted and I have not seen a retraction from Rabbi Raful of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate in print.

In short, where are the retractions?

OU Issues Statement

The OU's statement on the Postville Shechita-gate Scandal can be read here. Analysis to follow shortly.

OU Slaughter In Uruguay

Kosher meat from Uruguay and Argentina is imported into the United States under a variety of brand names and supervisions. Rubashkin owns a slaughterhouse in South America (I believe, in Argentina). I have been told that cattle there are processed much as they are at AgriProcessors in Postville, Iowa. Amazingly, that is better than the OU-supervised meat (under joint supervision with Satmar). The process has been described as follows:

• A steer is led to the slaughter floor.
• A chain is attached to a hind leg.
• Using ropes, 4 or 5 workers put the animal on its back on a slaughter platform.
• The slaughter is done.
• The animal is hoisted by the chain attached to its hind leg.
• Dismemberment begins.

The supervision is under Rabbi Teitelbaum, who has his own Satmar-related supervision. According to the OU's Director of Kashrut Rabbi Menachem Genack, Rabbi Teitelbaum is also an employee of the OU. The meat that comes to America from Uraguay would presumably be sold under the Alle, MealMart, and Schriebers labels, along with its use in OU supervised products under other labels and in OU supervised restaurants.

According to experts I've spoken with – including Dr. Grandin – this is a horrible process that they would much like changed.

Again, the OU certifies that meat.

Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen, Chief Rabbi of Haifa

I interviewed the Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen early this morning. Rabbi Cohen was widely quoted early in the scandal in support of PETA, but as of late has been characterized by the OU and others as retracting those statements. Some – most notably employees of the Rubashkin family – have claimed that PETA deceived Rabbi Cohen and misled him. Without detailing our entire conversation, let me note the following:

1. Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen was adamant that PETA had not deceived him.
2. Rabbi Cohen said that, after speaking to Rabbi Menachem Genack from the OU and Rabbi Chaim Kohn from KAJ, he no longer knew what the truth was.
3. If the PETA video is accurate (and both the OU's Rabbi Genack and KAJ's Rabbi Kohn have questioned this), and if the throat-ripping was done while the animal was sensate, then Rabbi Cohen would have problems with the process at AgriProcessors/Rubashkin.
4. Rabbi Cohen said that the animal is usually sensate for 20 seconds after shechita.
5. Rabbi Cohen stressed that, without seeing the shechita in person (or sending his own representative to do so), he could make no definitive ruling on the issue.
6. I asked Rabbi Cohen if PETA's representative had disguised himself or represented himself as a ba'al teshuva (a returnee to Orthodox Jewish observance). Rabbi Cohen said, "No, he did not." But because Ronnen wore a kipa (skullcap) during his meeting with Rabbi Cohen (probably as a sign of respect, much like many non-Orthodox Jews don a kipa when entering a synagogue or a rabbi's study), Rabbi Cohen assumed that Ronnen was most likely a ba'al teshuva.
7. In other words, despite the claims of the Rubashkin's and their lawyer Nathan Lewin, no intentional deception took place.
8. Rabbi Cohen noted that he thought his statement would be used to work with the plant and the government to repair the problems he saw on the video. He did not expect his comments to appear in the press.
9. He did not realize that PETA had made non-public efforts to work with Rubashkin, etc., but that Rubashkin had rebuffed those efforts.
10. He also did not realize that any complaint made to the USDA would automatically be made public.
11. Rabbi Cohen did not know the name, location or supervising agency – if any – of the slaughterhouse shown in the PETA video.
12. When he found out that it was Rubashkin and that the OU supervised the shechita, he was surprised.
13. "If I had known it was the OU I would have called Rabbi Genack directly," Rabbi Cohen said.
14. He also noted that, according to "this morning's Jerusalem Post the OU is making changes" at the plant. [The OU did not notify him of the changes.]
15. When I told him the number of different kosher supervising agencies certifying Rubashkin's operation, he was stunned. "That many? Why?"
16. Rabbi Cohen is a member of the Kashrut Committee of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. He noted that the OU was highly regarded in Israel because it is a community-based supervision, and the supervising rabbis are not paid by the plant.
17. Rabbi Cohen also noted that, now that the issue has been made public, he could not issue any definitive statement regarding the kashrut of AgriProcessors until the Rabbinute officially evaluates the situation.
18. The Rabbinute has not yet decided if it will officially evaluate the situation, or if it will continue to rely on the OU in this matter. [Although it seems that they will continue to defer to the OU.]
19. Rabbi Cohen also told me that he did not see a proper bedika (inspection) after the shechita.

I would also point out that Rabbi Cohen was clear and forthright, did not hesitate when answering questions and seemed to be a very kind man.

Still No Statement

I spoke with Steven Steiner, the OU's director of media relations a few minutes ago. I asked him if the OU had issued its promised statement on the Rubashkin Shechita-gate Scandal. "No. Not yet. You haven't missed anything," Steiner said. I asked him when the promised statement – due out Tuesday, then Wednesday, and now, today – would finally be released. "Soon," Steiner said. I responded by chuckling and wishing him a Good Shabbos, my way gentle way of letting him know that the OU's "soon" wasn't soon enough.

THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO RESOLVING CONFLICTS BETWEEN VETERINARY SCIENCE AND SHECHITA

This scholarly paper on The Scientific Approach To Resolving Conflicts Between Veterinary Science and Shechita (L.S. Shore, Israel Veterinary Medical Association, 1999) should help in understanding the issues at hand. I found the author's closing comments to be particularly prescient:

In summary, scientific studies dealing with veterinary problems in the kosher meat and poultry industry today can be characterized as sporadic, generally out-of-date, and grossly underreported. Attempts by Dr. Levinger in Israel in the early 1970’s to develop a scientific basis for research into these problems was not continued due to lack of funding. Considering that the rapidly growing kosher food market is one of the great success stories of recent decades, this policy, or lack of it, on the part of funding agencies can at best be characterized as short sighted. This is especially so as the kosher meat industry must meet the new environmental, hygienic, and food quality requirements which will seriously challenge its profitability in the near future. [Emphasis added.]

One must ask how the Rubashkin Shechita-gate Scandal would have played out – in fact, if it would have occurred at all – if rabbinical authorities in charge of kosher supervision had followed Dr. Shore's advice.

PETA Questions Rubashkin

Just a few moments ago, I asked Bruce Friedrich of PETA for his comments on Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin's article published yesterday defending AgriProcessors. Bruce had only a few moments to scan the piece before going to sleep. What follows are a few brief comments from him [formatting mine]:

The Jerusalem Post Weighs In

… But what was striking about PETA's criticism of the Postville plant was that it was not part of an overall attack on shehita. Their Web site made a point of noting that "kosher slaughter is more than twice as well-regulated as conventional slaughter and is supposed to be more humane."

The group sought out the expert advice of Temple Grandin, an associate professor of animal science at Colorado State University and a top consultant to the meat industry, who made a point of noting that the practices at Postville were not up to the standard of many other kosher slaughtering-plants she has examined. And PETA made a serious effort in seeking the backing of recognized Orthodox authorities in Halacha (Jewish law) to support its charges against the plant.…

The problem with Postville was neither the nature of shehita itself, nor PETA's charges, but faulty procedures by AgriProcessors and lax supervision by the OU. Hopefully these problems will soon be corrected, and the kosher meat industry will have learned it needs to do a better job of policing itself.…

Read it all here.

FORWARD: "O.U. Reverses Stance on Slaughterhouse"

The Forward notes that:

As it stands now, the O.U. position seems to rest on a distinction between what constitutes kosher slaughter and what is humane slaughter. According to the O.U., one can have the former without the latter.

"In terms of kashrus, the plant was very much in order," said Rabbi Menachem Genack, head of the O.U.'s kashrut department and a member of an O.U. delegation that visited the Iowa plant early this week. "I was impressed with the commitment of the personnel to kashrus."

It is in the realm of trying to make slaughter more humane that the O.U. has now recommended refinements to the AgriProcessors model.

Rubashkin In His Own Words

Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin in his own words, unedited and uncut:

Rubashkin's Resonse to the "Attack on Shechita"
By: Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin

Spin Machine In High Gear?

Here's how Rubashkin and the OU are spinning the scandal:

Another Expert Speaks Out Against Rubashkin

Released by PETA:

Lester C. Friedlander, DVM
USDA Slaughterhouse Inspector for more than 10 years

Professional Comments and Opinions after reviewing PETA’s Undercover Video taken at Federal Establishment #4653, AgriProcessors, Inc., Pottsville, Iowa:

The Spin Goes ON: 12 Rabbis Issue Statement On Rubashkin–At Least 6 Have Financial Ties To AgriProcessors

From PR Newswire.com. It's important to note that the kosher industry's trade group and producer of KosherFest, Lubicom, released this statement. They also publish Kosher Today, the publication that smeared, among others, PETA.

At least 6 of the rabbis who signed this statement have financial ties to AgriProcessors/Rubashkin.

Let's NOT Let The TRUTH Trouble Us

Let's see:

1. First we were told that the 'second cut/throat-ripping' was to help the animal die faster and experience less pain.
2. Then, Rabbi Chaim Kohn of KAJ denied that telling me last week, "it is not" and "I would never say that."
3. Today, Rabbi Menachem Genack, the OU's head of kashrut – who told me this morning that he did not know until last week that the 'second-cut/throat-ripping' was being done – now says that the purpose of the throat-ripping was twofold:

• To render the animal unconcious faster and to ease it's pain.
  
• To reduce the number of bloodspots and bruises on the meat by increasing the bleeding. (This makes the meat more valuable.)

Now we have this from the Postville Herald-Leader:

The administration for Agriprocessors added that two rabbis are in the slaughter area at all times; following the first cut made by a rabbi with a ritual knife, a worker on the floor makes additional cuts to ensure sufficient blood loss and make certain the animal is oblivious to pain.
The USDA has continued to approve the methods of slaughter used at the plant here. Nine rabbis are on site during production to ensure kosher standards, as well as those set up by the government, are adhered to. Veterinarians, who are employed by the USDA and oversee the procedures at Agriprocessors, say the bleeding should render the animal unconscious in less than 20 seconds.

You'd think these guys could coordinate their stories in a better fashion. It's almost like the holding cell from NYPD Blue on the prarie.

Rubashkin = Good Citizen?

The Postville Herald-Leader reports on the EPA's suit against AgriProcessors:

Agriprocessors, Inc., along with its CEO Sholom Rubashkin, has asked for the support of the citizens of Postville and the surrounding area. In a mass mailing to the community, as well as in a letter to the editor to this newspaper, Rubashkin said the plant is and will continue to be a good steward of the land and surrounding environment.

The OU

The OU's PR director, Steven Steiner, assures me that:

1. The OU's statement on Rubashkin/Postville has not yet been issued.
2. It will be issued sometime today.
3. He does not know how the JTA got the gist of the statement or all those quotes on it from Rabbi Genack last night, just in time to make the deadline for hundreds of Jewish weeklies, thereby ensuring international coverage that is sure to be favorable to the OU.

Really? Then What Does It Say About The Dozens Of Rabbis Who ENDORSED Rubashkin?

Sent to me by PETA:

An exemplary mainstay of the lifestyle of halakhically-observant Jews is that they are willing to make sacrifices for the observance of Halakah.  Thus all halakhically-observant Jews keep kosher, though, as is well known, kosher meat is appreciably more expensive than non-kosher meat.  Similarly, a sizeable percentage of halakhically-observant Jews accept the more stringent requirement of glatt kosher meat -- though that meat is even more expensive.

But for a person to insist upon the most stringent requirements with regard to the ritual portion of the slaughtering process and yet at the same time flagrantly not insist upon stringent requirements with regard to the crucial moral aspect of the slaughtering process -- the necessity to guarantee beyond the slightest doubt that there is no tza'ar ba'alei hayyim (pain caused to animals) which is not absolutely essential to the slaughtering process -- makes the entire kashrut endeavor of that person both suspect and absurd.  It very well may be that any plant performing such types of shechita is guilty of hillul hashem -- the desecration of God's name -- for to insist that that God cares only about his ritual law and not about his moral law is to desecrate His Name.

Dr. Chaim Milikowsky
Chair
Talmud Department
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan
Israel

The Difference Between ALF and PETA

The Iowa State Daily has the best report (okay, the only report) I've seen during the Rubashkin Slaughterhouse Scandal on the difference between PETA and more radical animal rights groups like ALF. (Funny how blogs, online publications and college newspapers have led the coverage of this while the traditional press has fallen far behind. But I digress.)

Josh Nelson reports:

What It All Boils Down To

Tzemach Atlas has another interesting post, this one on Tzar Ba'alei Hayyim (pain caused to an animal) after ritual slaughter. Interestingly, the Da'as K'doshim "Dovid" mentions in the post in opposition to the KAJ-instituted throat-ripping (or so Dovid seems to claim) appears to be the same source Rabbi Chaim Kohn of KAJ cited for me in support of the KAJ endorsed second cut/throat ripping. This will need to be clarified.

But the idea that KAJ "has what to rely on" is foolish.

Why?

Because we now know for a fact that the animal can feel pain as long as it remains conscious, which in well done shechita – not Rubashkin shechita – is for 10 to 30 seconds after the shochet's initial cut. So, while the animal does not appear to feel properly done shechita carried out in a standing pen, it would feel the throat-ripping that follows.

In other words, this is not an arcane legal argument about what one is or is not punished for under Jewish law. This is a real life situation and it is clearly apparent that the animal feels the pain of the throat-ripping, and that the throat-ripping prolongs the animal's suffering.

So, we are left with the following choice:

1. If the intent of Jewish law is to prevent tzar ba'alei hayyim, the KAJ, et al, have committed a heinous crime.

2. If the intent of Jewish law is to foster arcane debates removed from the real world, and Jewish leaders isolated from the consequences of – and the suffering caused by – the results of them, the KAJ, et al, have done no wrong.

Of course, if the answer is #2, we all need to find a different Judaism.

The Business of Kashrut

Tzemach Atlas has this post on the business of kashrut. I would only add that Rav Weissmandel was brought in to Rubashkin's stable of supervisions not because KAJ walked away, but because Rubashkin's market share depends largely on the perception of a higher standard of kashrut, higher than the OU alone. When KAJ agreed to supervise Empire along with Empire's existing OU certification, Rubashkin's edge was largely destroyed. Worse yet, all things being equal, Empire is widely considered by food experts to have the better product. Rubashkin's solution to this problem was to add the supervision of the Nitra Rav, Rabbi Weissmandel, who is widely regarded as having the strictest supervision in the business. (Rabbi Weissmandel is also reported to be extremely  anti-Zionist.)

Dr. Temple Grandin's Written Statement On The Postville Scandal

Tzemach Atlas has Dr. Temple Grandin's written statement on the Postville video. It can be read here or after the jump.

The OU Mandates Changes

The OU has mandated at least three changes at the Rubashkin-owned AgriProcessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa.

1. No more trachea-pulling/throat-ripping.
2. A second cut to slash the arteries only. (I.e., no more #1.)
3. Stunning or killing animals still walking after slaughter.

I was told in confidence last week about the changes, but the senior-level OU rabbinic official who told me asked me not to make the changes public. He feared publicity would cause Jews to think the following:

If Rubshkin was doing all these things incorrectly right under the noses of the OU, KAJ, UMK, Crown Heights Beit Din, Kehilla Kosher (LA), Margareten, and several other kosher supervisions, then why should I trust them now? Why keep kosher?

Stupidly, I agreed to his request.

Little did I (and, perhaps, little did that senior-level OU rabbinic official) realize that, as we were speaking the OU was dishing most of this information to the New York Times.

Yesterday I received a phone call from Steven Steiner, the OU's director of public relations, promising me that today or tomorrow there would be a statement issued by the OU, after Rabbis Genack and Belsky (and Rabbi Chaim Kohn from KAJ) returned to New York from Postville. When Steiner did not call me with or e-mail me the statement, I assumed the OU would issue it tomorrow morning.

Instead, the OU was dishing it to the JTA (and, I would expect, the New York Times).

In other words, I got scooped on my own story because I allowed myself to have sympathy for an important rabbinic figure and for the Jewish community.

Live and learn.

Most Jewish newspapers are sent to the printer ("put to bed", in newspaper lingo) on Tuesday night. By dishing to the JTA (whose coverage of this scandal has been weak) late Tuesday afternoon, the OU guarantees one more week of insipid coverage in the Jewish press. How's that for honest, Torah-based behavior from our rabbinic leaders?

I should also add that the senior OU rabbinic figure told me that from now on the second cut would be made by shochtim (Jewish ritual slaughterers, commonly thought of as rabbis) and not by untrained workers. Let's hope that turns out to be true.

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture: If I had jurisdiction, I would shut them down.

DES MOINES — Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge said Monday if her department had jurisdiction, she would shut down and investigate a kosher meatpacking plant in Postville that critics say makes cattle suffer needlessly.

Dr. Temple Grandin Interview

Highlights from my interview with Dr. Temple Grandin, the world's leading expert on all methods of animal slaughter, can be read after the jump.

Every Critic A Nazi? Every Expert An Antisemite?

Kosher Today, the house organ of the kosher trade organization that, among other things puts on KosherFest, issued the following two 'news articles' on the Postville Controversy. Please note that many of the claims made by Kosher Today are false or misleading. For example, Kosher Today writes that:

Similarly a spokesman for the chief rabbinate, who explained policies that are in effect in Israel, was misquoted [by PETA -– see context below, after the jump] as saying he would no longer accept Agri products, the only kosher beef slaughtered in the US allowed into Israel.

The problem is that the Jerusalem Post – not PETA – sent a reporter to the Rabbinute, and it was the Jerusalem Post – not PETA – that reported the story.

Then, we have this:

It used a bellowing sound from an animal waiting to be slaughtered in conjunction with a frame allegedly showing an animal thrashing on the floor (a clear reflexive action not associated with pain, veterinarians say) after schechita. A spokesman for Agri confirmed that the company has sent the tape for expert analysis.

The problem is that experts (as well as some highly placed rabbis involved in the supervision of AgriProcessors) have clearly shown that the animals that walked and crawled were not unconcious and their efforts at escape were not "reflexive".

Kosher Today also labels this as an "attack against shechita," when all evidence so far made public shows that it is not an attack against shechita, it is an attack against bad shechita at one poorly-run slaughterhouse.

As for sending the tape out for "analysis," I look forward to the results – and to learning the name and affilliations of the experts who conduct it.

The Kosher Today 'news articles' can be read after the jump.

Progress?

Rabbi Belsky and Rabbi Genack of the OU and Rabbi Chaim Kohn of KAJ (Broyers) are meeting with officials of AgriProcessors in Postville and are inspecting the plant. A statement from the OU is expected tomorrow.

What PETA Really Asked For

What follows are excerpts from PETA's November 29, 2004 letter to Rabbi Menachem Genack, head of the OU's Kashrut Division. [Emphasis usually mine.] Please notice that PETA assumes that the OU already follows humane slaughter practicies, and that the Rubashkin/Postville situation is an abberation:

[W]e encourage the OU to conduct a thorough audit of its own systems of supervision and personnel-monitoring capabilities to prevent a similar debacle. We also urge the OU to require that AgriProcessors make the necessary policy and procedural changes to live up to the legal, humane, and kosher standards required of an OU-certified company and to remove the OU hechser from this operation if AgriProcessors is not willing to reform.

Finally and most importantly, we recommend that the OU issue an official policy statement on Tsaar Baalei Chayim to all slaughterhouses that it certifies and that included in that policy there be a pledge to certify only companies that have adopted the following humane methods to prevent the abysmal treatment of animals that was witnessed at AgriProcessors:

• Recommendation #1: Make explicit what is surely already an OU requirement, that no animals shall be touched after shechita until after they are dead. As discussed above, the dismembering of the animals seconds after the shochet’s initial cut while the animal is still fully conscious clearly violates the humane intent and letter of Jewish law.

• Recommendation #2: End the use of the Facoima pen or other inverted restraining devices, and instead, adopt a more humane, upright pen. The ASPCA pen, recommended by Temple Grandin, keeps conscious animals restrained upright at all times and is in accordance with strict kosher requirements. As you probably know, the Facoima pen is illegal in the United Kingdom, based on humane considerations.

• Recommendation #3: Require that animals always be kept inside the restraining device until they are unconscious. Again, animals should be allowed to die undisturbed after shechita, as moving them after shechita while they are still conscious is both terrifying and cruel. Humane slaughter regulations in the United Kingdom, including kosher slaughter, require that cattle not be moved prior to unconsciousness and never be moved within 30 seconds of shechita.

• Recommendation #4: Institute a policy that requires animals who are not rapidly rendered unconscious by shechita, as required by law, to be immediately rendered unconscious with a captive-bolt gun. While this may mean that the animal’s carcass would not qualify as kosher, we understand that all kosher processing facilities already process a significant amount of meat as nonkosher to sell to their nonkosher customer base, and it is estimated that at any kosher slaughterhouse, between 40 and 80 percent of all animals already do not meet kosher requirements.

• Recommendation #5: Make explicit and enforce what we believe you already have—a ban on the use of electric prods. In the footage, we witnessed the use of electric prods on numerous cows, contrary to kosher restrictions, including some being prodded in the face to maneuver their heads into position while they were in the restraining device. It may be that your current ban on this process has not been communicated effectively enough to the plants that you certify, since no plants should have electric prods available to them if they are not allowed to be used.

The full text of the letter can be found after the jump.

More Postville Doublespeak?

In an otherwise unremarkable article on PETA's attempt to have the  Iowa Department of Agriculture institute legal proceedings against AgriProcessors/Rubashkin for cruelty to animals, we find the following statement:

During slaughter at the plant, rabbis use a 2-foot blade to cut across the neck of the animal, severing the arteries on both sides and the trachea and esophagus. A second cut is made to each artery to ensure rapid blood loss as a second rabbi stands by to monitor, company officials have said.

The idea that a second rabbi "stands by to monitor" the 'second-cut/throat-ripping' appears to be incorrect. If "company officials" actually said this, those "company officials" appear to be lying.
"Company officials" have also been quoted as saying that if the 'second-cut/throat-ripping' tears the trechea and severs it from the cow's body, the cow is "not kosher."

Yet, that is exactly what happened time after time on the PETA video.

Rubashkin has continued to maintain that all cows shown in that video were in fact correctly slaughtered and therefore kosher (unless defects of the internal organs were found on processing). The OU and the KAJ have both claimed the same. Yet, neither the OU or the KAJ have claimed that a second rabbi watched or even inspected the 'second-cut/throat-ripping.'

More on this as it developes.