Today is April 30, 2024 / /

Kosher Nexus
  • Find us on Facebook


  • UTJ is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

FOLLOW UP ON YESTERDAY’S ARTICLE FROM THE BALTIMORE JEWISH TIMES

In the course of that long- and well written- article, Rabbi Genack of the OU was quoted”

“Rabbi Menachem Genack, head of the Orthodox Union’s kashrut department, told The Forward that while the OU once certified both glatt and non-glatt meat, in the 1970s “market conditions” caused the organization to limit its supervision only to the former.”

WOW! It is simply amazing how the OU changes it story over and over again. In an article published in the OU house organ, they took credit for changing America over to Glatt meat instead of simply kosher. At that time we commented that the stance that they took was based on specious and spurious logic.

The OU said that in order to be sure that the meat you were buying was kosher, you had to buy glatt because of the higher level of supervision. What was left unsaid was that the OU could have instituted higher levels of supervision for regular kosher and accomplished the same thing.

Instead, the cost of meat went sky high as the supply could not meet the demand. Back in the days before cattle were agri-farmed and kept in feed lots where they are fed corn, etc, the cattle grazed. Grazed cattle had a very low yield of glatt meat. Out of 100 cows slaughtered, maybe 17 to 22 were glatt. So the cost went through the roof.

To bring costs down, the definition of glatt was “lowered” In truth, the meat that is sold as glatt today, would not have been considered glatt 30 years ago. Glatt means smooth, and today the rabbis allow up to five (yup, count them- five) sirchot (scabs) on the lungs and still call the meat glatt.

At any rate, it is extremely misleading for Rabbi Genack to state “in the 1970s “market conditions” caused the organization to limit its supervision only to (glatt).” If the OU, as they claimed in their magazine, created the demand, then it is truly a case of geneivat hadaat (misleading, lit: theft of knowlege) to make his statement with a straight face.

Sigh! When will it ever change?