Conference taveng::bagels

Since a letter of the alphabet cannot be a trademark, anybody can put a K
on a product.  It generally means that someone who claims to be a rabbi
says the product is kosher, but it can also mean that the manufacturer
himself says so.  There are some products that have reliable supervision,
but choose to put just a K (or nothing) on the package.

RE: -1

>>                   There are some products that have reliable supervision,
>> but choose to put just a K (or nothing) on the package.

Hmm ...

So how does one know if the product with the "K" on it is kosher. Is there 
some published listing of "K" products ?????

>So how does one know if the product with the "K" on it is kosher. Is there 
>some published listing of "K" products ?????

   Nope.  One either tracks down the source (calling the company, 
   calling the rabbi).  Or you ask someone you rely on what the 
   story is per product (not necessarily per manufacturer!!).

>>So how does one know if the product with the "K" on it is kosher. Is there 
>>some published listing of "K" products ?????
>
>   Nope.  One either tracks down the source (calling the company, 
>   calling the rabbi).  Or you ask someone you rely on what the 
>   story is per product (not necessarily per manufacturer!!).

    So, would anyone like to comment on Sunshine brand crackers and cookies
    that have the K on the box?  Thanks.

    Sid

Another problem with K is that the supervision can change without your
knowledge.  So even if you investigate (does Sunshine have an 800 number?),
find out who's supervising, and check his reliability, your information
might become obsolete.

There are a number of newsletters on Kashrut that explain who's who and
what products have changing or incorrect hashgacha.  The following is
sort of seat-of-the-pants (can someone make corrections and post addresses?):
	The OU puts out Jewish Action, which includes a kashrut section
	OK Labs puts out The Jewish Homemaker
	? in Baltimore puts out Kashrut Newsletter ?
	The Detroit Vaad puts out ?

>    So, would anyone like to comment on Sunshine brand crackers and cookies
>    that have the K on the box?  Thanks.

	You hadda pick one of the specific items for which there's a 
	_real_ problem.

	Yes, Sunshine crackers (the saltines, specifically) has a "K" on it. 

	There was a time when it was "OK".  Then there was a scandal.
	Seems like under the "ingredient" labelling laws of the US,
	if a manufacturer who is shipping in interstate commerce makes a 
	"temporary" (less than so-many weeks...) subsititution of ingredients
	in their production, they don't have to change the package 
	"ingredients" labelling.

	In this case, the package says something like "pure vegetable
	shortening".  However, Sunshine had substituted lard, "temporarily".
	They did not change their labelling, however.  Hmmmm. So much
	for kashrut by "ingredients list", what?!  So much for the "OK",
	too.  

	I wonder what that "K" on Sunshine means now?

	(I also used to wonder what "made with 100% pure vegetable shortening" 
	means. Does it mean that "100% of the shortening used is 100% vegetable
	shortening", or does it mean that "100% of the vegetable shortening
	used is 100% vegetable shortening"?   Consumer Reports, a few
	years ago, showed it to be the latter...)

don feinberg

    In New Jersey, use of the letter K on a non-Kosher product is a serious
    violation of the law.  However, everyone can slip up.  How about the OU
    Vinegar scandel, and the questions about OUs supervision or lack
    thereof in Far East tuna packing plants.  Also a lot of products are
    Kosher and for some reason aren't labeled.  Hersey chocolate products come
    to mind.  An excellent source is Kashrus magazine.  They every so often
    list all the different Kosher mards found around the country and
    explain who grants them.
    
    Warren
    

.7

In most states use of the letter K on non-kosher products is considered fraud.
However, the definition of "kosher" is "certified by a Rabbinic agency" or
some similar legalese.  This means that a Conservative rabbi can certify
cheese with rennet from non-kosher sources as kosher (the Conservative movement
allows this) and it would be legal.  That is why you must always know WHO is
doing the certifying.

Gavriel

	A couple of quickies:

	The vinegar scandal was due to the OK, not the OU (just a nit).
	Many OU products were affected because the OK was supervising
	a wholesale source, which was later used in many products bearing 
	other hecksherim (another reason why you need to _know_ just
	whose hecksher you're trusting...).

	And, re:  "Certification by Rabbinic sources..."  I just have
	to repeat a story.  It's too good to keep to myself.  Unfortunately, 
	it's also a true story:

	I was in Jerusalem a couple of weeks ago, speaking at some length
	with a well-respected Rav.  It seems that this Rav's son was in 
	a Boston hospital two winters ago.

	Now, to set the scene, this Rav is what anyone would call 
	"black hat".  So, you can imagine that he was somewhat scrupulous 
	about making sure that the boy had kosher food arranged in the hospital.

	It was a day or two after surgery, and the boy's first solid food
	(after surgery) arrived.  

	Guess what was on the tray?  A plate of chicken, a salad, a dessert,
	and a glass of milk.

	The Rav I'm speaking of called the hospital's "mashgiach" (he used
	the term advisedly).  The guy turned out to be a Reform Rabbi.  The 
	Rav asked him whether or not he was a Rabbi...

		"Certainly. I also have a PhD."

		"What about this food?," asked the Rav

		"It's kosher"

		"What?"

		"The chicken it kosher.  The dessert is kosher.  The
		 milk is kosher.  It is all supervised. What did you have in 
		 mind?"

		.....

	No more to say?!

don feinberg

re .9:

That's a great story, Don, and I'll probably use it myself when the opportunity
arises, but I'm a bit skeptical about its veracity.

First of all, I find it very difficult to believe that a graduate of a Reform
rabbinical program would be unfamiliar with the laws of kashrut.  He might
not observe them (as none of us observes *all* of the commandments with
which he is familiar), but not knowing about meat and milk seems improbable.

Also, the haredi community is not exactly enamored of the Reform rabbinate,
and an element of this bias might be present here.  What, in the eyes of
this Jerusalem rabbi, would qualify the "mashgiach" as a "Reform rabbi"?

Finally, I note that your conversation took place right the time of a certain
holiday that traditionally is associated with a degree of irreverence.
Black-hat rabbis are as human as the rest of us, and if this one has a sense
of humor anything like mine, he just might have stretched the facts in the
interests of a good joke.

>That's a great story, Don, and I'll probably use it myself when the opportunity
>arises, but I'm a bit skeptical about its veracity.
>
>First of all, I find it very difficult to believe that a graduate of a Reform
>rabbinical program would be unfamiliar with the laws of kashrut.  He might
>not observe them (as none of us observes *all* of the commandments with
>which he is familiar), but not knowing about meat and milk seems improbable.

	I'm really not skeptical about the story, sorry.  I have one of
	my own, which I've added below, just in case you think the one
	I gave was a rarity.

	You're right, not knowing about meat and milk does seem improbable.
	What does not seem improbable --  and is consistent, from words
	I've personally heard from the mouths of a couple such Rabbis --
	is the feeling that there's no need/requirement to do anything 
	about it.  See below, please!

	I wasn't there.  But I would not have been greatly surprised if this
	person's logic was something along the lines of "you can eat
	what you want from this tray.  It's your free choice..."

>Also, the haredi community is not exactly enamored of the Reform rabbinate,
>and an element of this bias might be present here.  What, in the eyes of
>this Jerusalem rabbi, would qualify the "mashgiach" as a "Reform rabbi"?

	Perhaps either you read it, or I wrote it, wrong.  Nothing would
	qualify the mashgiach as a Reform Rabbi.

	The Rav had asked to see the mashgiach of the hospital.  He 
	did not know beforehand that the mashgiach was a Reform Rabbi.
	The mashgiach identified himself that way. It wasn't a question 
	of qualification.  The Rav was surprised to find it so.

>Finally, I note that your conversation took place right the time of a certain
>holiday that traditionally is associated with a degree of irreverence.
>Black-hat rabbis are as human as the rest of us, and if this one has a sense
>of humor anything like mine, he just might have stretched the facts in the
>interests of a good joke.

	You're right, they are as human as the rest of us.  This
	person does have a good sense of humor.  So, it's possible.  

	However, the conversation did take place well before 
	Purim.  And perhaps more sobering, it took place at a
	shiva in Geula, at which we spent a couple of hours.  There
	wasn't too much "Purim-torah" there (which I remember, at least).
	The niftar was the father of the wife of a good friend of mine,
	and the Rav I spoke of is his (my friend's) brother-in-law.
	And the shiva was being held at this Rav's home...


And, here as promised, my personal story.  Not quite as gruesome as the last,
but almost:

	My daughter was in for some (planned/scheduled) foot surgery in 
	one of the hospitals in the "greater Mass/NH area" in the winter 
	of 1987-88.  I arranged, of course, for kosher food.  I wondered 
	about whether they would really comply. So, I called the hospital 
	on three separate occasions over a period of a month before the 
	surgery. Each time I called, I was reassured -- "no problem".

	I wondered about the reassurances, but unfortunately did not act.

	The day after the surgery, we were with my daughter, and they
	brought in lunch.  What was lunch?  A bagel and lox and cream
	cheese, and a glass of milk, served on an open tray, on regular 
	hospital china/glassware, with regular hospital utensils.

	When I asked about it, they said, "well, you did ask for kosher,
	didn't you?".

	I asked:  "Please show me the kashrut certificate for this
	meal and the serving implements, etc."

	"What's that?"

	"A certificate from the people who packaged this food stating
	that it's kosher", I explained.

	"Oh, we prepare this food in our kitchen.  We don't need a 
	certificate.  It comes from our regular suppliers. It's kosher."

	"Do you have a mashgiach?"  I asked.

	"What's that?"

	"A Rabbi who certifies that the food is kosher", I explained.

	"Why do you need a Rabbi for blessing (sic) it? The (sic) Rabbi
	told us that as long as it wasn't meat it was OK.  Anyway, isn't 
	this the kind of food you people (sic!) eat?"
	
	I should have known. For the rest of her stay, each day I ferried 
	meals back and forth from our home to the hospital.  For her
	second stay (the other foot!), I didn't even ask them.  I just
	came prepared...

Eric: still skeptical?

don	

re .11:

That first story still sounds almost too "good" a story to be true, Don.
But since I wasn't there, I'll accept that it happened that way.  I'd describe
that Reform rabbi as irresponsible, but there's no law of nature that says
that rabbis (Reform or otherwise) can't be irresponsible.

       I don't think it makes a tremendous amount of difference whether
       the story is true or whether it's one of those cat-in-the-
       microwave urban legends.
       
       I perceive the anecdote to be gratuitous bashing of Reform Judaism
       --- I honestly can't find any other purpose to the story.  It is
       one thing to respectfully discuss different approaches and
       beliefs; it's quite another to use an anecdote (which is
       impossible to disprove, precisely because it is an anecdote) to
       ridicule those Jews with whom one might disagree.  This notes
       conference seems to me to be a singularly inappopriate place for
       that type of activity. 
       
       --Don

re .14:

     I don't see the anecdote as reform bashing at all.
     Gavriel suggested in .8 that you should know whose
     hashgacha a product has.  In .9, Don gave an example of a
     mashgiach who didn't know even the elementary points
     of kashrut.

I find it incredible that a Reform rabbi would attempt to play Mashgiach (sp?).
The second story is believable and unfortunate; the respondant forgot to
mention that "Kosher" requires kosher utensils and kosher preparation at every
processing step. But I find the first story disturbing. Please document this
story so someone else could verify it. I would expect any person intelligent
enough to get through rabbinic school (any denomination) to be smart enough to
know not to play Mashgiach without the necessary specialized training.

Dave

p.s. It isn't quite true that anything that is not meat is Kosher. There are
special requirements for grapes/grape juice/wine.

>It isn't quite true that anything that is not meat is Kosher. There are
>special requirements for grapes/grape juice/wine.

	That was precisely one of the points.

	It ain't just grapes/juice/wine, etc.  It's _anything_. (And I'm
	not just trying to start a cheese debate, either.)  I'm
	including such things as my remarks a few replies ago about
	Sunshine crackers.  That's why in my family we don't eat anything 
	which doesn't have a hecksher that we can directly trace to 
	someone we trust.


	The best single example of "why" which I can come up with is that 
	of sugar. Plain old ordinary table sugar.  "100% pure".  Easy, right?
	What could be wrong with sugar, right?  Well, just a minute...

	It seems that one common way for purifying sugar is to
	put it into a water solution, then pass it through a porcelain
	filter (the kind of filter one sees in laboratories, except
	much bigger), and then evaporate the water.

	One sugar company (to remain nameless here...) had a "better"
	idea about 3 or 4 years ago. They replaced their porcelain filters 
	with filters made from pulverized/compressed animal (including
	pig, horse, ...) bones.  It seems that such a filter has similar 
	mechanical filtering properties to porcelain, but also has some 
	ion-exchange properties, that is, it does provide some level of 
	chemical impurity removal.

	Hmmm.  "100% pure sugar" that they just passed through crushed-up 
	pig and horse bones is kosher???

don

    -.17
    
    I can remember a similar problem when I was still in France. They also
    are using bones. The decision made by the Beth-Din of Paris is that for
    2 reasons there is no problem "bediavad" (a posteriori):
    
    1. The bones cannot be eaten by men because they were treated with some
    chemical products and according to the rule "maachal cheeno raoui"
    
    2. Batel be chichim: the quantity of the bones is less than 1/60 of the
    total quantity of the product.
    
    For the rest, I do agree with Don: you have to be carefull and cannot
    assume that non-concerned people understand something about kashrut.
    
    Haim