My interview from earlier this month was featured on Our Hen House‘s podcast this weekend. We talked about Torah teachings about compassion for animals, how well Judaism and vegetarianism mesh together, kosher slaughter, the new Jewish food movement, and vegan versions of traditional Jewish foods.

To listen to the podcast, click here. My in-depth interview starts about a third of the way into the podcast. I encourage this blog’s readers to listen to the whole interview, but here’s an excerpt:

There is a lot of foundation for compassion for animals and vegetarianism and veganism in the Jewish faith. And I feel proud to be Jewish knowing that Judaism is one of the forebears of animal welfare in Western civilization.

And I feel that my views on whether you want to call it animal rights, animal welfare, animal protection, what have you, can really be summed up by a Jewish term, it’s in Hebrew, called tza’ar ba’alei chayim, which means unnecessary animal suffering. That is, we should prevent causing animals any unnecessary suffering.

How you interpret that could be deemed, on the one hand, as treating animals humanely with animal welfare and just trying to minimize their pain. Or it can be, in my case, saying that if we don’t need animals for meat or for other ways in which they are exploited, we’re better off without meat and without circuses and rodeos and leather and fur, etc. So if that kind of animal use is unnecessary and suffering is inherent in causing those products to be produced, then, in my mind, it’s tza’ar ba’alei chayim, or unnecessary animal suffering.

Originally posted on Food Forever – The AJWS Food Justice Blog.

When I think about international food aid, what comes to mind are the challenges of distribution—who’s getting what and how much of it? But then there are the hidden costs of shipping. A recent IRIN article discusses the results of a Cornell University study that revealed the alarming fact that U.S. taxpayers spend about $140 million every year on non-emergency food aid in Africa. They spend roughly the same amount to ship food aid to global destinations on U.S. vessels.

$280 million. That’s a LOT of money. And the truth? It only benefits a very small constituency at the expense of taxpayers and recipients.

The article explains:

“Little has been written about the costs and effects of a policy called the Agricultural Cargo Preference (ACP), which affects the shipping sector of the “iron triangle” [comprised of agribusiness, the shipping sector and some NGOs] and USAID, the world’s largest food aid programme. The ACP requires that 75 percent of US food aid be shipped on privately owned, US registered vessels, even if they do not offer the most competitive rates. Some of these costs are reimbursed by the Department of Transportation’ Maritime Administration, but ultimately the US taxpayer foots the entire bill.”

It’s clear that there’s an urgent need to reform our food aid policy. Most donors have moved toward cash transfers or vouchers so that recipients can buy food, instead of providing food as aid, but the study points out that most countries have agribusiness and some NGO interests to contend with while reforming their food aid policy.

Just think: The $280 million we spend could be a game-changer to help many more people grow and distribute their own food sustainably. We could help local farmers invigorate their livelihoods and stabilize local markets.

To this end, we’ve been by calling on friends and supporters to encourage their senators to pass the Haiti Empowerment, Assistance and Rebuilding (HEAR) Act—a piece of proposed legislation that clearly articulates U.S. aid priorities for the $2 billion committed in U.S. aid to Haiti, sets up benchmarks for success and requires local procurement. It also includes a transparent reporting and accountability system so both U.S. taxpayers and Haitians can see where money is going and whether or not it is achieving the desired impact.

There is absolutely no reason why we should be wasting our tax dollars on the cost of food shipments that are benefiting so few. We need to start getting money into the hands of those who have the knowledge, skills and creativity to make sure food is produced equitably and is distributed fairly.

Some readers will inevitably question the involvement of PETA and be tempted to tune out the details. Don’t just shoot the messenger. If you can see the video footage with your own two eyes, read the statements from leading animal welfare experts like Dr. Temple Grandin, and take note of AgriProcessors’ punishment by the U.S. government, then that’s evidence enough in my book.

It’s not surprising that misinformation abounds on issues related to AgriProcessors. As U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose said in a press release today largely about the financial charges, “various interest groups and people evidently seeking personal notoriety have hijacked the true facts of this case for their own purposes. It is impossible to address the mountain of false information that has found its way into the public arena.”

2004

Watch this PETA undercover video, and you can see for yourself that cattle had their tracheas ripped out of their throats and suffered prolonged agony following shechita.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) later told the plant to stop the throat-ripping procedure and determined that AgriProcessors employees “had engaged in acts of inhumane slaughter.” (One of the comments in response to last night’s post attempted to shift the blame from AgriProcessors to the USDA. While the USDA also erred in its role, it is false to claim that the USDA report somehow vindicates AgriProcessors.)

The abuse was condemned by myriad rabbis and animal welfare experts. Dr. Grandin, who is deemed a leading expert on animal welfare in slaughterhouses by both animal welfare advocates and the meat industry (certainly including AgriProcessors), noted, “In conclusion, many of the cattle that had their trachea removed were fully conscious and fully sensible. The duration of complete sensibility was probably prolonged by the pain of having their inner tissues cut and pulled during this dressing procedure.” She separately stated, “I thought it was the most disgusting thing I’d ever seen. I couldn’t believe it. I’ve been in at least 30 other kosher slaughter plants, and I had never ever seen that kind of procedure done before.”

2007

As I wrote on The Jew & The Carrot in July 2007, “Last week, video footage from an undercover investigation of Local Pride, a [Rubashkin-owned] kosher slaughterhouse in Nebraska, was released by PETA. The footage shows that cows had their ears mutilated to remove ID tags and their throats ripped into with a hook–all while they were still conscious. Veterinarian Dr. Holly Cheever commented, ‘This method of slaughter as depicted on this tape is brutal and should be amended to provide a humane end for these animals.’”

2008

Another PETA video investigation “showed that a worker other than the shochet made a ‘second cut’ to animals’ throats following the initial cut of shechitah, which is a big no-no,” as I explained on heebnvegan in September 2008. The procedure was condemned by Dr. Grandin and is illegal under the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

The Des Moines Register reported, “Federal regulations bar workers performing kosher slaughter from making the second cut unless a rabbi is watching. Agriculture Department inspectors followed up on the video and determined that a worker had violated the regulation and issued the citation, known as a ‘noncompliance record,’ said Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.”

Today it was announced that tomorrow, former AgriProcessors executive Sholom Rubashkin will be sentenced to 27 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $30 million in restitution. In November, Rubashkin was found guilty on 86 of 91 federal charges related to financial fraud. Although an appeal is likely and the trial of at least one more AgriProcessors defendant has yet to start, I’d like to think of this sentencing as at least a temporary end to a long-running scandal that has divided the Jewish community.

Formerly the world’s largest glatt kosher slaughterhouse, AgriProcessors had previously been notorious for cruelty to animals, environmental devastation, and labor woes. But in May 2008, the company’s absolute demise began when its primary slaughterhouse in Iowa was raided by more than a dozen government agencies. AgriProcessors later stopped production to a large extent, declared bankruptcy, and got bought by another company. Rubashkin faced 72 immigration-related charges in a separate trial that was supposed to follow the one that ended in November, but federal prosecutors dropped those charges, apparently because they were satisfied with the verdict in the first trial and didn’t think there was much to gain from expending vast resources on a second. Rubashkin was also one of several defendants from AgriProcessors originally charged with 9,311 violations of Iowa child labor laws; many of those charges were later dropped or consolidated, and earlier this month, Rubashkin was found not guilty on all 67 state charges that he ultimately faced. That verdict does not exactly clear the company of any wrongdoing, though. As Failed Messiah reflected, “Rubashkin’s defense team pointed their collective finger at Heshy Rubashkin, who like his brother Sholom was an Agriprocessors VP. Does it make you feel any better about Agriprocessors labor practices if the documented abuses are Heshy’s fault rather than Sholom’s?”

This saga has caused pain for so many. It has caused great hardship for the Rubashkin family, and by many accounts, Rubashkin was a great contributor to the Jewish community in his personal life. Animals were treated inhumanely in a manner that had already been uncovered and supposedly stopped. The community of Postville, Iowa, was economically devastated, and many former AgriProcessors employees and their families suffered tremendously. When the second federal trial was nixed, it meant that “workers, who for over a year have been prevented by the government from returning home, will not have the long-awaited opportunity to tell their story and seek justice through the trial on immigration charges of Sholom Rubashkin,” as a letter from Iowa clergy put it. Their struggle was prolonged for naught.

The whole ordeal has galvanized numerous factions within the Jewish community. The publicity generated by the scandal helped pave the way for Magen Tzedek and Uri L’Tzedek to develop seals for ethical treatment of workers. Many Orthodox supporters of Rubashkin seemingly refused to consider the facts of the cases and insisted that prosecutors and critics were acting out of anti-Semitism and unfairly targeting Rubashkin and AgriProcessors. As just one example, at least 15,000 people reportedly “attended” a rally for Rubashkin either online or in person earlier this month. When the jury found Rubashkin not guilty in the state trial, some in the Orthodox community were outraged that Jewish groups had doubted Rubashkin’s supposed innocence and demanded an apology, as though Rubashkin had been totally vindicated and there were no other parts of the story.

As I noted as part of my High Holidays reflection before Rubashkin’s trials began, I struggled with this ordeal as a Jew. I loathed AgriProcessors for the alleged crimes that had been committed, but I also realized that hoping for a man’s downfall and suffering was not a righteous position to take. In a heebnvegan post on September 19, I concluded, “I hope that Rubashkin receives justice, both from the U.S. court system and, ultimately, from Hashem�nothing more and nothing less.”

Now that “the results are in,” I leave the last word to Magen Tzedek, which issued the following statement in November:

The news out of Sioux Falls, SD, yesterday, that Sholom Rubashkin was convicted on 86 out of 91 counts … delivers both justice and a heavy heart to those of us who champion the cause of ethical kashrut. . . .

There is neither joy nor a sense of schadenfreude in yesterday�s conviction. Those of us who toil in the field of tikkun olam are downright demoralized by this highly preventable outcome. This story could have ended very differently.

Failed Messiah was a secondary source for much of the information in this post and was a leading secondary source of information for anyone looking to keep a close watch on this developing story over the last few years.

Trans fats,�an invention of the 20th century, permitted the development of such synthetic�food-like products as margarine and coffee whiteners.� Neither of these products�existed around the time my great-grandparents caught their first sight of the Statue of Liberty.� Nevertheless, as a result of focused, sustained, and wildly successful marketing campaigns to gain their recognition and acceptance,�they became an integral part of what is now considered �traditional� kosher cooking.� In 1912, for example, after Procter and Gamble of Cincinnati launched a nationwide campaign for Crisco, its new vegetable shortening,�it enlisted the support of American orthodox rabbis, notably Rabbi Moshe Zevulun Margolies (the �Ramaz�) of New York, to endorse Crisco as ritually pure.� P&G advertised that �the Hebrew Race had been waiting for 4,000 years� for a solution to its shortening problems.� Mazola worked with the Hebrew Ladies� Aid Society in Fargo, ND, to teach interested parties how to use their product, and made contributions to the local women�s burial society for every unit sold.� Other examples abound.

I went to my local supermarket to check out the ingredients in�pareve margarine and coffee whitener.� Mother�s lists �liquid and partially hydrogenated soybean oil� first. �Fleischmann�s lists partially hydrogenated soybean oil second, after liquid corn oil.��The first three ingredients in original Coffee-Rich are, in order,�water, corn syrup and partially hydrogenated soybean oil.� The first three ingredients in fat-free Coffee-Rich are, curiously, identical.� �Partially hydrogenated� means trans fats.

What’s wrong with trans fats?� The problems are numerous, diverse, and well established.� Trans fats cause heart disease.� They increase insulin resistance, which causes diabetes.� Trans fats decrease good cholesterol and increase bad cholesterol. �They suppress the immune response, interfere with reproduction, and decrease the nutritional quality of milk.� They alter the properties of cell membranes.� They enhance deposition of abdominal fat.� In a famous study of 85,000 women conducted by Harvard University,�individuals with heart disease were found to have eaten significantly higher amounts of trans fats.

Trans fats have been banned in other countries, and in several cities throughout the U.S., but they have yet to be banned across our nation.� What the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has mandated is that food containing less than � gram of trans fat per serving may be advertised as�”trans-fat free.”� That�s not good enough.� In the case of Coffee-Rich, a serving is 1 tablespoon.� This morning I felt like making my�coffee extra light, so I put 4 tablespoons, or � cup, of milk into�the mug.� If I had used Coffee-Rich, that would have added up to almost 2 grams of trans fat.� Just for the first cup.� So it would be easy, on any given day, to consume quite a bit of trans fat solely from trans-fat-free food.� That�s a problem.

What are our alternatives?� First and foremost, skip the coffee whitener.� Drink your coffee black, or choose tea with honey or lemon.� Try coconut, almond, soy, or rice milk if you�d like.� Bake pareve as our foremothers did for a thousand years, with coconut oil, which stays solid below 75 degrees Fahrenheit.� Decline to make�recipes that call for pareve margarine.� Don’t use it in place of butter; make different recipes.� We vote every time a bar code passes over a scanner, so don�t buy margarine or coffee whitener for your home, office, or synagogue.� There is no place for synthetic trans fats in a healthy community.

By Josh Berkman, cross-posted on From the Ground–the blog of American Jewish World Service (AJWS)

Over the last week, an important discussion has emerged in the blogosphere about the best ways for hungry nations to produce food. The debate began with a piece by Wellesley professor Robert Paarlberg, published in Foreign Affairs. Paarlberg argues that sluggish food production�rather than price explosion�is responsible for food insecurity in the Global South and that the only way to produce enough food is through advanced technology, increased chemical use and genetically modified seeds. He marginalizes organic farming as quaint and unrealistic as a solution. It’s time to stop rejecting biotech and industrial food production, Paarlberg claims, and realize that it is the only way forward.

A few days later, FP posted a rebuttal piece by Anna Lappe arguing that Paarlberg misrepresents organic farming and its demonstrated potential to produce large amounts of food on small parcels in the developing world. Sustainable agriculture is far more scientifically intensive than what Paarlberg gives it credit for, Lappe says, and much better for the environment to boot. Lappe also cites numerous studies concluding that low impact farming requires less water, doesn’t cause pollution or degrade land and it doesn’t leave peasant farmers dependent on large multinational corporations for materials.

So where does AJWS fall in this debate? Somewhere in between, but a bit closer to Lappe’s point of view. We believe that, first and foremost, it is critical that food be produced locally. When poor communities are reliant on shipments of industrial-produced, what happens when wars, weather, corruption and oil price spikes disrupt the flow? So the question is how best to produce enough food on local farms. Again, the answer lies in the middle. We know that organic farming is gentle on the land and sustainable. When communities are given access to the right resources, we’ve seen phenomenal results with our grantees. But our grantees’ experience also indicates that to achieve these results, there is a role for the proper use of technology and certain inputs. AJWS’s director of advocacy, Timi Gerson, expands on our position in a piece that was posted today at Civil Eats, and she asks for all of us to push for food aid programs that emphasize and enable local production. Check it out!

I have long harbored misgivings about soy.  It is highly estrogenic. It’s associated with many environmental concerns (fields are clear cut internationally to support it, most of the crop goes toward feeding animals on feedlots, etc.) It’s highly processed (and a non whole food) as milk, frozen entrees, and other products.  And honestly, and this is just my perspective, I don’t enjoy the taste. But I have always respected the fact that many people do not agree with me on all these points, and enjoy soy as a deliberate and integral part of their diet.  Most of these folks have countered my concerns with the fact that it is a healthy, non-animal protein that provides efficient calories at a low cost. 

Recently, the Cornucopia Institute released their Soy Report and Scorecard, and it is quite a read.  Some highlights include:

• Questionable sourcing, especially as it relates to soy beans from China.
• Widespread use of hexane for processing soy foods.  Hexane is a neurotoxin listed as a hazardous air pollutant by the EPA.
• Significant transparency and quality concerns with private label products.

The report also assigns scores of 1 – 5 beans of excellence to various brands and producers, and allows you to drill down and read details of their findings for each. 

Regardless of your preferences, this report is worth reviewing. It provides significant information about soy and it’s risks, origins, practical uses, and better options.

Image: USDA Agricultural Research Service

The recent Joshua Venture Dual Investment Program Applications for 2010 were a wonderful example of Hazon’s impact in the Jewish community. Two of the newly appointed Fellows are directors of the two organizations in which Hazon is a fiscal sponsor:  Nati Passow of the Jewish Farm School and Zelig Golden of Wilderness Torah. A third Fellow is our friend, Eli Winkelman, the founder of Challah for Hunger, which Hazon helped grow when it was part of our food program in 2008-2009.

Other programs have their connections to Hazon as well — Rachel Nussbaum is the Rabbi at the Kavana Cooperative, the host of one of our two Hazon CSAs in Seattle, WA (learn more about it here). And, Rabbi Ari Weiss and Uri L’Tzedek have been integral in the push for ethical Kosher food, including, of course, Kosher meat.

Huge congratulations to all of the new Fellows!

Soda.  Pop.  Coke.  S.S.B. (sugar-sweetened beverage).  Whatever you wanna call it, it’s bad for you.  Or so argues Mark Bittman, the New York Times‘ “Minimalist” columnist and prominent foodie in this Sunday’s New York Times.  This phenomenal article poses the question of whether soda may be the next tobacco.  He interviews proponents calling for a special excise tax on soda to fund obesity prevention programs, as well as other measures to curb the intake of these empty calories in a can (or bottle).  The article comes after Michelle Obama’s appointment to lead a national campaign against childhood obesity, which some believe is linked to an excessive consumption of soda and candy.

Though I am no longer a child and do not suffer from obesity, I am embarrassed to admit that I am a near-daily consumer of soda – specifically, Dr. Pepper (ahhh…).  Therefore, this article was of personal interest to me.  Would an extra tax on soda, or the appearance of a cigarette-esque warning label on soda, deter me from feeding my addiction (and I do believe it is an addiction) to the stuff?

I am envious of friends that are naturally repulsed by soda, and who are likely healthier due to their avoidance of it.  It is a vice that I would gladly live without, though as with any addiction, it is not easy to quit.  Of course, my addiction is not helped by the ubiquity of soda advertisements in our society.  Indeed, the soda marketing people usually are successful at targeting those receptors in my brain that displace the long-term goal of being healthy and avoiding diabetes with the short-term goal of chemically-induced instant gratification.

Perhaps, though, I have found a happy medium that will wean me off of soda for good.  A friend and fellow soda “junkie” turned me onto a sodium- and calorie-free drink sold at Target and CostCo.  It is called “LaCroix Water,” and is essentially carbonated water with several fruit-flavor options.  Furthermore, they sell it in a 12-oz. can, which provides the same gratification as holding a cold 12-oz. can of Dr. Pepper…but leads to a healthier result.

Although human beings are conscious individuals with the ability to make informed decisions on what to consume, we also have areas of weakness (even Superman could be brought down by Kryptonite).  Unfortunately, Big Food – as Bittman calls the soda and snack food industry – knows this, and they depend on it for their revenue.  If the government can help empower individuals (especially children and their parents) to make healthier decisions and avoid these unhealthy chemical substances, then I will be grateful.

Indeed, if I hadn’t been introduced to Soda as a child, my affair with the dark sugary liquid would not have lasted as long as it has.

Image courtesy of vitasamb2001

As I have watched the horrors of Haiti unfold from my safe and comfortable living room, I am continually saddened by a sense of ineffectiveness, of wanting to do more than write another check or say another prayer. I wish I could have an impact, do something to directly improve their lot, participate in a more meaningful way. I started to do some research to see if I could purchase goods from Haiti, and subsequently and came across information that was as familiar as it is disturbing. Despite adequate natural resources, Haiti cannot feed itself, much less produce many exports to support their own trade.

Once upon a time, Haiti actually grew much of its own food and even exported it round the world. Among other things, they grew coffee, sugar, and rice. The latter was and is the most important staple of the Haitian diet, present in nearly every meal and often eaten with beans. Local rice was grown in the mountains (largely subsistence farming) and the Artibonite Valley, where swamps produced highly nutritious rice.

After Baby Doc’s departure in 1986, Haiti desperately needed funds to make up for those their deposed dictator took with him. They cut a deal with the IMF (through heavy US pressure) for $24.6 million. Terms of the loans included requirements to reduce tariffs on rice and other products, and essentially open their markets to outside countries. Now, like many crops US rice is heavily subsidized by the US government, therefore less expensive on the open market. Haiti no longer had any import tariffs nor export subsidies that kept local rice prices competitive. And global food prices across the board were very inexpensive. Lo and behold, it soon became cheaper for Haitians to purchase less nutritious, imported, US rice (also known as ‘Miami rice’) than to buy it from their local resources.

Sound familiar? The same US policies that have subsidized corn and soy have all but eliminated local farming and squeezed prices for domestically grown, non-subsidized agriculture. The same paradigm and related policies in the US was equally implemented in Haiti. The arguments? Cheaper food meant more people would be fed (albeit less nutritiously). And of course open markets yield better trade and more efficient local and global economies.

In 2008 food prices across the globe sky rocketed, including rice. Food riots broke out all over the world, and although much of the US press focussed on SouthEast Asia and Mexico, Haiti was not spared this experience. People could no longer afford to purchase Miami rice, and the local means for farming had been all but extinguished. Many former farmers had moved to the cities to perform sweat shop labor. And so people who already went without went hungry.

According to the World Factbook, in 2007 Haiti imports totaled $1.844 billion while exports totaled $554.8 billion. The US sells almost half of these imports to Haiti, significantly rice.

Most US rice exported to Haiti comes from the American Rice Inc., a Houston based subsidiary of the global food giant Grupo SOS. In 2003, the SEC imposed sanctions on American Rice and several of their employees, Inc for attempting to bribe Haitian officials to illegally reduce import taxes.

According to the Grupo SOS 2008 annual report, increasing rice sales is one of their two top priorities (olive oil sales being the other). The report shows that rice sales and profits increased significantly in 2008.

Sales by business line
18.2 & 2006
19.9% 2007
25.9% 2008

EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) by business line

2006 14.8%
2007 18.1%
2008 75.5%

The report also notes that “The rice business performed exceptionally well in 2008, becoming the group’s biggest earner in this period.” The largest exporter of US subsidized rice profited and grew in the same year that food riots broke out in Haiti, one of its biggest customers. Much like oil profits were up during the gas crisis, and bank profits are up while people are losing their homes.

It seems like another case either of well intended policies gone awry or just pure greed. Take your pick, either resulted in a country that cannot feed itself. In the best of times, Haitians have been forced to eat less nutritious, (artificially) less expensive rice and have lost a major export/source of income. In the worst of times,they have no local food resources to fall back upon, and are forced to wait for imports to sustain them. I cannot help but wonder if the swamps where rice was once grown might still be standing. Or if the Haitian people had been able to maintain a self-sustaining, local agricultural model, the devastating problem of how to feed this country would be less amplified.

Obviously the short term concern is getting fresh water, supplies, and medical relief to the citizens of Haiti. But next up is rebuilding that country. Hopefully, the process will include better economic and agricultural policies, both globally and locally. In the meantime, in addition to sending them aid and prayers, we should be sending them our fair trade dollars for their available (limited) coffee beans, and encouraging them toward developing more like products including rice to sell at home and (once sustainable) abroad.

In addition, here are some other ideas on how to help:

Sign a petition to relieve Haiti of it’s debt; it seems they have more than paid their loans through purchasing subsidized global imports such as US rice.

Send a note to Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, and other coffee companies asking them to carry fair trade Haitian beans.

Purchase Haitian products and encourage business growth:
Cybercuchina (coffee)
Bonazle (coffee)
The Rainforest Site (crafts)
The Hunger Site (crafts)

It seems like an appropriate effort for this Tu Bishvat. “For man is the tree of the field” (Deuteronomy 20:19).