Debunking Some Objections to the Removal of Kosher and Halal Food Certification

[Karl Radl]

Debunking Some Objections to the Removal of Kosher and Halal Food Certification

[N.B. Source links in the original text, which is available here]

When I was browsing through my morning collection of 'Google Alerts' on a wide variety of issues: I happened to notice the 'Letters to the Editor' section of the Sydney Morning Herald, which were veritably smoking with self-righteous (and dare I say amusing) left-liberal types fuming at the proposal of removing Halal food certification.

As Kosher and Halal Certification are extremely similar and the model Halal uses to do so is derived from Kosher Certification: I thought I would take the opportunity afforded by the letters to answer the objections made to removing this certification.

In the interests of fairness I have reproduced what I consider the relevant bits of the letters that actually make an argument (rather than just calling Kirralie Smith a 'bigot') so the reader can better understand my points and judge for themselves who is right and who is wrong.

To wit:

'Kirralie Smith and her "supporters" want halal certification removed to reduce costs ("Halal of a food fight", Extra, 28/12). Let's also remove kosher, gluten-free, dairy-free, organic and free-range certification, too, shall we, Ms Smith? Surely these also add to costs?'

This argument is a classic fallacy of many questions: just because someone argues that one type of certification should be removed it does not therefore follow that all certifications should equally be removed as a result.

As it happens the author likely doesn't know a lot about the subject on which he is holding forth: since for instance Halal and Kosher certification are religious-based certifications which have nothing to do with either ethics (free-range), quality (organic) or physical dietary requirements (gluten-free/dairy-free).

We need gluten-free and dairy-free certification because some people (including myself, my wife and most of my family as it happens) are strongly, or somewhat, allergic to gluten and/or dairy products: thus that is kind-of important unless you want part of your population being a burden on your communal medical services because they are constantly having allergic reactions to things because they weren't labelled and certified properly.

Organic and Free-Range certification doesn't objectively add value, but they both are relatively easy to ascertain (as they are based on the analysis of the manufacturer's supply chain with little fieldwork) and are limited in the product range they can apply to.

For example how can you can have 'organic' or 'free-range' laundry detergent or boiled sweets?

The answer is you can't other than as an advertising/marketing gimmick, but the fact is both of these things can be, and are, kosher and halal certified even though certainly in the first instance: there is no reason for them to be (I am not sure about halal).

This brings me onto the fundamental difference between kosher/halal certification and other types of certification in that the latter only require checks to be done to establish the providence of a certain product and its ingredients.

Kosher and Halal certification require significantly more, which includes, but is not limited to, special ways of killing animals which require them to conscious (which is why the British Veterinary Association has come out against both Kosher and Halal slaughter), have observant jews and Muslims slaughter all permitted animals (as this is requirement of both and thus clashes somewhat as well as violating a lot of legislation against discrimination in employment law), conforming to continually changing and purely arbitrary religious definitions of what is (and what is not) permitted according to the dietary laws of Kashruth and Sharia, require corporations split production between different facilities (as kosher/treif and halal/haram foods are frequently not allowed to be produced on the same premises), require machinery to be frequently tovelled in a Mikvah (according to Kashruth) with all the attendant costs and so forth.

That, as I have implied, is only the time of the iceberg, but for those who are interested: the complex area (as well as the origins) of jewish and Islamic food law has been nicely summarized in David Freidenreich's 'Foreigners and Their Food' (2011: University of California Press).

Thus we can see that the argument about other types of certification is simply a red herring and cannot be admitted as being valid.

Next we read:

'It is curious that Ms Smith's "concern" does not extend to the Heart Foundation's tick of approval, the National Association of Sustainable Agriculture or the Coeliacs Society, among others. Halal certification is regulated by Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and allows Australian beef to be easily marketed to large international customers, thereby generating jobs and profits for the industry the article claims Ms Smith represents. What kind of representative is really interested in reducing the international competitiveness of the product they supposedly promote?'

As we have seen: the first argument, which is a variant of the fallacy of many questions that I have addressed above, is completely unfounded as it is, simply put, an argument from ignorance.

The second argument is one based on trade and it seems superficially plausible until we realize that according to 'Meat & Livestock Australia': the largest export market for Australian beef is Japan followed in second place by the United States.

When we understand that then we note that the trade argument is also a red herring as it is based on the incorrect assumption (and I'd say a quite implausible one as far as assumptions go) that most of Australia's beef exports go to countries where there is a majority requirement that the meat be butchered via methods required by halal and the relevant certification be paid for.

After all if these countries and the consumers resident in them don't actually need halal certification (or kosher certification for that matter) then why on earth does that 'open markets', because the simple fact is that it doesn't and cannot do so.

So what was that about international competitiveness and the free market?

Next we read:

'People thinking of signing the petition to make halal certification payable only by Muslims should reconsider, for a few reasons. Unit costs per consumer are next to zero. Most halal products are competitively priced to compete with non-halal food for the non-Muslim market. What's next? Healthy heart food paid only by people at risk of heart attack? Kosher certification to be paid only by religious Jews? And how would this be policed? Not all Muslim women wear religious garb, and men don't at all. Not only is this move blatantly anti-Islamic, it is silly.'

Looking at this we should note that the first argument, that unit costs per customer are next to zero, is a hoary old myth that I have addressed elsewhere (see here and here) and created by a typically biased and selective analysis from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith no less (see here), which assumes that every certifiable product is manufactured on a mass production basis in large volumes (where significant economies of scale are operating), that only manufactured products rather than eateries and the like are subject to kosher/halal certification, that only large corporations go for kosher and/or halal certification and that kosher/halal certification is all but a formality with little real or potential cost to the business attached.

All those assumptions I am afraid are complete and utter rubbish as were this the case then there not be over 200 kosher certification agencies in the United States alone: since it would not be that profitable, but it clearly is and indeed is very much so (on this see Timothy Lytton's 'Kosher' [2013: Harvard University Press]).

The second argument that 'most halal products are competitively priced' is a contradiction terms since if the unit costs of halal certification are next to zero then all halal products should be priced the same as non-halal products. If halal (or kosher products) are priced even slightly higher than non-halal/non-kosher products then that ipso facto means (or at the very least suggests) that halal doesn't have next to no unit cost per customer, which necessitates that both kosher and halal certification operates as a religious quasi-tax on the non-kosher/non-halal consumer as they are paying for something which has no benefit to them and which has significant cost (which is, incidentally, unethical).

Even if we were to brush that aside: the simple fact is that kosher and halal food certification is the requirement by a minority of a given population in a Western country (like Australia, France, Sweden or the United States) and producing most meat products according to these religious-based standards necessarily violates the right of the majority of the population to eat ethically and according to their personal preferences and beliefs.

Violating the rights of the majority of the population and forcing them (directly or by stealth) to eat food they would find unethical (and not purchase or make substitute purchases) were they made aware of its origins to make two religious minorities (jews and Muslims) happy.

If these religious groups require kosher or halal certification of their food (and there are plenty of foods that do not: like most root vegetables) then let them import it from Israel or Islamic countries for their use (and pay the true price for it, as dictated by supply/demand, rather than subsidizing the cost of their food by 'certifying' everyone else's instead) and not inflict the costs of their religious requirements on the majority of the population.