The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Should Israel-Boycotting Businesses Lose Kosher Certification?
Doesn't seem right to me, but I'd love to hear what people who know more about Jewish religious law think about it.
The Forward (Lauren Markoe) reports:
Ben & Jerry's decision this summer to stop selling its products in East Jerusalem and the West Bank has created a difficult and novel conundrum for its kosher certification agency: should it renew its contract with the ice cream company?
The Ben & Jerry's boycott doesn't apply to all of Israel, but the same issue would of course arise with other businesses that are involved in BDS or related movements.
Here's my quick thought, which would apply to many fields: We need institutions that we can trust to answer well-defined questions, without bringing in their or their customers' moral views about other questions.
We need testing companies that can evaluate whether someone knows math, without focusing on whether the person is likely to use math to promote the companies' vision of social justice. If an entity wants to hire or admit only left-wing mathematicians or right-wing mathematicians, it may do so (depending on whether it's bound by some law banning ideological discrimination). But the process of evaluating mathematical skill shouldn't be influenced by such judgment about ideology. Indeed, it's important for people to maintain a mental distinction between "knowledgeable" and "morally sound," and for institutions to support that distinction.
We need doctors to give us diet advice that it's on our interest, without being influenced by their view about what eating practices are better for the environment or are more humane. We could then of course independently adjust our decisions to include factors other than health, but we need someone who can give us a medical judgment that's separate from the other judgments.
We need kosher certification agencies that decide what food is consistent with Jewish dietary law (recognizing that different groups of Jews may have subtly different views on such matters) without considering whether the food distributors' other actions are good for Jews (or for others).
Now of course there are many kosher certification agencies, and if an agency wants to drop Ben & Jerry's, no law stops it from doing so. Indeed, I doubt that under the First Amendment, the government could stop kosher certification agencies from defining their evaluation criteria as they liked. And if someone wants to expressly and clearly promote its mark as not just "this is kosher" but "this is kosher and pro-Israel," they can do so. (Likewise, for instance, there's nothing wrong with someone certifying food as "kosher vegan.")
But it seems to me that the traditional, well-understood job of a kosher certification agency is simply to render an honest judgment about whether a particular food does or does not comply with Jewish law. Having the agencies consider other political or moral factors, without expressly and clearly recasting their mission (as in the "kosher vegan" example), would dilute the importance of the Jewish law rules—which I take it observant Jews believe they must follow as a matter of God's command—by mixing them with mere political judgments (however strongly they may be felt by many Jews). And that is especially troublesome in an environment where people's success in pressuring one agency to impose such ideological standards may easily lead to more such pressure on other agencies as well.
On the other hand, I admit that my knowledge of Jewish religious law and how it fits in Jewish life is limited, so I'd love to hear what observant Jews think about it. Please post your thoughts in the comments!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Do people who support Israel's right-wing belligerence in general -- and conduct in the occupied territories in particular -- deserve Ben & Jerry's ice cream?
(something positive from something negative -- that's improvement)
Do people who want to make part of the Holy Land judenfrei and support the establishment of yet another terroristic statlet deserve ice cream? That is the question, Hamlet.
Why should Americans who don't support right-wing belligerence at home wish to subsidize it -- at great and varied costs -- anywhere else (especially when the lousy government conduct is superstition-laced)? That's the question for Americans, and its answer likely will lead to the United States withdrawing the military, political, and economic skirts Israel operates behind. (Ideally, we will drop Saudi Arabia simultaneously.)
Right now you are decidedly in the minority. Should the majority believe as you do, or, more likely, agree with Rand Paul that foreign aid should be curtailed, then Israel will survive it, with God's help. Its demise has been predicted by greater than the likes of you, and all have been proven wrong.
I sense you misunderstand the degree to which Democrats -- the future of American politics -- fault Israel for (1) favoring a jackass like Trump, (2) favoring a jackass like Netanyahu, and (3) engaging in immoral conduct enabled by the American skirts the Israelis hide behind. Accountability for Israel in this regard would be support by substantial international interests, too.
Those who support Israel's continuing reliance on America's political, economic, and military subsidies should be figuring a way to persuade American Democrats that Israel is not a right-wing bad apple that does not deserve American support (at great cost).
Your God is an illusory, paltry thing not relevant to reasoned debate among competent adults with respect to public affairs.
A while ago, one of the major kosher organizations (not the one that certifies Ben & Jerry's) pulled its certification from a restaurant that served kosher food and had entertainment that included scantilly clad women. The organization stated that apart from whether the food is kosher, its imprimatur also implies that the product or venue is consistent with Orthodox Jewish moral values, which this wasn't.
So, yes, if a company acts in a way that is antithetical to Jewish values, it is consistent with these organization's mission to decline to certify that the good is kosher.
No different than if a company used child slave labor to manufacture kosher food, for example.
I see this as more of a labeling issue. Otherwise kosher food made with child labor is still kosher. And you’ve got Jews on all sides of the Palestinian question so I’m not sure there is any such thing as “Jewish values.” The claim that there is a monolithic set of Jewish values strikes me as a bit of a no true Scotsman argument. If someone’s Jewish values includes scantily clad women, or support for the Palestinians, who are you to tell them they’re wrong?
The certifying agency is the one that sets its own standards, both as to the kosher food laws and the general moral laws. Neither I nor any government agency dictates those standards.
The claim by the agency that the business at issue fails to meet its standards. (At the margins, the standards are in fact debated.) That business is free to find another agency willing to grant it certification.
Ok, but again, it’s a labeling issue. “Kosher” has a specific and well defined meaning that does not include political or social opinions. Just as “a dozen eggs” has a specific and well defined meaning that does not include the social or political views. If anything I would say this agency has a labeling issue by virtue of claiming kosher means more than it actually does.
Bored Lawyer's point is that to the intended audience (Orthodox Jews) Kosher means "consistent with Orthodox Jewish moral values". What these values are is defined by the kosher certification organization. They are equally free to refuse certification to an organization that supports gay marriage or even one that just hires open homosexuals if they feel that is inconsistent with Orthodox Jewish values.
If av significant number of Orthodox Jews feel that boycotting Israel is consistent with Orthodox Jewish values they are free to accept certifications by an agency that agrees with them or to form one and Ben and Jerry's can get certified by it.
Perhaps there is a certification organization that would withhold services from organizations and persons embracing gay-hating bigotry?
If it's a private organization -- let them withhold services from whoever they want. The problem is that, these days, the government is clamping down on what businesses that supposedly "embrace gay-hating bigotry." You're fine with it, I know. I am not.
It's nice to know how unashamed Artie is of his anti-Semetic prejudices.
re: "to the intended audience (Orthodox Jews) Kosher means "consistent with Orthodox Jewish moral values"."
Is that actually true? Or is that the idiosyncratic view of the leadership of one certifying agency? If that definition of kosher is broadly true, then why aren't all the other certifying agencies already doing the same?
If that definition of kosher is not broadly true, then what this agency is certifying is not actually kosher - it's kosher-plus. Which perfectly fine to do but if they do it while using the same word, that actually dilutes the brand/word and creates consumer confusion.
K_2,
There is no issue. The agency is free to add whatever specifications it chooses as long as it meets threshold standards. Whose to judge?
The orthodox communities who consume kosher foods. If they are satisfied, why should you complain?
"you’ve got Jews on all sides of the Palestinian question"
All sides? How many sides are there to the Palestinian question?
Well, whenever there are two Jews, there will be three opinions.
I have at least three sides on it. Probably more if I think about it.
If Israel's conduct in the occupied territories is consistent with Jewish values, decent people should shun Jewish values.
How do you determine which side is correct in border disputes?? Is Russia or Ukraine correct in their border dispute? Is Taiwan part of China? What about the Kurds in Turkey and Syria? What about Iraq and Kuwait? What about Mexico and America and the Rio Grande? Why do American progressives care so much about the he Israel/Palestine border dispute in light of border disputes being quite common in human history? Also, are people born in Mexico that cross the border to work in America experiencing “apartheid”??
So as an American I don’t support America invading countries and slaughtering Muslims like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan…but that is because I’m an American so when we are being the “bad guy” it concerns me. With Israel and Palestine I support democracy and liberal values and friendly countries and so if I did care I would support Israel.
Why do American progressives care so much about the he Israel/Palestine border dispute in light of border disputes being quite common in human history?
Because it's way more than just a border dispute.
"Why do American progressives care so much about the he Israel/Palestine border dispute "
Why do clingers care so much, to the point of arranging to have America subsidize one side -- a side that continues to engage in shameful conduct -- in several costly ways?
If the United States stops propping up Israel and the Saudis simultaneously, America will be better off, our complicity in immoral conduct will diminish substantially, and the chips can fall without our involvement or responsibility.
Why should I care about Palestinians that outlaw abortion in cases of rape and don’t allow gay men to get married to each other? You are like the Republicans that want to help “women and children” in Assghanistan…it’s weird.
If Israel's conduct in the occupied territories is consistent with Jewish values, decent people should shun Jewish values.
How's this:
If "progressive" values are consistent with antisemitism / Israel-bashing (yes, those are the same thing!), decent people should shun "progressives."
How does a Kosher certification agency come into being? Is there somehow a meta-kosher designator, or just does one just declare and then try to convince people they should trust you?
Seems like an easier question if you can choose your evaluator. If it is good enough for Rand Paul, it is good enough for this.
(My family stopped presenting as Jewish when they hit the New Country before my mother was born, I don't know a lot of cultural details.)
In this country, it is entirely private. Anyone can start one. Individual rabbis can recommend, or not recommend, particular agencies. Within the community, it is generally known which are reliable and which are not. It takes a while to develop a good reputation. (The established ones register a certificaiton mark, which by law means they are barred from producing or selling the things they certify.)
The oldest, and most reliable, is the Orthodox Union, which has been providing certification for almost 100 years.
Yes, though many more stringent groups will not accept OU certification as sufficient.
I like Eugene's take here, that simple services ought to be available to all potential customers regardless of ideology. But in some cases it will raise issues of its own.
For example, recent racial ideology related to CRT includes the idea that members of certain minority groups should not be judged wrong for using language that would be "wrong" if a white person wrote it. Or, yes, sometimes even for arithmetic answers that are wrong if a white man wrote them. So if I'm hiring someone to evaluate these answers I need to know which standard he will use for evaluation -- the old standard or the new discriminatory standard.
An example even more troubling is the SAT exam, which will now be scored in a way that gives a handicap in favor of people from historically disadvantaged groups -- thus making the test much less suitable for its original purpose of predicting the likelihood that the test taker will succeed in graduating from college. Colleges that continue to use the SAT will thus become worse at both of their own original purposes -- teaching their students to understand material and providing them with a useful credential that will tell employers they are worth hiring.
This is how "wokism" worsens everything it touches.
Yes, simple services ought to be available to all comers.
Unfortunately, some on the left refuse to play by those rules. Think of social media companies either suppressing ideas they don’t like or outright banning those people who promote those ideas.
The cry of the social media companies is “if you don’t like it, start your own”. This is the same thing.
Sauce, goose, gander.
One huge difference is that I am not aware of anybody on the left hypocritically both claiming that social media providers should not be required by law to publish political messages they don't like and also that the private kosher organizations should be prohibited from withholding certification based on their political values.
You on the other hand....This isn't sauce, but you are a silly goose.
I know a guy who used to have a car. It was really old but he wanted to keep it running as long as possible to save money. Eventually, the mechanics refused to perform even an oil change on it when you could see the road through the floor boards. They stated "Us performing maintenance on this car implies we believe it is up to a minimum level of safety". In other words, even if its not directly part of it, there are certain things implied.
You have a potentially similar situation here. This particular agency is certifying the company (B&J) to have met Jewish law. If the B&J is acting against Jewish law, even if its not part of the food, should they still be certified? There's an implicit approval for B&Js actions by certifying them.
If B&J is participating in the BDS movement, they have to be prepared to be the target of BDS themselves. Reciprocity is a requirement in all things. B&J can't argue they can BDS Israel but that B&J can't be BDS'd.
Now, as E.V. said, you could argue it's just the food being certified and that the other actions have nothing to do with it. I agree with both views. It is a puzzle for the certification agency to resolve themselves.
In what way are Ben and Jerry's "acting against Jewiah law." I can't recall anything in the Torah that requires Jews to sell in the occupied territories, but maybe there's some gloss in the Talmud that I'm not familiar with.
I’m not a Mashgiach, but if I were I’d sure be uncomfortable showing up at Ben and Jerry’s these days. I just would not want to participate.
Sounds like that’s what’s going on here. To be clear, no one is saying that the political stand makes the ice cream traif, just that it makes them unwilling to certify that it is kosher.
From a hard nosed business perspective it might look like the certifiers are giving up a valuable customer, but it’s possible the flack they’d receive makes it not worthwhile in any case, regardless their personal feelings.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. B & J's decided to make politics part of their brand. It is entirely reasonable for others who disagree with their politics to refuse to do business with them.
Perhaps other Americans should take the opposite tack, and stop doing business with those who support Israel's conduct in the occupied territories. Would clingers object to that?
The memes of Stormtroopers picketing Jewish shops in 1933 write themselves...
Sic friat crustulum
You want religious institutions to make religious decisions without taking into account any religious considerations, as if they could pretend what they were doing was just applying a branch of mathematics?
Good luck.
In a similar spirit, law schools across the country need some kind of certifying authority that can verify that law professors will actually teach the law, and not import their pet theories or issue advocacy into how they teach the material. I don't want to learn constitutional law, for example, from a professor who made his career by arguing for a narrow, incoherent construction of the Commerce Clause, and who has a very hard time keeping his jumbled notions clearly separated from one another.
Denying accreditation to schools that teach nonsense -- flouting science, for example, or warping history to arrange congruence with dogma -- would seem reasonable.
I gather we are roughly two generations from that level of educational progress.
Bar Associations lean toward asserting such authority, but they are increasingly being captured by ideologues. Better is the decentralized approach to kosher (some authorities more pro-Israel, others more pro-labor, etc).
From Wikipedia:
Unileaver also owns Bryers, Heartbrand (which owns Good Humor) and Klondike ice cream brands.
It does seem like a rather odd arrangment. They acquired the company, but had to agree that it could continue to determine its own political activism.
They didn't have to agree to anything. They apparently chose to transact with those terms, which seem reasonable from most or all perspectives.
Orthodox Jews were livid, with many declaring they were boycotting Ben and Jerry's in response. Anecdotally, I have not seen their heretofore popular dairy-free line served at a sabbath meal since. However, any time someone broached the idea of lobbying to get their kosher certification revoked, that seemed out of bounds to most.
By analogy, many non-religious Jews who own food companies (like Ben and Jerry for instance) run their factory on sabbath, which is right up there with idolatry when it comes to violating Jewish values. Yet no one suggests they can't be kosher certified. (It only comes up on Passover, when leavened products own by a Jew would become forbidden to other Jews, so the OU tries to get everyone with a Jewish-sounding last name to
sign a contract technically selling it to a non-Jew for the holiday, again because we otherwise really could not eat the food)
Some religious kooks tried to extort a New York beer distributor along a similar silly line a few years ago.
That people issue or respect these goofy edicts in modern America is depressing.
Historically, kosher organizations did not in any way involve themselves in the political matters of the food they were certifying - it was well understood that they were not certifying the business, only the food.
Recently, there have been efforts to make more socially-conscious kosher supervision - which certifies not only that the food is kosher, but that it was prepare in an ethical manner by an ethical business. There is a certain "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle in Jewish law ... if you steal a prayer book from which to pray, your prayer is considered meaningless. However, it's not clear how far this extends to the way in which food is produced.
Ironically, the push toward socially aware (generally left-leaning) kosher supervision also encouraged a similarly politically aware supervision that we are seeing now.
Did a quick web search and this sort of thing seems to happen. For example, it looks like if you want food served at your gay wedding, good luck getting it certified kosher, at least by the more small-c conservative agencies.
That might be an intersting topic for Professor Volokh. There is caselaw saying kosher supervisors are exempt from discrimination laws. But does that exemption let the caterer off the hook for doing what the supervisor said?
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-kosher-restaurant-comic-20181209-story.html?outputType=amp
I agree with Eugene's take on this question, but I come at it with a different perspective. I am not Jewish (although I was raised in Brooklyn and appreciate many aspects of Jewish culture), but I rely on Kosher labeling for medical reasons. I have a son who was born with galactosemia, so that dairy products are toxic to him. Over many years we have found that, with respect to his particular diet, Kosher labeling is far more informative and accurate than the nutritional labels overseen by government agencies. It is very important to us that Kosher labeling not be modified to include BDS considerations (or DEI or ESG, for that matter). I don't expect our views on what is Kosher to carry any weight, but I think it illustrates another aspect of the point that Eugene was making.
I too think that a food product is kosher or not based on its ingredients / how it's prepared, and not based on the manufacturer's / seller's political views. It's one thing to call a BDS advocate a bad Jew, but declaring the food he makes / sells "not kosher," even though he follows all the rules of kashrut, seems dishonest.
Setting everything else aside, kosher certifiers do not "declare the food 'not kosher.'" There is no "treyf" stamp on their tool belt. They certify the food kosher, or they don't certify it at all.
Also, who prepares food also plays a role in whether it is kosher.
Professor Volokh, I am no expert on Jewish law, but maybe studying Dof Yomi counts for something, no? By the letter of halakhic law, Ben and Jerry's ice cream is kosher. But that is not the issue.
The issue is granting the certification (and indirecting granting an imprimatur of approval to the actions of Unilever in Judea and Samaria). The OU rabbis have stated that they will not certify B&J ice cream because their stance vis a vis Israel is wrong, immoral, and contrary to Israeli values.
The same thing is happening with lab grown pork, or pork imitation made from vegetables. By the letter of the law, it is kosher. The OU rabbis will not issue certification because of how deeply ingrained that Jews do not eat pork, period. The Times of Israel did a nice writeup on it.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/worlds-largest-kosher-certifier-wont-endorse-impossible-pork/
For myself, I am done with Ben & Jerry's. I would characterize myself as moderately observant.
I look at all the furor from both sides over a regional restriction on sale of a luxury product and I think, "THIS is the hill you want to die on?"
In Israel there is a specific law (https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/017_001.htm) Prohibition of Kosher Fraud. It specifies who may and who may not give kosher certification. Paragraph 11 specifically states that only Kosher rules may be considered. Politics would be considered a foreign consideration under this law, and it would not stand up in Israel.