yudelsreport

Who is the OK?

2010-11-22T19:29:00.000-08:00

At an IAS Term, Part 42 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 7* day of June, 2005.

PRESENT:

HON. IRA B. HARKAVY,

Justice.

X

CHANA LEVY, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE

ESTATE OF ELIEZER LEVY, DECEASED, Index No. 21600/03

Plaintiff,

- against -

DON JOEL LEVY, et al.,

Defendants.

X

The following papers numbered I to 9 read on tliis motion:

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/

Petition/Cross Motion and

Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 1- 2 3-6

Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 7-8

Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 9

Affidavit (Affirmation)

Other Papers

Upon the foregoing papers in this action by plaintiff Chana Levy, as Executrix of the Estate of Eliezer Levy, Deceased (plaintiff) for an accounting, defendants Don Joel Levy (Rabbi Don Yoel), Donel Corporation (Donel Corp.), Committee for the Furtherance of Torah Observance (the CFTO), Va'ad Hakashrut D'America (the Va'ad), and Committee for the Advancement of Torah (CAT) (collectively, defendants) move for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint as against them. Plaintiff cross moves, pursuant to CPLR 2221, for leave to renew her opposition to defendants' prior motion to dismiss the second cause of action of her amended complaint, which resulted in the October 7, 2004 decision and order dismissing said cause of action. Plaintiff requests such renewal based upon the ground of allegedly newly discovered evidence that the signature of Eliezer Levy (Eliezer) on the April 6, 1998 assignment was forged.

Plaintiff seeks, upon such renewal, an order vacating the October 7,2004 decision and order, and leave to amend her amended complaint to state a claim that the assignment is void and of no force and effect because Eliezer's signature thereon was a forgery. Plaintiff further seeks, in her cross motion, an order, pursuant to CPLR 3126, compelling defendants to produce evidence in response to her Decembe • 8, 2003 notice to produce.

George Goldstein d/b/a O.K. Laboratories was in the business of, inter alia, providing kosher food certification under trademarked symbols, i.e., the Circle K Marks (a circle with the letter k inside). O.K. Laboratories would inspect facilities of food manufacturers and certify fiat their products were prepared in accordance with Jewish dietary (kashruth) laws, and, if certified, the manufacturers were permitted to print the Circle K Marks on their products. In February 1968, pursuant to an Agreemeni of Sale, George Goldstein d/b/a O.K. Laboratories sold to Rabbi Bernard Levy and the Va'ad, a non-profit religious corporation which was formed on December 15, 1963, his business, which included the business of publishing a kosher food guide (the Jewish Homemaker), the Circle K Marks, the goodwill thereof, and the renewal of contracts with companies which with George Goldstein did business.

While the Agreement of Sale did not allocate the assets as between Rabbi Bernard Levy and the Va'ad, Rabbi Bernard Levy allocated to himself the Circle K Marks and the right to license them, and he allocated the renewal contracts and client lists to the Va'ad for use in its kashruth certification business.

Beginning with the purchase of George Goldstein's kashruth certification business and continuing until September 1971, Rabbi Bernard Levy, as the owner of the Circle K Marks, licensed ihe Circle K Marks to the Va'ad, which continued its operations of providing kashruth certification to food manufacturers and using the Circle K Marks to identify products which met the standards represented by these marks, as set by Rabbi Bernard Levy. Rabbi Bernard Levy and his wife, Thelma Levy, were trustees of the Va'ad and there were four other trustees. Rabbi Bernard Levy was also employed by the Va'ad and received a salary from it.

In September 1971, Rabbi Bernard Levy and others formed the CFTO, a non-profit religious corporation which succeeded to the Va'ad in providing kashruth certification under the Circle K Marks. Rabbi Bernard Levy, together with Zvi Gartenhaus and Frumma Gartenhaus (his son-in-law and daughter), were trustees of the CFTO, and Rabbi Bernard Levy was employed by and received a salary from the CFTO.

Both the Va'ad and the CFTO operated under the trade name, O.K. Laboratories and variants thereof (OK Labs, Organized Kashuth Laboratories). Rabbi Bernard Levy licensed the Circle K Marks and the O.K. Laboratories trade names to the Va'ad and the CFTO on a royalty-free, exclusive basis. All fees paid by the food manufacturers were paid to the Va'ad and the CFTO.

Rabbi Bernard Levy died on April 4,1987, and, in December 1988, Thelma Levy, as the Executrix of his estate, filed a Certificate of Discontinuance of Business of O.K. Laboratories, "for the reason that [she]... ha[d] sold, transferred and assigned all of the said unincorporated business (including, without limitation, the goodwill and business name)" to Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer, who were her and Rabbi Bernard Levy's sons. The December 1988 assignment provided that Thelma Levy, as Executrix of the Estate of Bernard Levy, assigned to Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer "all of the interest of said Estate in and to the unincorporated business O.K. Laboratories, including without limitation, the goodwill and the name of said business." By a separate assignment dated December 29, 1988, Thelma Levy, as Executrix, assigned to Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer, doing business as O.K. Laboratories, "all rights, title, and interest in and to the [Circle K trademark (one of the Circle K Marks^L toeether with the goodwill of the business symbolized by the mark." The Certificate of Discontinuance of Business further provided that Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer would conduct business in partnership and would simultaneously file a Business Certificate for Partners.

A Business Certificate for Partners, which certified that Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer were conducting business as members of a partnership under the name of O.K. Laboratories, was filed by them on December 29, 1988. There was no written partnership agreement relating to this partnership. As partners, Eliezer and Rabbi Don Yoel continued licensing the use of the Circle K Marks royalty-free to the CFTO. After Rabbi Bernard Levy's death, Thelma Levy, Malka Levy, and Rabbi Don Yoel became the trustees of the CFTO.

On October 9,1996 Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer formed the corporation, Donel Corp., under Business Corporation Law § 402, with each of them holding 50% of its shares. By assignment dated January 15,1997, Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer assigned to Donel Corp. "all right, title, and interest in [the Circle K Marks, the OK Labs trademark, and other marks owned by them], together with the goodwill of the business symbolized by and associated with said rademarks, service marks and certification marks." On December 16,1997, CAT, a successor to the CFTO, was formed as a non-profit religious corporation. The trustees of CAT were Rabbi Don Yoel, Rikal Fogelman, and Thelma Levy. Rabbi Don Yoel was the president of CAT and Thelma Levy was its secretary and treasurer. All kosher certification agreements held by the CFTO were assigned to CAT. CAT provided kashruth certification to manufacturers, and operated under the trade name O.K. Laboratories. Donel Corp. licensed CAT to use the Circle K Marks royalty-free.

By a document entitled "General Assignment," dated April 6,1998, Eliezer assigned his 50% shares of Donel Corp. to Rabbi Don Yoel. The assignment is executed by Eliezer in two places and by Thelma Levy. It contains a statement by Thelma Levy that as long as she and E.iezer are alive, she "will use [her] influence as a director of [CAT] that [he] should be compensated at a salary of $81,640 - - which will be subject to cost of living increases," and that "[t]his is with the assumption that [he] will perform [his] duties in the same manner as [he] performed them in the past."

On July 29, 1998, Eliezer died. On June 9, 2003, plaintiff, as the Executrix of Eliezer's estate, commenced this action, setting forth a cause of action for an accounting of the partnership between Eliezer and Rabbi Don Yoel. On June 30, 2004, plaintiff amended her comp aint to assert a second cause of action for a judgment declaring the April 6, 1998 assignment of Eliezer's shares in Donel Corp. to Rabbi Don Yoel null and void based upon the ground that it was made for inadequate consideration. By decision and order dated October 7, 2004, the court found that since the assignment was in writing and signed, the amount of consideration could not affect its validity, and that the assignment was valid and enforceaVle. It, therefore, dismissed plaintiffs second cause of action.

Defendants' instant motion seeks summaryjudgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint, which consists of her remaining cause of action for an accounting. In addressing such motion, the court notes that the six-year Statute of Limitations for an action seeking an accounting begins to run when the partnership is dissolved (Partnership Law § 74; CPLR 213 [1]; Mills v O'Donnell, 188 AD2d 692, 693 [1992]). Thus, where partners transfer a partnership's assets to a corporation that takes over the business of the partnership, the partnership is considered dissolved upon such transfer, and the cause of action for an

accounting accrues at that time (see Judelson v Weintraub, 55 AD2d 906, 907 [1977]; Hutchinson v Sperry, 158 App Div 704, 708 [1913], affd 214 NY 616 [1915]).

Defendants, in support of their motion, assert that the partnership between Eliezer and Rabbi Do a Yoel was dissolved when, on January 15,1997, they assigned the Circle K Marks, "together with the goodwill of the business symbolized by and associated with said trademarks, service marks and certification marks" to Donel Corp. They assert that the Statute of Limitations on plaintiffs cause of action for an accounting, therefore, accrued at that time, and, since plaintiff failed to commence this action until more than six years from that time, her present action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see Mills, 188 AD2d at 693-694; Hutchinson, 158 App Div at 708).

Plaintiff, in opposition, argues that the partnership's kashruth certification business was bein^ run and carried on through the various religious corporations (i.e., the Va'ad, the CFTO, ar d CAT), which employed the kashruth inspectors, paid their salaries and all other expenses of the business, and collected all of the fees paid by the food manufacturers who wished to be certified. She states that the Levy family received their personal income from the religious corporations, and that Donel Corp. received no income and held the trademark as its only asset which, on a tax return, it assigned a value of only $2,500. Plaintiff contends that no p.rt of the kosher certification business whatsoever was passed on to Donel Corp. other than the ownership of the Circle K Marks, which was licensed back to the religious corporation, and that this trademark was merely one component of the partnership business of Eliezer and Rabbi Don Yoel. She argues that the kashruth certification business did not merge into Donel Corp., but that, instead, the actual partnership business continued to be carried or through the religious corporations. She claims that defendants have thus denied her and her children a share in the family business.

On a motion for summary judgment, however, once the moving party has established that it is entitled to summary judgment, the opposing party must lay bare its proof and demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact {Roberts v Rubio, 189 AD2d 867, 867 [1993]). Here, plaintiff has failed to submit any evidentiary facts showing that after the ownership interests in the Circle K Marks were transferred to Donel Corp., any other business was conducted by Eliezer and Rabbi Don Yoel as partners. Rather, the evidentiary facts subr litted show that prior to the January 15, 1997 assignment to Donel Corp., the only business that Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer had conducted as partners was to hold the ownership interest in, and right to exploit, the Circle K Marks. They did not perform any services, but only set the standards for using the Circle K Marks and licensed the right to use the marks royalty-free to the religious corporations. Both before and after the transfer of the Circle K Marks to Donel Corp., the certification of kosher products was carried out by the religious corporations.

As noted above, the trustees and officers of the religious corporations were persons other than Eliezer. There is no evidence that Eliezer received any profits from the religious corporations, and the evidence discloses that Eliezer never reported income from any purported interest in the kashruth certification business on his tax returns. Eliezer is not alleged to have exercised control over the religious corporations through which the purported partnership is alleged to have conducted its affairs. Indeed, at plaintiffs deposition, plaintiff testified that Eliezer did not say anything to her that indicated that he had an ownership interest in a kosher supervision business, and she could not recall him ever telling her that he was a partner in a kosher certification business, or him ever complaining that he was not receiving his share of any such business.

Moreover, Eliezer had no ownership interest in the religious corporations. The religious corporations are subject to article 10 of the Religious Corporations Law, and the Religious Corporations Law prescribes and limits the powers and duties of the trustees and other officers {see Religious Corporations Law § 5). The powers of the religious corporations with respect to the handling of funds are expressly set forth in the Religious Corporations Law. The assets of a religious corporation do not belong to any one individual or group, and the trustees must administer the religious corporation's property or revenues "in accordance with the discipline, rules and usages of the corporation and of the ecclesiastical governing body, if any, to which the corporation is subject" (Walker Memorial Bapist Church v Saunders, 285 NY 462, 467 [1941], quoting Religious Corporations Law § 5; see also Beth Jacob ofBoro Park v Morgen Appliances, 196 Misc 677, 678 [1949]). Here, pla'ntiff has not shown that Eliezer ever received any monies from business with, through, or conducted by the religious corporations during his lifetime other than receiving a salary for work performed by him.

Plaintiff points to the fact that in a March 30, 1995 letter (submitted in connection with trademark infringement litigation), defendants stated that Rabbi Don Yoel was a principal nember of and employee of CFTO. This same letter, however, states that while Rabbi Don Yoel and Eliezer owned the trademark and licensed it to O.K. Laboratories and were its employees, "neither [of them] conducted business as O.K. Laboratories or otherwise performed certification services other than as an employee of O.K. Laboratories." Thus, plaintiff cannot establish that a partnership continued to conduct business by relying upon the kashnth certification work carried out by the religious corporations that Eliezer did not control and from which he did not receive any profits.

PU intiff srelianceupon5/a«£v5/a«A:(222 AD2d 851,852-853 [1995]), which states the established general principle that persons can form a corporation and still be partners as between fiemselves, is misplaced. Blank (222 AD2d at 852) involved a motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), wherein the alleged facts in the complaint were required to be accepted as true and accorded the benefit of every possible inference in the plaintiffs favor. S'milarly, plaintiffs reliance upon Sagamore Corp. v Diamond West Energy Corporation (806 F2d 373,379 [2dCir 1986]), Arditi vDubitzky (354 F2d483,486-487 [2d Cir 1965]), and Paretti v Cavalier Label Co. (702 F Supp 81, 84 [SD NY 1988]), is also misplaced. In Sagamore (806 F2d at 379), there were evidentiary facts that the parties therein c1 early intended the joint venture agreement to survive the formation of the corporation; in Arditi (354 F2d at 487), the plaintiff was permitted to show that it was the intention of the parties to set up the corporation only as a means of carrying out a joint venture; and in Paretti (702 F Supp at 84), there was evidentiary proof of an ongoing partnership conducted in corporate form. Here, plaintiff, in response to defendants' prima facie showing on this motion, has failed to sustain her burden of producing any evidentiary proof so as to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any partnership activity took place following the January 15, 1997 assignment to Donel Corp. Consequently, defendants' motion for summary judgment must be granted {see CPLR 213 [1], 3211 [a] [5], 3212 [b]; Partnership Law § 74).

Plaintiff, by her cross motion, now seeks leave to renew her opposition to defendants' prior motion to dismiss her second cause of action. She bases her request for renewal on the ground that she has newly discovered evidence. Specifically, she asserts that she has now retained new counsel, who retained two handwriting experts. These two handwriting experts have coir pared the two signatures of Eliezcr on a copy of the April 6. 199,9 General Assignment with original cancelled checks bearing Eliezer's signature, and opine that the signatures on the assignment are forgeries. Defendants' handwriting expert disputes the findings of plaintiff s experts and points out that such experts did not review the original document. Defendants also point to plaintiff s deposition testimony that Eliezer told her that "he signed some paper" that would "assure that after [Thelma Levy] passed away [Rabbi] Don [Y]o J1 would keep paying him," and that the signature on the assignment "look[ed] like" Eliezer's signature.

In any event, is well settled that "[a] motion for leave to renew must be 'based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination,' and the movant must state a 'reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion'" (Yarde v New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 352, 353 [2004], quoting CPLR 2221 [e]; see also Greene v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 458, 459 [2001]). A motion jp renew j5 "-npj a sccpnd chance freely given to parties w&Q have nv< exerei'seo! due diligence in making their first factual presentation'" (Welch Foods v Wilson, 247 AD2d 830, 830-831 [1998], quoting Mundo v SMSHasenclever Maschinenfabrik, 224 AD2d 343, 344 [ 1996]). If the evidence that is asserted to be newly discovered could have been discovered with due diligence, the motion to renew should be denied (Welch Foods, 247 AD2d at 830-831; Mundo, 224 AD2d at 344; Ulster Sav. Bank v Goldman, 183 Misc 2d 893, 895-896 [2000]).

Here, plaintiff, to justify her failure to submit these expert opinions in opposing defendant' prior motion, only asserts that she did not previously submit this allegedly new evidence of forgery because the idea of forgery would not have occurred to her in her "darkest dreams." Such assertion, however, does not provide reasonable justification for renewal of the motion. Plaintiff has been in possession of the April 6,1998 assignment since it was produced to her in a prior litigation by defendants in February 2000, more than five years ago. Plaintiff does not adequately explain why she did not seek to have the assignment analyzed earlier {see Greene, 283 AD2d at 459; Cole Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447, 448 [2000]; Welch Foods, 247 AD2d at 831; Mundo, 224 AD2d at 344).

Moreover, there are no newly discovered facts, but only new opinions by experts hired by plainti rf concerning the veracity of a document which plaintiff has had in her possession for at least five years. This does not constitute a legitimate basis for renewal {see Sample v Levada, 8 AD3d 465, 467 [2004]; Matter of Shapiro v State of New York, 259 AD2d 753, 753-754 [1999]; Welch Foods, 247 AD2d at 830-831; Mundo, 224 AD2d at 344).

Plaintiff, in support of her cross motion, also argues that Donel Corp.'s Shareholders' Agreement provided a mechanism for the transfer of shares which was not followed with respect to Eliezer's shares. Such argument, however, is a new argument, which was not raised in opposition to defendants' prior motion, and a motion to reargue was not timely brought herein (see CPLR 2221 [d]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 [1979]). Furtherm >re, parties to a written agreement may modify it and vary or waive its terms {see e.g. General Elec. Capital Commercial Automotive Finance v Spartan Motors, Ltd., 246 AD2d 41, 52 [1998]; Matter of Estate of Prime, 184 Misc 2d 796, 799 [2000]). Consequently, inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to set forth a valid basis for renewal, or any good cause shown to replead her second cause of action, her cross motion, to the extent that it seeks such relief, must be denied.

Plaintiff, by her cross motion, also seeks an order compelling defendants to produce financial records of O.K. Laboratories, Donel Corp., the Va'ad, the CFTO, and CAT. However, "discovery as to fiscal matters in an action for an accounting may not be obtained in the usual situation unless and until [the] plaintiff establishes a right to an accounting" (Woltherv Samuel, 110 AD2d 506,507 [19S5]; see also LSYIntl. vKerzner, 140AD2d256, 256 [1988]). Here, as discussed above, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate such a right, and plaintiff has not demonstrated how these financial records are necessary in order for her to oppose defendants' motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]).

Plaintiff asserts that financial discovery will show that the corporations were merely subordina-e entities in an overall partnership which ran a multi-million dollar business, of which the trademark was just one component. To support this assertion, plaintiff only states that these documents should demonstrate the payment of salaries and personal expenses to members of the Levy family. The payment of salaries to employees of the religious corporations, though, is admitted by defendants, and plaintiffs speculation regarding improprieties in pnvments cannot establish any interest by Eliezer in the alleged partnership at issue or provide a basis for postponing the granting of defendants' motion for summary judgment (see generally Dunn v 726 Main & Pine, Inc., 255 AD2d 981,982 [1998]; Limpar Realty Corp. vUswiss Realty Holding, 112 AD2d 834,837 [1985]; La ScalavD'Angelo, 104 AD2d 930, 931 [1984]). Therefore, plaintiffs cross motion, insofar as it seeks an order compelling the production of these documents, must be denied.

Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint as against them, is granted. Plaintiffs cross motion for leave to renew her opposition to defendants' prior motion to dismiss her second cause of action, and an order, pursuant to CPLR 3126, compelling defendants to produce evidence in response to her December 8, 2003 notice to produce, is denied in its entirety.

This constitutes the decision, order, and judgment of the court.

JUDGE of the Supreme Court

ALL Shnapps, Whiskeys, etc must have a reliable hashgocha

2010-06-03T13:09:00.000-07:00

ALL Shnapps, Whiskeys, etc must have a reliable hashgocha. This list should not be interperted as allowing any without a reliable Hashgocha. Chometz would also come into play if you want to give someone a gift.

The Mouse stands alone-A lesson in life

2010-06-03T10:15:00.000-07:00

http://yudelsreport.blogspot.com/2010/06/mouse-stands-alone-lesson-in-life.html

The Mouse stands alone-a lesson in life

2010-06-03T10:14:00.000-07:00

Article appeared in Hamodia פרשת ויחי תשס"ו
THE MOUSE STANDS ALONE
There is popular misconception that we can close our eyes to issues that fall under the category of "NIMBY" (Not in my backyard). The following allegory illustrates how what's not in your backyard may in reality be much closer than you think.

A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package. "What food might that contain?" the mouse wondered. He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.

Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house! The chicken clucked and scratched her head and said "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it's no consequence to me. I can't be bothered by it".

The mouse turned to the goat and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house! The goat sympathized but said "I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers".

The mouse turned to the cow and said "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house! The cow said "Wow" Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose." So the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone.

That very night, a sound was heard throughout the house-like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmers wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see that it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap caught.

The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with chicken soup, so the farmer went to the farmyard to fetch the main ingredient for the fresh chicken soup. But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the goat. The farmer's wife's condition wasn't improving. So many people came to the house that the farmer slaughtered the cow to provide enough meat for all of them.

The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness."I warned them all-but they knew it was only my problem". Remember, each of us is a vital thread in another persons tapestry; So the next time you hear someone in our community is facing a problem and you think it doesn't concern you, remember-when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk. FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED! (Wake up and smell the coffee!) עורו ישנים וכו

Early Shabbos- What are the relevant Halachos?

2010-06-03T09:02:00.000-07:00

Probing kashrut pitfalls in Jerusalem

2010-05-18T09:09:00.001-07:00

Probing Kashrut Pitfalls In Jerusalem: An Interview with Investigative Journalist Yechiel Spira
By: Steve K. Walz, Jewish Press Israel Correspondent

Date: Tuesday, May 18 2010

Yechiel Spira is part of a new breed of Internet-based Orthodox investigative journalist. The native New Yorker, who made aliyah in 1984, is on the front lines of Jerusalem's "almost anything goes" kosher-food industry via his Jerusalem Kosher News website (www.jerusalemkoshernews.com).

In an interview with The Jewish Press, Spira spoke about why he started Jerusalem Kosher News and the effect his reporting has had on Israel's kashrut industry.

The Jewish Press: Had you ever dabbled in journalism or kashrut before starting Jerusalem Kosher News?

Spira: I have a background in catering, the kosher meat industry and other food-related fields. I would like to stress that I am not a rabbi but a kashrut investigator/journalist. My goal is to bring readers accurate information, to permit people to make their own decision or provide them with sufficient information to probe a kashrut matter with a rav.

When and why did you start Jerusalem Kosher News?

I launched it about 30 months ago, with the hope of educating the public on the standards prevalent in the Israeli marketplace, as well as with the belief that an informed kosher consumer should make his or her own decisions based on knowledge, not false presumptions. I came to the realization that people, including my own family, haven't a clue as to the kashrut pitfalls in Jerusalem.

Even residents of the religious neighborhoods like Har Nof are sometimes unaware of the problems. I decided to begin educating my children and my close friends and somehow that snowballed into creating JKN.

How many people in Israel and abroad read and/or subscribe?

Thousands subscribe - it's free of charge, by the way - and the website continues to climb. We're passing 170,000 monthly viewers, and JKN also features a newly-launched Facebook page.

I have also developed a working relationship with many kosher agencies abroad that regularly send me e-mails and call me with requests to probe matters of kashrut for them. I do my best to cooperate, time permitting. Remember, this is a volunteer effort. I must also make a parnassah in addition to my kosher reporting.

Does the Chief Rabbinate cooperate with you? What about other kashrut agencies?

The staff of the Chief Rabbinate are generally very cooperative, especially Rabbi Rafi Yochai, who heads the Kashrut Enforcement Division. Some of the private agencies, the so-called badatzim, are hesitant. Perhaps they fear my probing will tarnish their names.

The attitude in Israel is different from what it is in North America. While there should be transparency, I have difficulty getting rabbonim to give me their names on the phone. They'll ask, "Why do you want to know?" They are seemingly unaccustomed to giving relevant information to a curious consumer.

I am working to get local residents into the habit of phoning kashrut agencies more frequently to demand explanations. At the end of the day, the many legitimate kashrut agencies are making a handsome living and, with very few exceptions, are not operating out of the goodness of their hearts.

Do the kashrut agencies respond to some aspects of your reporting?

Only when the attack is negative, and then they usually come out swinging. Once they see that my reports are supported by the facts, they calm down. But there have been some extremely uncomfortable moments, threats and shouts. But here I am, still doing my thing.

What are the biggest scandals or problems associated with kashrut you've found in Jerusalem?

The most common, and perhaps the most serious, involve stores advertising themselves as "kosher" or "kosher-mehadrin" while lacking legitimate kosher certification. Even more disturbing is the fact that some members of the religious community continue to patronize these establishments. Some people are unaware and some are unable to navigate the kashrut scene in Hebrew - and that includes tourists and new immigrants alike.

Is the Machane Yehuda market becoming a big kashrut problem?

It is not beginning to become a problem - it has always been a problem. It is a microcosm of the entire city. The difference is that the market is concentrated and home to hundreds of thousands of shoppers on a weekly basis. Thus, the problems are more painful since so many people fall prey to their own false kashrut assumptions.

The "shuk" is a difficult business community, one that the state kashrut enforcement people prefer to avoid.

What should American tourists look for when patronizing a falafel/pizza store or even a meat restaurant?

I don't rate agencies, but my pocket kashrut guide and website list the acceptable hechsherim, as well as the growing list of unauthorized hechsherim as defined by the Chief Rabbinate.

One must discard the notion that everything in Israel - even Jerusalem - is kosher. It's a noble dream - but simply not true. As is true in your home community, if you do not recognize a hechsher, turn around and walk out. Don't make the assumption that it is OK even if you see frum-looking people eating there. They too may have been duped.

Copyright 2008 www.JewishPress.com

Beth Jacob V. Bais Chinuch Li'Bonus

2010-05-03T06:22:00.000-07:00

http://yudelsreport.blogspot.com/2010/05/beth-jacob-teachers-v-bais-chinuch.html

Beth Jacob Teachers V. Bais Chinuch Le'Bunos

2010-05-03T06:19:00.000-07:00

The court ruling speaks for itself. Conflict of interest just does not matter to these "religious Jews".

http://jewishbreakingnews.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/matter-of-beth-jacob-teachers-seminary-inc-v-beis-chinuch-lebunos/

Furthermore Rabbi Hillel David is alleged to have disassociated himself with this Bais Din in disgust but the Bais Din falsely advertises his name which is despicable.

The Bais Din charges litigants on a per hour basis so effectively it has an incentive to prolong proceedings. if it did not, it would not be able to cover its dayonim's fat salaries. So its claims that its dayonim are not paid on an hourly basis, while probably true are highly misleading.

Furthermore I ask the following questions about this esteemed Bais Din

1) Why does it only use English dates and not Jewish dates on its Hazmonos?

2) Why does it send hazmonos out to people when the other Baal Din is in Arko'oys, and it should establish this fact first before sending hazmonos out?

3) Why does it refuse to provide explanations on its rulings?

4) Why does it allow corrupt toanim in its Bais Din?

5) Why are the fees charged in excess of the schar betaila of the judges?

Matter of Beth Jacob Teachers Seminary Inc. v Beis Chinuch Le’Bunos
By SF
2009 NY Slip Op 50504(U)

Decided on March 24, 2009

Supreme Court, Kings County

Schneier, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 24, 2009

Supreme Court, Kings County

In the Matter of the Application of Beth Jacob Teachers Seminary Inc., Petitioner, for an Order Pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR Confirming the Arbitration Award dated April 11, 2008,

against

Beis Chinuch Le’Bunos – Bas Melech, a/k/a Bas Melech School for Girls, Respondent.

12218/08

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

BETH JACOB TEACHERS SEMINARY INC.,

HELLER, HOROWITZ & FEIT, P.C.

292 MADISON AVENUE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017

212-685-7600

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

BEIS CHINUCH LE’BUNOS-BAS

MELECH a/k/a BAS MELECH SCHOOL

FOR GIRLS

THE SILBER LAW FIRM, LLC

150 BROADWAY

14TH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038

212-765-4567

Martin Schneier, J.

Petitioner, Beth Jacob Teachers Seminary Inc. (Beth Jacob) petitions this court to confirm the written arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7510. Respondent Beis Chinuch Le’Burnos-Bas Melech (Bas Melech) cross-moves to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511.

Background

Petitioner Beth Jacob, is a domestic religious corporation. Beth Jacob owns real property located at 4421 15th Avenue in Brooklyn, NY, which on July 30, 2006, it leased to respondent, Bas Melech, also a religious corporation. When a dispute pertaining to the lease arose, the parties agreed to submit the dispute to binding arbitration before a Rabbinical Court. The parties then chose and agreed on January 24, 2008, to have their dispute heard by the Rabbinical Court of Tzedek Umishpot (the “Beth Din”).

Rabbi Yerachmiel Barash is employed as the Beth Din’s secretary and clerk; and is married to an employee of Beth Jacob. This marital relationship was not disclosed to Bas Melech when Bas Melech had agreed to binding arbitration by this Beth Din.

During the second arbitration hearing on March 17, 2008 at the Beth Din Bas Melech claimed that the backyard of an adjacent apartment in a building not owned by Beth Jacob but by Mr. Joseph was part of the premises it had rented from Beth Jacob. Beth Jacob argued that it was not and could not have included the backyard area as part of the rental to Bas [*2]Melech because, Beth Jacob first rented the adjacent apartment after it had entered into the rental agreement with Bas Melech.

At the second Beth Din hearing, Mrs. Barash was telephoned at Beth Jacob by her husband, Rabbi Barash, who was present during this entire Beth Din hearing, for verification of the rental date of the apartment and backyard from Mr. Joseph. Rabbi Barash then reported to the Beth Din that Beth Jacob’s version of the timing of the rental agreements was the correct one.

It was at this second Beth Din hearing that Bas Melech learned for the first time of the marital relationship between Rabbi Barash and an employee of Beth Jacob.

Rabbi Yitzchok Kaplan, who appeared at the Beth Din on behalf of Beth Jacob, in his affirmation averred in pertinent part that:

“4. Prior to the Beth Din proceedings, I neither knew or ever had

any connection with Yerachmiel Barash, the Beth Din’s clerk, and did not know that he was employed by the Beth Din.”

In support of the petition, Beth Jacob also submitted the affidavit of Rabbi Daniel Geldzahler who served on the rabbinical panel that heard the dispute. Rabbi Geldzahler averred in pertinent part:

“10. On March 17, 2008, during the early part of the second hearing session, Bas Melech claimed that included in their lease with Beth Jacob was a backyard area of an adjacent building, 4407 15th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, owned by Mr. Joseph. Beth Jacob disputed that the area was not and could not have been included in the lease because at the time of Bas Melech’s lease with Beth Jacob that area had not yet been rented by Beth Jacob from Mr. Joseph.

11. At that time, Rabbi Kaplan of Beth Jacob mentioned the employment of Rabbi Barash’s wife and suggested that she be called to verify the rental date of said backyard area. This suggestion was made in front of the Dayanim and Rabbi Welz of Bas Melech. The Dayanim had no prior knowledge of the employment of Mrs. Barash, they first learned of it then, at the same time Rabbi Welz did.

12. Rabbi Barash verified the rental date information by calling Mrs. Barash. This telephone call was also made in the presence of the Dayanim and both parties. Rabbi Welz did not make any objection at that time. Additionally, he has never questioned the veracity of the information confirmed by Mrs. Barash, nor provided any evidence refuting the [*3]information confirmed by Mrs. Barash.”

Rabbi Berish Weltz, who appeared at the Beth Din on behalf of Bas Melech averred in his affidavit in pertinant part:

“16. Thereafter, Rabbi Geldzhaler himself volunteered the information that (i) Mrs. Barash worked for petitioner Beth Jacob and (ii) was involved in managing the relevant property, which is used in part as Beth Jacob’s dormitory…

17. Rabbi Geldzhaler directed that Rabbi Barash call his wife at Beth Jacob to verify when Beth Jacob leased the Joseph Property. Rabbi Barash did so on a private line, and the entire conversation between husband and wife was heard by no one else notwithstanding that Mrs. Barash’s employer was then sitting as a party before the Beth Din.”

By letter dated March 19, 2008, two days after the second hearing, Bas Melech notified the Beth Din that it was “cancelling the arbitration agreement because of the relationship between the Beth Din and Beth Jacob, and “agrees to sign a new arbitration agreement before another Rabbinical Court”. On April 11, 2008, the Beth Din issued its decision which Beth Jacob now seeks to confirm.

Neither of the parties submitted to the Court the written lease which would contain all of the terms and conditions of their rental agreement. Beth Jacob submits only a one-half page “Negotiation notes on leasing the Beth Jacob building to the Bnos Bas Melech organization” signed by the parties.

Discussion

CPLR Section 7511 in pertinent part states:

“Vacating or modifying award. “(b) Grounds for vacating.1. The award shall be vacated on the application of a party who either participated in the arbitration or was served with a notice of intention to arbitrate if the court finds that the rights of that party were prejudiced by:…(ii) partiality of an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, except where the award was by confession.”

“[T]he failure of an arbitrator to disclose facts which reasonably may support an inference of bias is grounds to vacate the award under CPLR 7511″ (J.P.Stevens & Co. v. Rytex Corp., 34 NY2d 123, 125 [1974]; Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Solow Building Co., LLC 279 AD2d 431 (1st Dept 2001)).

“Although courts generally will not interfere with the judgment of arbitrators, arbitration awards are not to be confirmed without question where there is evidence of misconduct prejudicing the rights of the parties” (Goldfinger v. Lisker, 68 NY2d 225, 231 [1986]). The J.P Stevens decision makes clear that, although the presumption is in favor of full disclosure, not every relationship is grounds for the disqualification of an arbitrator (J.P Stevens, supra).

The material facts are not in dispute. Rabbi Barash, an employee of the Beth Din, is married to an employee of Beth Jacob. Regardless of how the relationship was disclosed, it is undisputed that Bas Melech did not learn of the marital relationship between Rabbi Barash and Beth Jacob’s employee until the second hearing at the Beth Din. This relationship was significant enough that it should have been disclosed by either the Beth Din or Beth Jacob prior to the agreement by Bas Melech to binding arbitration by this Beth Din.

The fact that the Beth Din’s clerk, who was present during the entire arbitration hearing, was married to an employee of Beth Jacob in conjunction with the fact that the clerk informed the Beth Din of the results of a private telephone conversation he had with his wife during the hearing with respect to one of the issues in dispute which resolved this issue in Beth Jacob’s favor creates more than the requisite inference of partiality and bias. Thus, this case is one where the Courts “general reluctance to disturb arbitration awards must yield…to the clear necessity of safeguarding the integrity of the arbitration process” (Goldfinger, supra at 232 -233)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the respondent’s cross-motion to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511 is granted and the arbitration award is vacated. The petitioner’s petition to confirm the arbitration award is denied and the petition is dismissed.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

_____________________ [*4]

J.S.C.

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_50504.htm

Robert Frank V. The Orthodox Union

2010-05-01T18:48:00.000-07:00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

========================================X

ROBERT FRANK AND BARBARA FRANK

Plaintiffs,

Vs. File No.:

ECF 10-3378 LMM

UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA

Defendants, ===================================X

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, ROBERT FRANK and BARBARA FRANK by and through their attorney, Sanford

Kutner, and for a Complaint against the Defendant, state and allege as follows:

NATURE OF CLAIM

1. This action is for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages to redress the deprivation of rights secured to the plaintiff by 21 U.S.C. §343(a) et seq, misbranded and/or mislabeled food.
JURISDICTION

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 (4), conferring original jurisdiction upon this court of any civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief under any Act of Congress under the Declaratory Judgment Statute, 28 U.S.C. §2201 et seq. 2

PARTIES

3. The plaintiff, ROBERT FRANK, a male citizen of The Bronx, State of New York, was employed initially by the ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA ( "the OU") to be a mashgiach at Montefiore Medical Center ("Montefiore").

4. The plaintiff, BARBARA FRANK, a female citizen of The Bronx, State of New York, was employed by the OU as a mashgiach for certain kosher events which were distinct and separate from Montefiore Medical Center.

5. The defendant, UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA ("OU") is responsible for kosher supervision, nationwide, which includes inspection and certification of Montefiore Medical Center to insure strict kosher guidelines are maintained, utilizing the symbol of the letter "U" encircled by the letter "O" which can be found on the label and signage of those food items that OU has certified as being Kosher to insure strict kosher guidelines are maintained.

ALLEGATIONS OF ROBERT FRANK

6. Robert Frank was employed as a mashgiach (kosher food supervisor) at Montefiore.

7. His duties were to inspect food deliveries to prevent non kosher food from entering Montefiore’s kitchen and cafeteria, then being cooked and served to hospital patients and cafeteria patrons.

8. His duties also included making periodic inspections through the food preparation areas to insure that all the kosher laws were being followed by the kitchen and cafeteria staff, since they received very little kosher food preparation training by Montefiore and/or the OU.

9. Robert Frank is exceptionally observant in the Jewish religion. , in orthodox rituals, observances, and food.

10. The plaintiff strictly observes the Sabbath, lays tefilin every morning; prays three times a day, follows all orthodox rituals; observances, including fasting several days a year; maintains a strictly kosher home; eats only food that is strictly kosher when not at home; and lives the daily life of being an Orthodox Jew..

11. For several months there was one dishwashing machine to wash kosher products at Montefiore. Jewish law requires separation of dairy ("milchik") and meat ("fleishik") food and utensils; therefore one dishwasher is required to wash milchik and another is required to wash fleishik food utensils.

12. Even though notification was made by the plaintiff concerning the dishwasher situation to Frank’s supervisor, Rabbi Barry Kwiatkovsky, head mashgiach, who was approved and appointed by OU to Montefior, and Rabbi Dov Schreier, the OU rabbinic coordinator many times over a several month period resolution was not finalized for eleven months.

13. During this eleven month period, Jewish patients and family who kept Kosher as well as doctors and staff from Yeshiva Medical School were unknowingly subjected to consuming food that was not prepared in accordance with orthodox kosher dietary standards.

14. Frank was under orders by both the OU and Montefiore to violate his religious convictions (9th COMMANDMENT Exodus 20:16,"Thou salt not bear false witness against thy neighbor") and lie to anyone who inquires of any kosher violations that Frank had witnessed, and then tell them that everything was 100% kosher even if he had personal knowledge that there were kosher violations.

15. On March 6, 2008 , Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the OU and Eleizer Eldelman executive director of OU were formally notified of numerous kosher violations that existed at Montefiore, about which Frank had previously found fault and requested assistance of the OU to intervene with Montefiore and rectify the situation.

16. Frank had made numerous other attempts to report the kosher violations at Montefiore, first to Montefiore and then to OU, but to no avail.

17. The Montefiore hospital kitchen was not maintained at a 100% kosher level, because the OU was negligent in their kosher supervision of Montefiore hospital and allowed the kosher infractions to continue for a long period of time.

18. In the "Medical Staff House Staff Orientation Manual 2005" under FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICES which listed Chris Trivlis as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. The Manual went on to state, "At the Einstein division all meals are prepared in a kitchen under Rabbinical supervision in accordance with Kosher Jewish dietary laws." OU was the certifying agency.

19. Only after Frank went to the media, including the New York Post, and exposed the kosher problems did OU conduct any sort of investigation into the kosher violations that Mr. Frank had witnessed and documented by both audio and video tape.

20. After Frank went to the media, OU claimed that they had an "independent investigator" to research the kosher conditions at Montefiore.

21. The alleged independent investigator was apparently on the OU staff at the time of the inspection.

22. Even though OU became aware of many kashruth (kosher) violations, a set of Jewish dietary laws in accordance with Jewish halakha.

23. The violations, included allowing Montefiore Medical Center kitchen employees to bring non kosher foods directly into the kitchen for their personal use, which created an environment in which the plaintiff was prevented from doing his job, i.e., which was to keep non kosher food out of the Montefiore Medical. kitchen,

24. No action was initiated by OU to rectify the bringing in of non kosher foods.

25. After Frank went to the OU with video documentation of kosher violations, OU required all mashgiachs at Montefiore to sign a letter of confidentiality which would have prohibited knowledge of kosher violations at Montefiore to be publicized and/or disseminated outside of Montefiore.

26. Frank did not sign the letter of confidentiality knowing from experience that OU would not fulfill their obligation and Frank would be silenced

27. On December 17, 2009, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated by Montefiore after advising two internet blogs, which, in turn, informed the public of the poor kosher conditions that existed at Montefiore.

28. OU silenced Frank, the advocate for insuring that Jewish people who observe the rules of keeping Kosher.

29. OU allegedly has used "strong arm tactics" to force mashgiachs and/or Rabbis to certify products that are not Kosher for fear of losing their livelihood as what happened to Frank.

30. Frank felt that by going public that there would be a public outcry and that OU and Montefiore would have to take action to repair the poor kosher conditions at Montefiore hospital.

31. Frank put his religious convictions as an observant Jew well ahead of his own personal welfare, knowing that his medical benefits would be terminated for him and his wife. He would rather suffer financially than go against his religious beliefs.

32. Frank was formally reprimanded for not lying to an individual, two days prior to his suspension regarding the kosher condition of the cafeteria. Frank could not and would not violate the Ninth Commandment.

33. Because Frank refused to sign the aforementioned OU’s letter of confidentiality, OU, in retaliation, would not support plaintiff’s efforts to perform his duties as a mashgiach, which was punishment for refusing to sign the letter of confidentiality.

34. Even though OU was aware and possibly conspired, the OU refused to interfere with the harsh and hostile working conditions that were imposed upon Mr. Frank by his supervisor Rabbi Kwiatkovsky

35. OU has a large financial interest in not giving up their kosher certification of Montefiore hospital due to the loss of revenue for the kosher certification fees.

36. It appears that OU places financial remuneration ahead of religious doctrine.

37. OU did not want to be exposed regarding internal kosher violations at Montefiore since other establishments could have the same situation.

38. OU attempted to cover up the kosher violations that existed at Montefiore hospital by requiring all mashgiachs to sign confidentiality agreements to insure their continued silence in exchange for being allowed to work as a mashgiach within OU’s system.

39. Preventing the kosher violations from becoming public knowledge would naturally cause the OU a great deal of bad publicity, especially if there were a cover-up concealing the violations of certified establishments actually not being strictly kosher.

40. Robert Frank attended a meeting with the OU on or about November 3, 2008.

41. At the meeting OU was represented by Rabbi Dov Schreier, the rabbinic coordinator in charge of kosher supervision at Montefiore; Rabbi Yaakov Luban, supervisor of Rabbi Schreier; and Rabbi Kwiatkovsky.

42. Rabbi Kwiatkovsky admitted to the OU representatives at that meeting that he allows Montefiore Medical Center employees to bring non kosher food into the kitchen for personal use.
43. After the meeting OU did not take any corrective actions to correct the aforementioned revelation.

44. OU did, in fact, continue to thwart Robert Frank’s efforts to do his job as a mashgiach.

ALLEGATIONS OF BARBARA FRANK

45. Robert Frank's wife Barbara was employed by the OU on a casual basis for the past four years, working two or three days each month as a mashgiach.

46. BARBARA FRANK last worked for OU November 15, 2009 and as of March 5, 2010, has not been called to work.

47. On January 11, 2010, Barbara Frank called her supervisor at the OU, Rabbi Steinberg, to find out why she had not been called to work since her last day of employment with OU was November 15, 2009.

48. Steinberg answered, "You know why."

49. Barbara Frank asked Steinberg why the situation with her husband should stop her from getting work."You're married to him," Steinberg replied.

50. Rabbi Steinberg confirmed the conversation in paragraphs 47, 48, and 49 that took place with Barbara Frank in an interview given to "Failed Messiah" blog on January 11, 2010, in which Steinberg confirmed the above exchange took place, and confirmed that Barbara Frank is being denied work because of who she is married to."

51. As of April 16, 2010, Barbara Frank has not been offered any position with OU, including, but not limited to mashgiach.

52. The actions of the OU make working conditions purposefully intolerable causing extreme emotional and financial distress upon the plaintiffs.

53. Knowing that exposing OU could be financially devastating, the plaintiffs would not take the risk of losing their jobs and benefits and, therefore, seeking assistance like food stamps unless their religious convictions were more significant than fabricating the continuing kosher certification.

54. Plaintiffs are now placed in a position where the defendants have insured that they cannot receive employment as mashgiachs even though they have diligently sought similar positions at kosher operations.

55. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enters a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants and such other relief that the Court seems just and appropriate as follows:.

a. Defendant’s actions were so egregious as to justify punitive damages.

b. By reason of the facts and circumstances stated in this verified complaint, plaintiff has been damaged by defendant and is demanding adequate reparation for such mental, physical, and financial damage.

c. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the amount of $2,000,000.00 plus costs and disbursements together with any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

d. Insure that OU performs its duties as prescribed, regarding their obligation to insure people who keep kosher are actually receiving kosher foods; for example, during the eleven month period where there was only one dishwasher was operational which made all food certified as being kosher, was, indeed, a ploy to deceive.

e. Insure that their proper motivation of OU is their religious duties and obligations as opposed to OU’s financial and political enrichment as well as those that they certify, such as Montefiore Medical Center.

Respectfully submitted,

April 16, 2010

s/Sanford Kutner
Sanford A. Kutner
Attorney for the Plaintiff

Mailing address:
6 Tara Place
Metairie, LA 70002
Phone: 718-246-0433
FAX; 866-613-6209
E-Mail: civilrightslaw@aol.com

IRS & TAX SCAMS BEWARE:

2010-03-16T09:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=220238,00.html

Olive oil fraud AGAIN

2010-03-15T12:51:00.000-07:00

Monday, March 15, 2010

Just how pure is that extra-virgin olive oil in your kitchen?
As worldwide demand for the gourmand goodie grows, fraud has become rampant

Susan Semenak, Canwest News Service

Its flavour and health benefits have made extra-virgin olive oil a fast-growing commodity and an essential ingredient for chefs and home cooks everywhere.

About 2.7 million tonnes of olive oil are produced every year, most of them in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal but also in Tunisia, Morocco, Australia, South Africa and California.

On Canadian store shelves, there are more than 100 different olive oils, some selling for as much as $50 a litre, compared with canola at $2 a litre and corn oil at $3 a litre.

But how do you know what you're getting for your money?

As worldwide demand grows, olive oil fraud has become rampant. Well-known Italian olive oil producers have been found guilty of importing lesser-quality olive oil from North Africa and elsewhere, relabelling and pricing it as a high-quality extra-virgin Italian product.

Here at home, several Canadian importers have been fined for blending small amounts of olive oil with cheaper refined oils and vegetable oils and then slapping on labels that read "extra virgin" olive oil, making off with a tidy profit while cheating the consumer out of the heart-health benefits and distinctive flavour and quality they thought they were getting.

Critics say weak Canadian food labelling regulations and inadequate enforcement of those laws by federal government inspectors make buying a bottle of what Homer called "liquid gold" a tricky undertaking.

"Olive oil is a commodity that can easily be diluted or substituted with cheaper oil," wrote Marilyn Taylor, a spokesman for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in a bulletin from the agency last July. "The presence of other oils in olive oil cannot be detected by visual inspection and therefore consumers rely on the labelling."

Under the federal Food and Drugs Act, all food products sold in Canada are subject to labelling requirements. Products that are labelled and marketed as extra-virgin olive oil must be cold pressed and made wholly from "oil obtained from the fruit of the olive tree (Olea europea L)" in accordance with standards set by the International Olive Oil Council, the intergovernmental organization based in Madrid, Spain, that promotes olive oil, tracks production, defines quality standards and monitors authenticity.

To be certified as extra virgin, each batch of olive oil must pass chemical and physical analyses in its country of origin. These measure fat content and acidity levels. There are also organoleptic tests by panels of experts who gauge colour, taste, aroma, "mouthfeel," and that particular piquant feeling olive oil leaves at the back of the mouth. Olive oils that do not meet this battery of criteria must settle for terms such as virgin, pure, pomace or refined olive oil -- but not extra virgin.

Still, there are plenty of impostors.

Last year, three Canadian importers and distributors of olive oil were convicted under the Canada Food and Drug Act.

In May, the Toronto-based importer and distributor Jan K. Overweel Ltd., which markets the Emma, Casa Italia and Cortina Foods brands and other imported products, was fined $40,000 and ordered to dispose of more than 27,000 litres of seized olive oil that was labelled extra-virgin olive oil but found to be 50% sunflower oil.

Last July, Eddie Zilli, president of Santa Maria Foods of Toronto, which markets Mastro olive oil and other products, was convicted of three offences under the Food and Drugs Act.

The judge ordered Zilli to pay a total fine of $150,000 and ordered 47,400 litres of seized oil to be disposed of.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) reported that Zilli unlawfully imported oil labelled as extra-virgin olive oil that was, in fact, blended oil containing approximately 50% sunflower oil. The offences occurred between January and April 2006.

Two complaints by consumers about bottles labeled as 100% pure extra-virgin olive oil at a supermarket in Toronto led to a conviction in September, resulting in a $7,500 fine for Italian Products Distribution Inc. Inspectors seized 400 bottles of oil, sent samples to a lab for analysis and found that they contained "a high concentration" of sunflower and/or soybean oils.

But with 2,200 food inspectors working across Canada overseeing imported food as well as monitoring a wide gamut of food products in processing plants, at border crossings and at supermarkets, warehouses and ports, a lot of illegal activity is bound to go undetected, experts say.

"Where there's the opportunity for economic gain, there will be those trying to make a buck," says Ben Roffey, the CFIA's acting manager of compliance, in a telephone interview.

"We can't test every bottle of olive oil that comes into Canada."

The CFIA reported that, in 2007, 15 of 45 samples of extra-virgin olive oil pulled from Canadian store shelves and tested in the agency's laboratory in Ottawa over the previous year had been adulterated. The bottles labelled as extra-virgin olive oil were found to have been blended with lower-priced sunflower or canola or soybean oils, or with lesser-quality oil extracted using heat or chemical solvents from olive pomace, the by-product of olive oil's first pressing. (A similar sampling of 49 olive oils conducted five years earlier netted only two adulterated cases.)

CFIA spokesman Guy Gravelle says the agency has "taken action" on 19 complaints about olive oil received from consumers and competitors since January 2008. In those cases, importers or retailers were required to present certificates of authenticity, or change their labeling. In some cases, the importers were issued warning letters, in others the olive oil was ordered recalled from store shelves and in other cases, fines were levied.

Gravelle said new extra-virgin olive oils on the market as well as those that seem "unreasonably inexpensive," or those from countries where drought or other environmental factors are known to have hindered recent harvests are prime targets for investigators. So are those from importers with a previous history of breaking the law.

Limited as the resources are, Roffey says Canada's system is still better than most countries. It acts as a deterrent to would-be fraudsters, he says. And its lab in Ottawa is the only one in North America accredited by the International Olive Oil Council to conduct in-depth analyses of suspicious oils.

But olive oil aficionados suspect the fraud is rampant.

The words extra virgin on a bottle of oil can allow the producer to hike the price tenfold, and that's a big attraction to people looking to make a quick buck, says Claudia Pharand, co-owner with Daniele Beauchamp of the Olive & Olives chain of four Montreal boutiques selling high-end olive oil, mostly from Spain.

Pharand, who has studied with Spanish chemists specializing in olive oil, was enlisted last year to work as an expert consultant with Canada Border Service agents investigating a shipment of suspicious olive oil seized at the port of Montreal. (The CFIA, which works with border service authorities, refused to comment on the ongoing investigation.)

"But extra-virgin olive oil is imported. It's pure fruit juice and it's expensive to harvest and to produce. You can't get it for $4.99 a bottle. It's just not possible," she says. "People who say they want cheap olive oil should know that what they are buying is almost certainly not extra-virgin olive oil."

IGA, though, sells extra-virgin olive oil for as little as $8.79 a litre under its house brand, Compliments. It's not artisanal, but it's authentic, says Anne-Hélène Lavoie, a spokesperson for Sobeys Quebec Inc., the national grocery chain that owns Quebec's IGA supermarkets.

The chain buys all its extra-virgin olive oil from Italy, where it is also bottled, in a factory accredited by the Italian government and an Italian olive oil producers' association.

Sobeys also pays an independent laboratory to conduct surprise visits and take random samplings of oil at the bottling factory.

"As with wine, there are many different vintages at many different price points," Lavoie said in an interview this week. "We are able to keep prices down because we don't work with a middle man, and we buy in large volume."

Montreal chef Graziella Battista loves the way extra-virgin olive oil so perfectly dresses a salad of mixed greens, pine nuts and shaved Parmesan cheese, how it enhances the flavour of a slow-simmered ragu and makes pan-seared scallops glisten.

Battista, whose Old Montreal restaurant, named Graziella, serves rustic but elegant northern Italian fare, goes through gallons and gallons of extra-virgin olive oil in a week.

"There's not a dish that goes out of my kitchen that wasn't cooked or tossed or drizzled with olive oil," she says.

Recently, Battista was invited by a Quebec consumer magazine to be part of an expert panel that spent four days tasting nearly four dozen extra-virgin olive oils sold in local grocery stores. Battista says some of the samples were nicely flavoured, while others tasted downright nasty.

"It was a real eye-opener. There are so many products on store shelves that people shouldn't be buying," she said in an interview.

Several of the oils exhibited a sharp, unpleasant metallic taste. Others smelled and tasted "old and rancid."

"It was as if they were expired, or something had gone wrong in the processing," she said. "And with others, you could tell right away that they were not pure olive oil. They had been blended.

"It made me realize that the labels don't always tell the truth."

Olive oil fraud is a concern around the world.

A 2007 report by RAI, the Italian television broadcaster, tracked a shipment of chemically refined low-grade olive pomace oil produced in Turkey. Mysteriously, when the oil left the Turkish port, en route to Italy, it bore extra-virgin certification.

In March 2007, in what was dubbed Operation Golden Oil, Italian authorities tested oils from more than 757 olive oil producers and found that more than 200 of them were blending their oil. Two dozen arrests were made and 85 farms were confiscated. The investigations revealed a large-scale scheme to relabel oils from other nations as Italian oil.

Another operation a month later brought 40 more arrests in northern and southern Italy. The suspects were found to be adding chlorophyll, the green pigment from plants, to otherwise colourless sunflower and soyabean oils and selling it as extra-virgin olive oil, both in Italy and abroad. More than 25,000 bottles of the falsely labelled blended oil were seized and ordered destroyed. The extensive fraud prompted the Italian government to introduce labelling laws that require bottlers to declare the olive farm's address and the country of origin of the olives on each label.

And last July, the European Union toughened up its rules, making origin labelling compulsory for virgin and extra-virgin olive oil.

Finding a fraud requires real sleuth work. Even among authentic extra-virgin olive oils there are wide variations in colour, taste and aroma, depending on where the olives grew, when they were harvested and even the weather that year.

Stan Bacler has been dubbed Canada's "olive-oil detective." He's the national manager for the CFIA's food chemistry laboratory program. For decades, he worked as head chemist in the agency's fats and oils labs, looking for clues to olive-oil adulteration.

It can take six weeks to run one series of tests, at a cost of about $1,100. In one test, chemists beam ultraviolet light at the oil. In another, they identify fatty acids by separating them from the oil. Bacler, reached in Ottawa, says his labs can't handle more than about 100 samples a year.

Scientists have an arsenal of sophisticated new tests at their disposal to spot fakes. But it's a constant battle to stay ahead of unscrupulous manufacturers developing new ways to conceal their fraud, Bacler says.

Sunflower oils from genetically modified plants, for example, are extremely hard to spot. And many vegetable oils are now modified to look and taste like olive oil, with a chemical composition closer to olive oil. That makes them harder to detect in an illicit blend.

This was sent to us from a reader.

appealing your taxes

2010-01-13T08:29:00.001-08:00

http://www.app.com/print/article/99999999/NEWS/399990018/APPEAL-A-PROPERTY-TAX-ASSESSMENT

Reformulated whey protein is effective egg replacer,

2010-01-13T06:22:00.000-08:00

Breaking News on Supplements & Nutrition - Europe
Reformulated whey protein is effective egg replacer, says Arla
By Jane Byrne , 08-Jan-2010
An improved formulation on an egg replacement whey protein based ingredient can enable a saving of up to 30 per cent on liquid egg costs for sponge cake manufacturers, claims Arla Food Ingredients.

Kim Jensen, technical manager for bakery, said the supplier’s new milk protein Nutrilac BK-7900 contributes to a very stable cake batter, leading to low batter density and can reduce or entirely replaces eggs in a typical sponge recipe with no pre-blending or cooling required.

He told BakeryandSnacks.com that while whey protein replacement for eggs is not novel, Arla’s approach and products differs from its competitors in that the teams at the Danish company’s R&D and application centres are continually developing protein fractions that can be tailored to specific product applications.

“We have enhanced the functionality of an older whey protein for use in sponge cake manufacture.

Sponge cakes are a challenge in terms of egg reduction as they have low specific gravity but we have managed to replicate the whipping property of eggs with a recipe mix including the protein, water and flour, which results in a high volume in the finished sponge cake,” added Jensen.

Whey proteins from cow's milk are used as emulsifiers in a broad range of food products including ice creams, beverages, salad dressing and sports supplements, and are classified as either concentrates (protein content between 25 and 80 per cent) or isolates (more than 90 per cent protein).

Fluctuating costs

Jensen maintains that the use of Nutrilac BK-7900 can help bakers offset increasing egg costs, with eggs being the most expensive commodity in sponge cake production.

Indeed, ingredients makers have been reporting a growing demand from bakers for egg alternatives due to the volatility in the egg market.

Regarded as a premium ingredient with a high value-added perception from the consumer, eggs also hold a strong appeal for product formulators due to their wide range of functionalities, including coagulation, emulsification, foaming and crystallisation control.

Pilot scale

Jensen said that bakers of all sizes can use Arla’s pilot-scale equipment to test the protein in their products, and this has the net effect of reducing waste and shortens the time to market of new products.

“We can run up to ten tests a day but, generally, just four to six tests are necessary to determine the optimum solution,” said Jensen.

He said that all parameters are computer controlled for precise simulation of the continuous processes applied within individual bakeries.

Jensen said that the ingredient supplier will also assist bakery manufacturers in terms of scaling up a recipe on an industrial level and that no adjustments are required to processing machinery when incorporating the new protein into cake production.

Proven results

Arla said that a 21-day shelf-life test, carried out at its bakery laboratory to determine how effective egg replacement with Nutrilac BK-7900 is in sponge cakes, demonstrated that the cake maintains the texture and moisture of a 100 per cent egg equivalent.

“Hardness, springiness and resilience were measured using a texture profile analyzer from Stable Micro Systems. At a speed of 5mm/second, the plastic 28mm probe was twice pushed 40 per cent down into a 30mm-deep sample. There was a 5-second interval between the two pressure applications,” stated the supplier.

Copyright - Unless otherwise stated all contents of this web site are © 2000/2010 - Decision News Media SAS - All Rights Reserved - For permission to reproduce any contents of this web site, please email our Syndication department: Administration & Finance - Full details for the use of materials on this site can be found in the Terms & Conditions

© 2000/2010 - Decision News Media SAS - All right reserved.

Zoldan's Clothing store may be selling shatnez

2010-01-12T14:56:00.000-08:00

Dried fruits in shvat

2010-01-12T09:25:00.000-08:00

בס"ד
על פי ספרי הרב משה ויא שליט"א "בדיקת המזון כהלכה"
מעודכן לשנת תש"ע
אבטיח
אבוקדו
אגוז אורן (צנובר)
אגוז ברזיל
אגוז מקדמיה
אגוז פקאן בקליפה
אגס
אננס בשימורים
אתרוג מסוכר
בננה
בננה צ'יפס
גרעינים לבנים
חמוציות (באריזות מקוריות)
לדר (באריזה סגורה)
פאפאיה מחו"ל (טרי ומיובש)
פקאן מסוכר ("פקאן סיני")
מלון עגול
מנגו
קוקוס
קרמבולה
רימון מגידול מסחרי
שזיפים מקליפורניה
(בקופסאות מקוריות)
שימורי אפרסקים
שימורי משמש
תפוז סיני מסוכר
תפוח עץ (גם מיובש)
.2
אגוזים ושקדים
בקליפתם הקשה
(אגוז מלך, בונדוק)
בעת הקילוף בודקים אם מצויים "קורי משי", פירורים כהים או זחלים בקליפה או על האגוז, ואם האגוז או השקד נראה
מכורסם.
אגוזי בונדוק קלופים
ושקדים קלופים
בודקים אותם משני צידיהם, אם יש "קורי משי", סימני כרסום או נקב. חוצים כעשרה אחוז ובודקים בפנים. נמצאה נגיעות, יש
לבדוק את כולם מבפנים.
אגוזי פקאן קלופים בודקים משני צידי האגוזים אם יש "קורי משי", תולעים או פירורים עגולים.
אגוזי מלך קלופים מנערים בתוך מסננת בעלת חורים גדולים על גבי משטח לבן ובודקים אם יש חרקים או תולעים בנשורת. בודקים את כל האגוזים
משני צידיהם, ובפרט בקפלים, אם יש "קורי משי", תולעים או סימני כרסום.
אגוזים ושקדים
קצוצים
מנערים בתוך מסננת רשת (מסננת אורז) על גבי משטח לבן ובודקים אם יש חרקים קטנים בנשורת. שופכים את הנותר במסננת
על משטח לבן ובודקים בין החתיכות.
אגוז קשיו בודקים אם האגוזים מכורסמים או מנוקבים. חוצים כ 10%- ובודקים בין שני החצאים. אם נמצאה נגיעות, יש לחצות את כולם.
(מעט פירורים חומים דקים בין החצאים הם שאריות הקליפה ולא נגיעות).
אגס, אפרסק, חבוש,
מלון, מנגו וקיווי
מיובשים
להתבונן משני הצדדים.
רצוי לשטוף.
אננס טרי: לקלף ולהסיר את כל החללים החומים.
מיובש עם סוכר: להתבונן משני הצדדים אם נדבק עליו זבובון או חרק.
מיובש טבעי: לשבור לכמה חתיכות ולהתבונן היטב אם מצוי זחל או פירורים כהים עגולים בחללים הקטנים שבבשר הפרי.
אפרסמון להוריד את ה"עלה" (שסביב העוקץ) ולשטוף היטב. אם הפרי רך מהרגיל, לבדוק מבפנים. אם מצוי כתם שחור על קליפת הפרי,
מקלפים באותו מקום ומתבוננים אם מצויות רימות לבנות בפרי. (נקודות שחורות קטנות בבשר הפרי אינן מהוות סימן לנגיעות).
דובדבנים מסוכרים: לפתוח אחדים למדגם (כ 10%- ). לבדוק אם יש תולעת. נמצאה נגיעות, יש לפתוח את כולם ולבודקם מבפנים.
מיובשים (מצומקים): בדיקתם קשה ועדיף לא להשתמש.
בסירופ: לפתוח כל אחד ולבדוק.
זיתים זיתים ירוקים: אם יש כתם חום, לפתוח ולהתבונן אם מצויה מחילה בתוך הזית.
זיתים שחורים ומושחרים: יש לפותחם ולבודקם מבפנים אם מצויה מחילה או תולעת.
טבעות זיתים (ירוקים או מושחרים): לשטוח ולהתבונן אם מצויה מחילה או תולעת.
חמוציות בתפזורת: לשטוף במים. באריזות מקוריות מחו"ל: אין צורך לשטוף.
לדר ללא אריזה להתבונן כנגד האור אם נצמד זבובון או נמלה.
משמש מיובש פרי שלם: לשטוף מבחוץ, לפתוח ולבדוק כנגד האור.
פרי הנמכר חצוי: להשרות במים פושרים, לפתוח את הקפלים ולבדוק כנגד האור.
ערמונים לחצות ולבדוק מבפנים (אפשר לבדוק גם אחרי הבישול).
פיסטוקים מקלפים ומתבוננים אם יש "קורי משי" או זחלים. חוצים כ 10%- ובודקים אם אין נגיעות פנימית. נמצאה נגיעות, יש לחצות את כל
הפיסטוקים ולבודקם מבפנים.
קיווי לעיתים רחוקות מצויות כנימות לבנות או חומות על קליפת הפרי. יש להזהר שלא תעבורנה לפרי בעת הקילוף, או לשטוף את
הפרי המקולף. פנים הפרי בחזקת נקי.
שזיף מיובש לשטוף היטב. רצוי לחצות, ולשטוף מבפנים.
שקדים ראה אגוזים.
תמר לח בדרך כלל נקי, טוב לפתחו ולבודקו.
תמר מיובש לחצות בסכין, להוציא את הגלעין ולבדוק משני הצדדים כנגד האור (לחפש חרק כהה בגודל 2-3 מ"מ או תולעת בד"כ מתה ומיובשת).
לע¢נ הר¢ר אברהם חיים בן הר¢ר יצחק ויא ע¢ה
.3
גויאבות 1. להתבונן אם מצויות כנימות על קליפת הפרי, ולהסירן.
2. לחתוך פרוסות לרוחב הפרי, ולהתבונן היטב בכל פרוסה משני צידיה.
צבע התולעים כצבע הפרי (עם נקודה שחורה קטנה בראשן) וקשה לזהותן.
שיטה חלופית: לקלף את הפרי ולהתבונן אם מצוי אזור ממוסמס עם צבע כהה או נקב קטן. לחתוך אזור זה ולהתבונן אם מצויות
תולעים בתוך הפרי.
חבושים חוצים את הפרי ובודקים אם מצוי זחל או מחילה עם פירורים כהים ומסירים את האזור הנגוע.
חרובים לשטוף היטב, לשבור לחתיכות קטנות ( 2 ס"מ) ולבדוק אם מצויים פירורים, קורי משי או תולעים וחרקים.
צימוקים עקב נגיעות רבה בצימוקים, יש לבצע בדיקה יסודית כדלהלן:
1. להשרות את הצימוקים במים חמים במשך כרבע שעה לפחות.
2. לשפשף אותם היטב ביד ולהמתין דקה.
3. להעביר את המים העליונים לצלחת לבנה ולהתבונן אם מצויים תולעים או חרקים חומים במים.
במידה ונתגלתה נגיעות, אין להשתמש היות והם עלולים להיות נגועים מבפנים.
4. אם לא נמצאה נגיעות - לשטוף היטב את הצימוקים תחת זרם מים חזק.
יש עדיפות להשתמש בצימוקים שעברו בדיקות מדגמיות כגון צימוקים שבהשגחת בד"ץ העדה החרדית.
לעת עתה יש לבדוק באופן זה גם צימוקים בקופסאות מקוריות מקליפורניה.
הערה: ניתן לייבש ולצמק בחזרה את הצימוקים הבדוקים ע"י חימום בתנור בחום נמוך.
תות שדה קיימת נגיעות כלל–עולמית של "טריפסים" קטנים המסתתרים בשקעים שעל התותים שאינם יורדים בשטיפות הרגילות ולכן
מומלץ לאכל תותים רק לאחר ניקויים באחד משני האופנים:
אופן א: לחתוך בסכין את העלה הירוק עם כמ"מ מהפרי ולהסיר סדקים, חריצים עמוקים או איזורים פגומים.
להשרות במים עם מעט סבון נוזלי (אמה) למשך 3 דקות, לשפשף מעט בתוך המים, ולשטוף היטב (בכל פעם מעט תותים) תחת
זרם מים חזק באופן שהמים יגיעו לכל חלקי הפרי.
יש לחזור על הפעולה שלוש פעמים ולאחר מכן לטחון או לבשל.
אופן ב: לקלף שכבה דקה מהפרי מכל צדדיו (כל השכבה החיצונית כולל חריצים עמוקים ומקום חיבור העלה) ולשוטפו היטב
במים לאחר הקילוף.
תאנים
(טריות ומיובשות)
נגיעותן רבה ובדיקתן קשה ומורכבת.
אופן הבדיקה מבואר בספר "בדיקת המזון כהלכה".
02 - ספר "בדיקת המזון כהלכה" ניתן להשיג בחנויות הספרים. למשלוח בדואר: 5806612
02 - מותר לשכפל ולהפיץ דף זה לזיכוי הרבים מבלי לשנותו - ניתן להשיג בטל' 5867047
!
הרב ויא שליט"א עונה לשאלות בטל' 02-5325588 בערב בשעה 11:00-12:00 וביום שישי משעה 2:00 עד כניסת שבת.
ניתן להאזין לשיעורי הרב ויא שליט"א ב"קול הלשון" טל' 03-6171039
הדרים:
תפוז, מנדרינה,
קלמנטינה, לימון,
אתרוג, פומלה,
אשכולית, פומלית
נגיעות חיצונית: מצויה בכל פירות ההדר
על הקליפה מצויות כנימות בצבע חום או אפור כהה. בזמן הקילוף והחיתוך יש להזהר שהכנימות לא תחדורנה לפרי, וכן שלא
תעבורנה מהיד לפרי וכד' או לשטוף את הפרי אחרי הקילוף. אם רוצים להשתמש בקליפה - לשפשף במברשת קשה או בכרית
מתכת ('ננס') עם נוזל לניקוי כלים, לשטוף ולבדוק שלא נותרו כנימות.
נגיעות פנימית: עלולה להימצא בתפוזים, קלמנטינות, מנדרינות ואשכוליות
עלול להיות נגוע ברימות זבוב הפירות, שהן תולעים בצבע לבן. נגיעות זו נדירה כאשר הפרדסים מטופלים היטב, בפרט בעונת
החורף. תפוזים מעצים לא מטופלים כגון מגינה פרטית, או מערבים בשנת שמיטה וכן תפוזים בעונת הקיץ עלולים להיות נגועים
יותר.
א. בעת הקילוף, יש לעיין בצד הלבן של הקליפה אם ישנו כתם חום או אזור ממוסמס הנמשך לתוך פנים התפוז, ולבדוק אם יש
חדירה של רימות במקום הזה.
ב. אם הפרי רך–ממוסמס או בעל צבע וריח משונה, יש לבדוק את פנים הפלחים. אם נמצא תפוז נגוע, יש לבדוק היטב את כל
התפוזים מאותה קניה.
מיץ תפוזים - סחוט טבעי (ביתי או מקיוסק): רצוי לסנן דרך מסננת לאחר הסחיטה. לחילופין, ניתן לנקות את הפירות בכרית
מתכת ונוזל לניקוי כלים לפני הסחיטה, כדי למנוע חדירת כנימות למיץ.
פיצוחים גרעינים לבנים: מוחזקים כנקיים.
גרעיני אבטיח: לפתוח ולבדוק מדגם של כ 10%- . נמצאה נגיעות, יש לפתוח ולבדוק את כולם.
גרעינים שחורים: מצויה בהם נגיעות גבוהה.
עם קליפה: צריך לקלף כל אחד ולבדוק.
קלופים: א. לסנן דרך מסננת של אטריות על גבי משטח לבן ולהתבונן אם נשרו חרקים.
ב. לבדוק את הגרעינים משני צדיהם, אם יש בהם נקב או סימני כרסום.
ג. לשבור חלק מהגרעינים ולהתבונן אם מצויה נגיעות פנימית. אם נמצאה נגיעות, יש לחצות את כולם ולבדוק בפנים.
בוטנים: לבדוק את כולם מבחוץ אם ישנם חורים, סימני כרסום או סימן של חדירת תולעת.
לחצות כ 10%- למדגם ולבדוק אם יש נגיעות פנימית.
אם נמצאו סימני נגיעות, יש לחצות את כולם ולבדוק מבפנים.
בסוף הקיץ ובסתיו דרושה תשומת לב מיוחדת ומומלץ לחצות את כולם.
בוטנים טחונים: ראה אגוזים קצוצים.
בוטנים מצופים (קבוקים, מצופים שוקולד וכדומה): לפתוח כ 10%- , אם נמצאה נגיעות - לפתוח את כולם.
בוטנים בקליפתם הקשה: ראה אגוזים בקליפתם הקשה.

shechita, nikur

2009-12-21T15:04:00.001-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOaNSZo6pGY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbEbT_jp8OY&NR=1&feature=fvwp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HciexO7h28A&NR=1

STEVIA & Lactic Acid= DAIRY

2009-12-19T16:38:00.000-08:00

Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - North America
Lactic acid improves stevia flavor, says Purac
By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 15-Dec-2009
Related topics: Flavors and colors

Purac has become the latest company to release a natural flavor masker to help drinks makers deal with the reported bitter or licorice-like aftertaste sometimes experienced with stevia sweeteners.

The company’s Purac Fit Plus ingredient is made from natural, purified lactic acid and Purac says that it can mask off-flavors associated with stevia, as well as with other high intensity sweeteners.

Category manager of taste and acidification at Purac Koen Kummel said: “Masking comes naturally with Purac Fit Plus. Carefully choosing your sweeteners and acids to deliver the optimal sour/sweet balance greatly improves the taste of beverages containing stevia (Reb A).”

Reb A is a high purity extract of the stevia plant, used in stevia sweeteners such as Truvia, PureVia and Good & Sweet.

Purac claims that its lactic acid ingredient works particularly well in combination with citric acid.

“The resulting beverage has a round, well-balanced taste and the flavor is boosted, leading to potential savings due to reduced sweetener and flavor usage,” the company said.

Purac, which has its headquarters in the Netherlands as well as offices around the world – including the United States – will make Fit Plus available globally. France became the first European country to approve the use of Reb A at a minimum of 97 percent purity in September.

In the US, almost as soon as the Food and Drug Administration’s non-objection that Reb A was GRAS (generally recognized as safe) was announced last December, flavor companies stepped up, with bitterness blockers, flavor maskers and sweetness extenders. Purac’s lactic acid is the latest in a long line of potential flavor solutions for manufacturers.

Other options

Sensient Flavors released its customizable flavor ingredient Smoothenol for use with stevia-sweetened products in May and Cargill launched a range of flavor maskers and sweetness enhancers for use with the sweetener in April.

Back in February, Givaudan said that it was in the process of applying for patents related to what it claimed was its discovery of the bitter taste receptors triggered by the sweetener – technology that would form the basis of its flavor solutions for stevia.

Other flavor firms, including Symrise and Comax, have also developed ranges of bitter blockers, flavor maskers and sweetness extenders specifically for use with stevia. And Reb A supplier PureCircle joined with flavor company Firmenich in January, in order to capitalize on the ingredient’s potential as a flavor enhancer, as well as to speed its commercial use by using Firmenich’s flavor masking and sweetness enhancing technologies.

Copyright - Unless otherwise stated all contents of this web site are © 2000/2009 - Decision News Media SAS - All Rights Reserved - For permission to reproduce any contents of this web site, please email our Syndication department: Administration & Finance - Full details for the use of materials on this site can be found in the Terms & Conditions

© 2000/2009 - Decision News Media SAS - All right reserved.

Olive Oil FRAUD

2009-12-18T05:41:00.000-08:00

Hannukah-revelers beware - your olive oil may not be as pure as you think -By Uzi Silber

What better time than Hanukkah to advise olive oil aficionados to beware: that bottle of extra virgin olive oil may not be as pristine as labeled.

On a recent visit to a Lower East Side supermarket, most of the displayed bottles of extra virgin (popularized as EVOO by the cheerful food icon Rachael Ray) are Italian, Spanish or Greek imports ranging from $10 to $15/liter, with one brand on sale for about $7. One's understandable inclination would be to reach for the bargain. And why not? Doesn't extra virgin always mean extra virgin?

Well, as it turns out, not really.

First, what makes EVOO any better than, say, mere virgin? According to Steve Horton of Red Island Australia (kosher) Olive Oil, the arduous manufacturing process of EVOO is as much science as art; by definition, its olives must be pressed within hours of harvest. European standards (usually followed internationally) stipulate that the fruit used for pressing into EVOO exhibit an acidity level below 0.8%, as compared to the 2% allowed for merely virgin oil, with higher levels permitted for cruder grades such as so-called pomace oil which is often used in restaurants. Acidity, fermentation, oxidation and ultraviolet levels all rise as olive freshness declines.

EVOO should boast a rich olive green color, thin consistency (for effective coating and cooking), subtle sweetness and faint peppery aftertaste. And each bottle should contain nothing but 100% EVOO.

The EU instituted its standards to confront a continental olive oil industry that was notoriously rife with fraud. In a 2007 article for The New Yorker, Tom Mueller exposed the scandal of olive oil adulteration in Italy, where some brands marketed as EVOO supposedly made from olives harvested and pressed in Italy actually contained concoctions of lower grade Turkish or Tunisian olive oil blended with cheap corn, soybean, canola, peanut, cottonseed or hazelnut oils.

Batches of phony oil have been found to contain rancid olives, often contaminated by dirt and even manure. Processors of this swill often use chlorophyll dye and artificial additives to disguise its awful taste, and are frequently capable of actually mimicking the look and flavor of real EVOO.

EU standards do in fact pose challenges for would-be olive oil hucksters; Italy for its part augments European rules by deploying a platoon of official tasters to monitor its olive oil processors. Nevertheless, this is one tough global industry to police, and fake product has continued to find its way to supermarket shelves throughout Europe. Many shipments of fake EVOO have also appeared in the US where olive oil consumption increased eightfold from 1982 to 2006.

In 1995, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that of 73 olive oil brands tested only 4% were pure olive oil. Most included other vegetable and nut oils, while some bottle contained as little as 10% olive oil. A few years later the Canadian Food Inspection Agency studied 100 olive oils and found that 20% were fake.

Aside from criminality, adulteration represents a very real public health hazard: the nutty oils blended into the faux EVOO are a danger to those with nut allergies, while potentially poisonous contaminants could actually harm and even kill people as they have in Europe.

There's also another often overlooked issue: extraneous ingredients could render these fakes verboten for followers of kosher dietary laws.

Inspectors in Connecticut, California and New York have introduced EU-type consumer protection standards which make it easier for the authorities to issue penalties and carry out recalls. This incentivizes retailers to self-police by extracting more rigorous proof from wholesalers that the contents in the bottle match the label.

Meanwhile, bottlers may voluntarily submit their product for testing to receive an EVOO seal of authenticity from organizations such as the North American Olive Oil Association, while Californian olive oil producers are eligible for a seal from the California Olive Oil Association.

Still, it's a big country and inspectors can't be everywhere all the time which still allows unscrupulous importers to get their cheap, mislabeled oil sold at retailers such as dollar stores.

Phony oil can also find its way to high-end marketers, where large price discrepancies can raise suspicions. For example, one prominent retailer in the area recently displayed two brands of EVOO -- an Italian import for over $15 a liter and a house label priced at an eye popping $5. Is this a problem? Could be.

So how to ensure -- particularly on Hanukkah -- that an 100% EVOO label matches the oil in the bottle? Follow a few simple rules: splurge for a reputable brand (not necessarily Mediterranean in origin); avoid tin containers with inscrutable labels, and assume that if the price is just too good, the product may not be

Jihad in the USA Hancock, NY

2009-12-17T12:01:00.000-08:00

http://www.vosizneias.com/45109/2009/12/17/hancock-new-york-shocking-muslim-jihad-maneuvers-taught-at-catskils-ny-compound-video

OLIVE OIL

2009-12-17T07:26:00.001-08:00

With Italian extra-virgin olive oil in high demand with concomitant high prices, adulterated olive oil has become the biggest source of agricultural fraud problems in the European Union. [1] Some oil labeled "extra-virgin" is diluted with cheaper olive oils or other vegetable oils. In some cases, lampante, or "lamp oil," which is made from spoiled olives fallen from trees, is used, even though it can't legally be sold as food. One fraud ring is accused of coloring low-grade soy oil and canola oil with industrial chlorophyll, and flavoring it with beta-carotene. [2]

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn't routinely test imported olive oil for adulteration, and some products are difficult to test.

An article by Tom Mueller in the August 13, 2007 issue of the The New Yorker alleges that regulation, particularly in Italy, is extremely lax and corrupt. Mueller states that major Italian shippers routinely adulterate olive oil and that only about 40% of olive oil sold as "extra virgin" actually meets the specification.[6] In some cases, colza oil with added color and flavor has been labeled and sold as olive oil.[7] This extensive fraud prompted the Italian government to mandate a new labeling law in 2007 for companies selling olive oil, under which every bottle of Italian olive oil would have to declare the farm and press on which it was produced, as well as display a precise breakdown of the oils used, for blended oils.[8] In February 2008, however, EU officials took issue with the new law, stating that under EU rules such labeling should be voluntary rather than compulsory.[9] Under EU rules, olive oil may be sold as Italian even if it only contains a small amount of Italian oil.[8]

In 1993, the FDA ordered a recall of Rubino U.S.A. Inc., (Cincinnati, Ohio) olive oils which were nothing more than canola oil. [3]

In 1997, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency began conducting tests on 100 oils that claimed to be 100% olive oil and in 1999 the CFIA concluded that 20 per cent of the oils were fake. [4]

In 2007, American supermarket chain ShopRite (United States) recalled certain olive oils after it was discovered that they were counterfeit.

In March 2008, 400 Italian police officers conducted "Operation Golden Oil," arresting 23 people and confiscating 85 farms after an investigation revealed a large-scale scheme to relabel oils from other Mediterranean nations as Italian.[10] In April 2008, another operation impounded seven olive oil plants and arrested 40 people in nine provinces of northern and southern Italy for adding chlorophyll to sunflower and soybean oil and selling it as extra virgin olive oil, both in Italy and abroad. 25,000 liters of the fake oil were seized and prevented from being exported.Forty arrested in new 'fake' olive oil scam - Scotsman.com News

On December 22, 2008, the Guardia Civil in La Rioja (Spain) warned about the possible sale of adulterated olive oil in the area. This warning came after 550 litres of oil was found in a large container labelled ‘Astispumante 1510’ in Rincón de Soto and after the theft of 1,750 litres of oil was reported in the area on December 18, 2008. [5]

Adulterated oil is usually no more serious than passing off inferior, but safe, product as superior olive oil, but there are no guarantees. Almost 700 people died, it is believed, as a consequence of consuming rapeseed (canola) oil adulterated with aniline intended for use as an industrial lubricant, but sold in 1981 as olive oil in Spain (see toxic oil syndrome).[11]

[edit] Testing for purity
The detection of olive oil adulteration is often complicated with no single test that can accomplish the task. A battery of tests is employed to determine Olive oil authenticity and identity of the adulterant. Included in this testing regime is the determination of free acidity, peroxide value, UV extinction, fatty acid composition, sterol composition, triglyceride composition, wax content, steroidal hydrocarbons, and the Bellier test.[6] Test results are measured against the International Olive Oil Council trade standard to identify abnormalities. Each test provides key information which allows a decision to be made with respect to the grade of Olive oil and the identity of any adulterants.

For example, a test published in 1887 described the detection of olive oil adulterated with mineral oil by a simple titration of the carboxylic acid moieties present in natural vegetable oils. The procedure involved boiling 10 milliliters of olive oil with 40 milliliters of approximately 1 molar potassium hydroxide in 95% ethanol, adding water to 100 grams to dissolve the saponified lipids, and titrating against a normal sulfuric acid solution using phenolphthalein as a pH indicator dye. The base stock solution was titrated to neutralize an equal quantity of the acid, so without the presence of vegetable oil it would require 40 milliliters of acid to cause a color change, but in the pure oils tested (almond, benne, cottonseed, cod liver oil, linseed oil, and olive oil, only 6 milliliters were required. In accordance with this, olive oil adulterated with 10% mineral oil required 8 milliliters, and with 20% 11 milliliters. The adulterated oil tested in 1887 required 14 to 17 milliliters to neutralize, so it might have been 30-40% mineral oil.[12]

[edit] Simple home tests
[edit] Refrigeration
All polyunsaturated oil undergoes a process of rancidity once exposed to oxygen in the air. Monounsaturated and saturated fats will not get rancid. In the colder environment of a refrigerator, this process continues, but at a slower rate. As such, it has become common to refrigerate olive oils. When genuine olive oil is refrigerated, it should become more viscous, that is thicker if not nearly solid. Blended olive oils and non-olive oils posing as olive oil will not solidify when refrigerated, and so the refrigeration test is one (although not conclusive) way to test for purity.

[edit] Ignition
Pure olive oil should burn in an oil lamp. In December 2007, as certain Jews attempted to use what they thought was pure olive oil to light the menorah, they discovered it would not burn. New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) followed up by purchasing olive oil products and sending them to New York State’s Department of Agriculture and Markets, Division of Kosher Law Enforcement for testing. “The product I purchased last year, was marketed as 100% olive oil, but it wouldn’t burn. I lit the menorah, came back and it couldn’t sustain the flame,” said Hikind. “It seemed clear that the product was not pure olive oil but was adulterated. Consumers who pay for pure olive oil because they want to do the hiddur mitzvah should not be misled.”[7] The ignition test however, like the refrigerator test, is not conclusive.

Olive Oil FRAUD

2009-12-15T09:53:00.000-08:00

Letter from Italy
Slippery Business
The trade in adulterated olive oil.
by Tom Mueller

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mueller#ixzz0ZmXsx67x
“Fraud is so widespread that few growers can make an honest living,” one expert says.

Tom Mueller: Beppe Grillo’s war on crooked politics in Italy.
Keywords Olive Oil;Riolio;Ribatti, Domenico;Italy, Italians;Scams;Fraud Investigations;ASSITOLOn August 10, 1991, a rusty tanker called the Mazal II docked at the industrial port of Ordu, in Turkey, and pumped twenty-two hundred tons of hazelnut oil into its hold. The ship then embarked on a meandering voyage through the Mediterranean and the North Sea. By September 21st, when the Mazal II reached Barletta, a port in Puglia, in southern Italy, its cargo had become, on the ship’s official documents, Greek olive oil. It slipped through customs, possibly with the connivance of an official, was piped into tanker trucks, and was delivered to the refinery of Riolio, an Italian olive-oil producer based in Barletta. There it was sold—in some instances blended with real olive oil—to Riolio customers.

Between August and November of 1991, the Mazal II and another tanker, the Katerina T., delivered nearly ten thousand tons of Turkish hazelnut oil and Argentinean sunflower-seed oil to Riolio, all identified as Greek olive oil. Riolio’s owner, Domenico Ribatti, grew rich from the bogus oil, assembling substantial real-estate holdings, including a former department store in Bari. He bribed two officials, one with cash, the other with cartons of olive oil, and made trips to Rome, where he stayed at the Grand Hotel, and met with other unscrupulous olive-oil producers from Italy and abroad. As one of Italy’s leading importers of olive oil, Ribatti’s company was a member of ASSITOL, the country’s powerful olive-oil trade association, and Ribatti had enough clout in Rome to ask a favor—preferential treatment of an associate’s nephew, who was seeking admission to a military officers’ school—of a high-ranking official at the Finance Ministry, a fellow-pugliese.

However, by early 1992 Ribatti and his associates were under investigation by the Guardia di Finanza, the Finance Ministry’s military-police force. One officer, wearing a miniature video camera on his tie, posed as a waiter at a lunch hosted by Ribatti at the Grand Hotel. Others, eavesdropping on telephone calls among Riolio executives, heard the rustle of bribe money being counted out. During the next two years, the Guardia di Finanza team, working closely with agents of the European Union’s anti-fraud office, pieced together the details of Ribatti’s crime, identifying Swiss bank accounts and Caribbean shell companies that Ribatti had used to buy the ersatz olive oil. The investigators discovered that seed and hazelnut oil had reached Riolio’s refinery by tanker truck and by train, as well as by ship, and they found stocks of hazelnut oil waiting in Rotterdam for delivery to Riolio and other olive-oil companies.

The investigators also discovered where Ribatti’s adulterated oil had gone: to some of the largest producers of Italian olive oil, among them Nestlé, Unilever, Bertolli, and Oleifici Fasanesi, who sold it to consumers as olive oil, and collected about twelve million dollars in E.U. subsidies intended to support the olive-oil industry. (These companies claimed that they had been swindled by Ribatti, and prosecutors were unable to prove complicity on their part.)

In 1997 and 1998, olive oil was the most adulterated agricultural product in the European Union, prompting the E.U.’s anti-fraud office to establish an olive-oil task force. (“Profits were comparable to cocaine trafficking, with none of the risks,” one investigator told me.) The E.U. also began phasing out subsidies for olive-oil producers and bottlers, in an effort to reduce crime, and after a few years it disbanded the task force. Yet fraud remains a major international problem: olive oil is far more valuable than most other vegetable oils, but it is costly and time-consuming to produce—and surprisingly easy to doctor. Adulteration is especially common in Italy, the world’s leading importer, consumer, and exporter of olive oil. (For the past ten years, Spain has produced more oil than Italy, but much of it is shipped to Italy for packaging and is sold, legally, as Italian oil.) “The vast majority of frauds uncovered in the food-and-beverage sector involve this product,” Colonel Leopoldo Maria De Filippi, the commander for the northern half of Italy of the N.A.S. Carabinieri, an anti-adulteration group run under the auspices of the Ministry of Health, told me.

In Puglia, which produces about forty per cent of Italy’s olives, growers have been in a near-constant state of crisis for more than a decade. “Thousands of olive-oil producers are victims of this ‘drugged’ market,” Antonio Barile, the president of the Puglia chapter of a major farmers’ union, told me, referring to illegal importations of seed oils and cheap olive oil from outside the E.U., which undercut local farmers. Instead of supporting small growers who make distinctive, premium oils, the Italian government has consistently encouraged quan-tity over quality, to the benefit of large companies that sell bulk oil. It has not implemented a national plan for oil production, has employed a byzantine system for distributing agricultural subsidies, and has often failed to enforce Italian laws and E.U. regulations intended to prevent fraud. The government has been so lax in pursuing some oil crimes that it can seem complicit. In 2000, the European Court of Auditors reported that Italy was responsible for eighty-seven per cent of misappropriated E.U. subsidies to olive-oil bottlers in the preceding fifteen years, and that the government had recovered only a fraction of the money.

Paolo De Castro, who was appointed Italy’s agriculture minister in 2006, told me that olive-oil fraud has been a problem in the past but that he was taking action to curb it. “In the past few years, we have tightened things up a lot, through our Inspectorate for Quality Control, and through our carabinieri corps,” he said. One problem is that Italian officials charged with detecting adulterated oil can, in theory, be held liable for their actions. “Who’s going to take this responsibility?” asked Lanfranco Conte, a professor of food chemistry at the University of Udine, who in the early nineties was the head of a laboratory belonging to the Agriculture Ministry’s anti-fraud unit. “If you decide to block three thousand tons of oil and it turns out you were wrong, you pay out of your own pocket.” Colonel De Filippi acknowledged that some companies are essentially immune to investigation. “Unfortunately, there are big producers who have strong political ties,” he said.

The olive is a drupe, or stone fruit, like a plum or a cherry. Most vegetable oils are extracted in a refinery from seeds or nuts, using solvents, heat, and intense pressure; the best olive oils are made using a simple hydraulic press or centrifuge—they are more like fresh-squeezed fruit juices than like industrial fats. The olives are harvested at the moment of the invaiatura, when they begin to turn from green to black; ideally they are picked by hand and milled within hours, to minimize oxidation and enzymatic reactions, which leave unpleasant tastes and odors in the oil. There are approximately seven hundred olive varieties, or cultivars, whose distinctive tastes and aromas are evident in oils that are made properly, just as different grape varietals are expressed in fine wines.

In the past decade, olive-oil consumption has risen thirty-five per cent in southern Europe, its traditional market, and more than a hundred per cent in North America. Much of the growth is due to the increasing prestige of the highest-quality olive oil, extra-virgin. (The European Union also recognizes several inferior grades, including virgin and lampante, or “lamp oil,” which is made from olives that have spoiled and fallen from trees, and cannot legally be sold as food.) In Italy, where most olive oil is labelled “extra-virgin,” competitions, public tastings, and “oil bars” have proliferated.

According to E.U. law, extra-virgin oil must be made exclusively by physical means (by a press or a centrifuge) and meet thirty-two chemical requirements, including having “free acidity” of no more than 0.8 per cent. (In olive oil, free acidity is an indicator of decomposition.) Virgin oil, the next grade lower, must have free acidity of no more than two per cent. Oil that has a greater percentage of free acidity is classified as lampante.

Most olive-oil frauds are easy to detect using chemical tests. In February, 2005, the N.A.S. Carabinieri broke up a criminal ring operating in several regions of Italy, and confiscated a hundred thousand litres of fake olive oil, with a street value of six million euros (about eight million dollars). The ring, which allegedly sold its products in northern Italy and in Germany, is accused of coloring low-grade soy oil and canola oil with industrial chlorophyll, flavoring it with beta-carotene, and packaging it as extra-virgin olive oil in tins and bottles emblazoned with pictures of Italian flags or Mt. Vesuvius, and with folksy names of imaginary producers—the Farmhouse, the Ancient Millstones.

More sophisticated scams, like Domenico Ribatti’s, typically take place at high-tech refineries, where the oil is doctored with substances like hazelnut oil and deodorized lampante olive oil, which are extremely difficult to detect by chemical analysis. In 1991, the E.U., recognizing that laboratory tests fail to expose many acts of adulteration, instituted strict taste and aroma requirements for each grade of olive oil and established tasting panels, certified by the International Olive Oil Council, an office created by the United Nations, to enforce them. According to the E.U. regulations, extra-virgin oil must have appreciable levels of pepperiness, bitterness, and fruitiness, and must be free of sixteen official taste flaws, which include “musty,” “fusty,” “cucumber,” and “grubby.” “If there’s one defect, it’s not extra-virgin olive oil—basta, end of story,” Flavio Zaramella, the president of the Corporazione Mastri Oleari, in Milan, one of the most respected private olive-oil associations, told me.

Zaramella, a garrulous sixty-six-year-old former businessman, has made oil from olives grown on his small farm in Umbria since 1985. He began to study olive oil systematically when he found that the local farmer who tended his trees had been cutting his oil with sun-flower-seed oil. “Fraud is so widespread that few growers can make an honest living,” he told me. Four recent operations for abdominal cancer have left him gaunt, but Zaramella still has plump, mobile hands and speaks in a mellow baritone. On a wall in his office is a map of Somalia, where, in 1987, as the head of a humanitarian-aid project, he supervised the construction of a high-tech hospital in Baraawe, a city on the Indian Ocean. “I got everyone working together: Communists, Catholic priests, Muslims, professors, illiterates, anyone with the will to get things done,” he recalled. Two months after the hospital was completed, it was destroyed in the civil war. “Generosity is the purest form of egotism,” he said.

Zaramella became the president of Mastri Oleari in 2000, and is devoting his remaining years to redeeming extra-virgin olive oil from fraud. He calls his fight for olive-oil quality a “civic responsibility,” both to consumers and to the many small producers who struggle to make a living in a market awash in cheap, counterfeit oil.

One morning last October, the Mastri Oleari’s olive-oil tasting panel—six men and three women—conducted a test of five premium oils, all known to be extra-virgin. The test was a training exercise, one of about twenty that the panelists perform each year to keep their tasting skills sharp. (The panel, along with nineteen others in Italy, recently lost its E.U. accreditation, after the International Olive Oil Council suffered budget cuts and decided that it would no longer certify panels run by private institutions.) The Mastri Oleari’s tasting room consisted of eight cubicles, which isolate panel members to prevent them from influencing one another’s judgments. (The panel leader, who coördinates the team, often does not taste the oils.) Each cubicle contained a sink, several tulip-shaped tasting glasses with lids to trap aromas, and a yogurt-maker with a thermostat, used to warm the glasses to twenty-eight degrees Celsius, the temperature at which the aromatic substances in the oil are volatilized, making it optimum for tasting.

By 10 A.M., the panel members had arrived, grumbling about having been deprived of their morning coffee and cigarettes, which are forbidden before a tasting, because they dull the senses. The group included, in addition to Zaramella, a thirty-three-year-old olive miller from Lake Garda and a forty-seven-year-old Tuscan marquess who worked as a personal motivation coach. After Zaramella’s assistant had poured the oil samples into the tulip glasses and warmed them, the panelists entered their cubicles. Cradling the glasses containing the first sample in their palms to keep the oil warm, they removed the lids, inserted their noses, and snuffled loudly, some closing their eyes. They sipped the oil, and began sucking in air violently, a technique known as strippaggio, which coats the taste buds with oil and helps its aromas ascend to the nasal passages. After the first volcanic slurps, the strippaggi grew softer and more meditative, and took on personal notes, the marquess’s wheezy and almost wistful, Zaramella’s deep and wet, as if he were gargling Epsom salts.

The tasters remained in their cubicles for the next hour, snuffling and slurping, and periodically cleansing their palates with mineral water. After sampling each oil, they rated its tastes, aromas, texture, and other characteristics on a scoring sheet. The panel’s leader, Alfredo Mancianti, collated the sheets, and assigned a score to each oil based on the tasters’ judgments. The Mastri Oleari panelists were remarkably consistent, agreeing not only on the subtle flavors—artichoke, fresh-cut grass, green tomato, kiwi—suggested by the oils but also on their intensity.

Even the most creative criminals have difficulty outwitting a properly trained tasting panel. “It’s like a machine,” Zaramella told me. “When I see that the oil is peppery, bitter, and smells of olives, rest assured that everything else is automatic.” And yet, according to Zaramella, Italian authorities rarely perform panel tests, and almost never on oil before it is sold. When oil fails a taste test, producers often successfully appeal the verdict by arguing that the samples were incorrectly collected or stored, or they secure a favorable judgment from a more permissive panel. In Italy, eight of the nine remaining panels of record—those empowered to pronounce legally binding opinions on olive-oil quality—belong to national govern-ment agencies. The only panel of record that does not belong to a national body, in Florence, curtailed its taste-testing activities in 2004, after it and two other local panels determined that extra-virgin oils made by Carapelli, Bertolli, Rubino, and other leading Italian brands were in fact virgin or lampante, and one of the panels was sued by Carapelli. (A Florence court threw out the case.)

Olive-oil fraud was already common in antiquity. Galen tells of unscrupulous oil merchants who mixed high-quality olive oil with cheaper substances like lard, and Apicius provides a recipe for turning cheap Spanish oil into prized oil from Istria using minced herbs and roots. The Greeks and the Romans used olive oil as food, soap, lotion, fuel for lamps and furnaces, a base for perfumes, and a cure for heart ailments, stomach aches, hair loss, and excessive perspiration. They also considered it a sacred substance; cult statues, like the effigy of Zeus at Olympia, were rubbed regularly with oil. People who bathed or exercised in Greek gymnasiums anointed their bodies as well, using oils that were scented with pressed flowers and roots. Some scholars link the central place of olive oil in Greek sports, which were performed in the nude, with the rise of bronze statuary in the sixth century B.C. “A tanned athlete, shining in the summer sun, covered with oil, would really resemble a statue of the gods,” Nigel Kennell, a specialist in ancient history at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, said. Belief in the sacred, health-giving properties of olive oil continued in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. “Christ” is from the Greek christos, meaning “the anointed one”—anointed with olive oil.

By the first century A.D., olives were a cash crop in the Roman Empire; in some regions, per-capita consumption of olive oil was as much as fifty litres a year. “People were prepared to spend the same amount of money on olive oil back then as they do on petroleum today,” Kennell said. “And governments went to great lengths to insure a steady supply of it.” The family of Septimius Severus, who was emperor from 193 to 211, grew rich on oil in Leptis Magna, a city in the Tripolitania region of North Africa (now Libya). “I’ve always thought of him as somewhat parallel to an oil sheikh,” David Mattingly, a professor of Roman archeology at the University of Leicester who studies Roman olive cultivation, told me. Severus introduced the first regular free distribution of olive oil in Rome—what might be called the bread-and-circuses-and-olive-oil approach to wooing the masses. The emperors Trajan and Hadrian were from the Baetica region of southern Spain (now Andalusia), and their accession triggered a boom in Baetica olive-oil exports. So much Baetica oil was sent to Rome that the amphorae in which it was transported, disposed of at a dump at the southeastern edge of the city, grew to a hill fifty metres high, known today as Monte Testaccio, or Mt. Potsherd.

The amphorae show evidence of extensive anti-fraud measures: each was painted with the exact weight of oil it contained, along with the name of the farm where the olives were pressed, the merchant who shipped the oil, and the official who verified this information before shipment. Reverse checks were presumably performed at Monte Testaccio when the amphorae were emptied, to confirm that the weight and quality had not changed during shipment. “The biggest danger was that merchants would substitute an inferior product en route, and the explicit labelling of goods was clearly designed to counter this,” Mattingly said.

In other words, the ancient Romans anticipated fraud of the kind perpetrated by Domenico Ribatti, and took more effective steps to prevent it than Italians do today. In April, Paolo De Castro, the agriculture minister, announced that the government had investigated seven hundred and eighty-seven olive-oil producers and found that two hundred and five were guilty of adulteration, false labelling, and other infractions. Yet it will be years before the cases are adjudicated, and most of the alleged violations are unlikely to result in substantial fines or jail sentences. De Castro has also proposed legislation that would require bottlers of extra-virgin and virgin oil to declare on their labels the oil’s country or countries of origin. But many observers believe that the legislation, known as the “Made in Italy” decree, contradicts existing E.U. regulations and will be struck down. “This decree is nothing but a cunning trick intended to pass back through the window what the E.U. has already tossed out the door,” Giorgio Fontana, a lawyer who has studied olive-oil legislation, says.

In March, 1993, Domenico Ribatti was arrested, along with his chief chemist and three other accomplices, and charged with contraband, fraud against the European Union, operating a criminal network, and other crimes. During an extended legal battle, he insisted that he had been defrauded by his suppliers—Caribbean shell companies that had sold Riolio hazelnut oil instead of olive oil. But when Pascal Brugger, a Swiss financier who managed these companies, turned state’s evidence, and revealed that Ribatti himself controlled them, his defense collapsed. In the end, Ribatti plea-bargained a thirteen-month prison term. (Ribatti, who has since left the olive-oil business, denied that he had committed any crimes. “I was just the scapegoat,” he told me.)

Leonardo Colavita, the president of ASSITOL, the olive-oil trade association, and the owner of Colavita, the olive-oil company, told me that the group’s policy is to expel member companies that are accused of illegal activity, so that, as he put it, “no one can attack us, no one can say, ‘You have criminals in your organization!’ ” According to Colavita, when Ribatti resigned from the organization he said, “If I leave, everybody’s got to leave.” Using the diminutive of Ribatti’s name, Colavita said, “Mim-mo Ribatti was a gentleman, because he didn’t name names. If he had named names, a lot of folks would have gone to jail.”

While investigating Ribatti, the E.U. anti-fraud team discovered that the two tankers he had used had also transported contraband olive oil to the port of Monopoli, in Puglia. The team traced the oil to an acquaintance of Ribatti’s named Leonardo Marseglia, the managing director of an olive-oil and vegetable-oil company in Monopoli. The company, now called Casa Olearia Italiana, became one of the leading olive-oil importers in Europe and owns one of the largest edible-oil refineries in the world.

In 1994, eighty agents from the Guardia di Finanza raided Casa Olearia and seized documents detailing four illegal shipments of oil involving the Mazal II and the Katerina T. In July, 1996, an arrest warrant was issued for Marseglia and sixteen business associates, on charges that included contraband, E.U. tax fraud, and operating a criminal network. Three weeks later, Marseglia, accompanied by his lawyer, surrendered to the authorities and was jailed. Prosecutors accused him of importing Tunisian olive oil falsely identified as a product of Europe, thus evading the duty imposed on non-European goods, and of illegally receiving E.U. olive-oil subsidies when, later, he sold the oil. Domenico Seccia, the prosecutor in the case, who also prosecuted Ribatti, believes that Marseglia taught Ribatti the criminal techniques for which Ribatti was eventually convicted. “Ribatti inherited from Marseglia all the methods and procedures of the fraud,” Seccia told me. “The Marseglia case is identical to Ribatti’s.”

In a ruling on January 13, 1997, Italy’s Supreme Court noted that the magistrate who authorized the arrests of Marseglia and his associates had “amply demonstrated, with documentary evidence, that the product unloaded in Monopoli was extra-EC olive oil from Tunisia, free from import tariffs, which was subsequently made to appear to be Italian olive oil using false sales transactions, resulting in serious EC fraud.” The court also noted that the magistrate had ordered the men’s arrests because of what he considered “the concrete risk that similar activities would be repeated,” and because of the “criminal character of the defendants.” Nonetheless, after years of judicial wrangling, the prosecutors were unable to win convictions, and the charges against Marseglia and his associates were dismissed in 2004, when the statute of limitations in their cases expired.

Last December, I travelled to Monopoli to visit Marseglia at Casa Olearia. Driving south from the airport in Bari, I followed the coastal highway through ancient olive groves, where the trees are of the local ogliarola cultivar, some of them nearly a thousand years old. Since 1994, Antonio Barile, the farmers’-union president, has led tens of thousands of olive farmers in blockades of the ports of Monopoli and Bari, where many tankers carrying oil arrive. Barile said that some oil shipments entering Italy with government approval are in violation of European law, which allows oil to be imported from countries outside the E.U. when local supplies cannot meet demand. So much of this cheaper foreign oil enters the local market that, for example, according to investigators at the Guardia di Finanza, only one per cent of the oil made in Puglia during the 2003-04 harvest and intended for sale in Italy actually sold at a profit for local producers.

At Monopoli, the highway skirts the Casa Olearia plant: stainless-steel silos, office buildings, smokestacks, and warehouses set, incongruously, in a grove of huge olive trees. Since Marseglia bought the complex, in 1981, it has grown fifteenfold; in 2005, the company processed about a million tons of olive oil and vegetable oils. The Italian press has called Marseglia, who began his career driving a delivery truck for his family’s olive-oil company, the “baron of extra-virgin.” Nonetheless, last year Marseglia left the olive-oil business to concentrate on making biodiesel fuels and electricity. In these fields, he told me, the authorities “break your balls less.”

Marseglia is sixty-one, and has the powerful frame, thick neck, and heavy-lidded eyes of an aging prizefighter. Despite a habit of referring to himself in the first-person plural, he is disarmingly informal; he prodded my arm companionably from time to time to emphasize a point. I asked him whether he was guilty of any of the crimes with which he had been charged. “We have never been convicted of anything up to this point,” he replied. “Therefore we don’t think there’s anything to add. We have suffered trials, and we have been acquitted because the events did not take place.” He added that he had earned the resentment of local farmers by importing foreign olive oil, which is necessary, he insisted, not only to satisfy Italy’s internal demand but also to bolster the shoddy quality of some of the local pugliese oil. “You have to import six hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand tons a year,” he said. “And since we imported a lot, to make blends to save many bad, smelly local oils, people basically saw it as an affront.” (Marseglia denied that he has ever adulterated his olive oil with other vegetable oils.)

Marseglia estimated that ninety per cent of oil sold in Italy as extra-virgin isn’t of premium grade. “It’s anything but extra-virgin, the oil we have here,” he said. He did not seem to think that this was a problem. “First of all, let’s give people good oil,” he said. “Then the excellent—all the extraordinary stuff at forty or fifty euros a kilo, which a few idiots in the world can afford—we’ll think about that later, no?” He told me that his family uses ordinary oil: “For us, the concept of ‘good’ is enough. We want to be average folks.”

Over lunch in the Casa Olearia canteen, Marseglia showed me what he meant by good oil. Techniques like strippaggio are “all hot air,” he said. “Tasting a plate of pasta is easy. Tasting a glass of wine is easy. Tasting a piece of fruit is easy. Tasting oil is the same. It has to have the same pleasurable tastes. If it has an unpleasant one, it’s not good—that’s pretty simple. They say you need a lot of knowledge to understand it, because they want to make the subject seem more intellectual.”

He reached across the table for a bottle of Giusto, his company’s supermarket label, unscrewed the cap, and pointed it at me. “Smell this. Does it smell good, or stink?”

It smelled good: a tart, intensely green fragrance that I’d come to associate with coratina, a popular olive cultivar in Puglia.

Marseglia brought the bottle to his lips and tipped in two big glugs. “So you put it in your mouth, right?” he said thickly, through the oil. “Either it’s disgusting, and you spit it in somebody’s face, or it’s good.” The sign of a good oil, he went on, is the bocca bella (“pretty mouth”), the pleasant taste and sensation that remains in the mouth after you’ve swallowed the oil.

Marseglia passed me the bottle. “Now you taste it, without doing what those other guys do,” he said. “Pretend you’re eating a candy, something good. Then we’ll see how it leaves your mouth.” He watched my face intently as I swallowed the oil, then nodded, satisfied. “Tasting things is simple,” he said.

In January, Marseglia was arraigned on charges relating to another olive-oil crime, this one involving the United States. According to documents compiled by investigators of the Guardia di Finanza, between 1998 and 2004 Casa Olearia evaded more than twenty-two million euros (about thirty million dollars) in E.U. duties by illegally importing seventeen thousand tons of Turkish and Tunisian olive oil, apparently with the coöperation of Italian customs officials. E.U. law allows non-European companies to ship oil duty-free to Italy for processing by an Italian company; however, investigators say that AgriAmerica, the American firm that Casa Olearia claims imported the oil, was a shell company created by Marseglia in order to evade customs duties. The oil was processed in the Casa Olearia laboratories, where investigators suspect that it was mixed with other vegetable oils, though they have been unable to prove this. Some of the oil was bought by Italian companies, but the bulk was shipped to distributors in the United States, who sold it as Italian olive oil.

The American market, which is worth about one and a half billion dollars, is the largest outside Europe, and is growing at a rate of ten per cent a year. Yet the Food and Drug Administration considers olive-oil fraud a relatively rare problem and does not routinely test oils for adulteration. Instead, the agency relies on major producers and trade groups, like the North American Olive Oil Association—whose members include several companies that also belong to ASSITOL—to alert it to suspicious products. With the industry acting as a watchdog, Martin Stutsman, a specialist in adulterated food at the F.D.A., told me, “you don’t waste your resources on surveys that are likely to make somebody comfortable but that don’t do much toward protecting the public health.”

In February, 2006, federal marshals seized about sixty-one thousand litres of what was supposedly extra-virgin olive oil and twenty-six thousand litres of a lower-grade olive oil from a New Jersey warehouse. Some of the oil, which consisted almost entirely of soybean oil, was destined for a company called Krinos Foods, a member of the North American Olive Oil Association. Krinos blamed the fraud on its supplier, DMK Global Marketing, which in turn blamed the Italian bottlers from whom it had bought the oil. The marshals destroyed the oil, but no criminal charges were brought against Krinos or any other companies. “My experience over a period of some fifty years suggests that we can always expect adulteration and mislabelling of olive-oil products in the absence of surveillance by official sources,” David Firestone, an F.D.A. chemist who was the agency’s olive-oil specialist from the mid-sixties to 1999, told me.

In September, Marseglia and five associates will be tried at a closed hearing in Puglia for their role in the AgriAmerica case. They have been charged with forming a criminal network for the purpose of committing contraband, but an investigator familiar with the case says that Marseglia is unlikely to be convicted. “He has protection at the highest levels, from right to left across the political spectrum,” the investigator told me. (Marseglia, citing the ongoing nature of the case, declined to comment on the charges against him but said that he expected to be found innocent, as he had been in previous investigations.)

Casa Olearia remains a member of ASSITOL, which has considerable influence in both Rome and Brussels. The Italian government’s Technical Commission of Oils and Fats, a group that helps draft olive-oil regulations, includes several heads of laboratories belonging to ASSITOL members; its chair is Enrico Tiscornia, a longtime scientific consultant to ASSITOL, who also serves on an analogous board in Brussels. Moreover, ASSITOL recently collaborated with the Italian Ministry of Agriculture on a proposal to create a “Mediterranean Axis of Olive Oil,” which a 2004 government document described as “an informal cartel of international dimensions among olive-oil producers.” According to Colavita, ASSITOL’s president, the project was initiated by Gio-vanni Alemanno, the agriculture minister from 2001 to 2006, and would be financed by the Italian government. The goal, he said, was to expand olive-oil production in Syria, Morocco, Turkey, and other southern Mediterranean countries outside the E.U., and to facilitate the sale of the oil in Italy, using a duty-free storage facility in a southern Italian port.

Paolo De Castro, who replaced Alemanno as agriculture minister last year, told me that he was unfamiliar with the project. But when I described it to him he said that he supported its aims. “We have to avoid distortions, not place limits on business,” he told me. “The important thing is that people don’t act like wise guys, and that this Tunisian oil doesn’t become extra-virgin olive oil from Puglia. Now, this is quite a little problem, eh?” De Castro added that his “Made in Italy” decree, which would require distributors to declare the provenance of their oil on labels, would prevent them from misleading the public. “You write it, and there’s no problem,” he said.

Leonardo Marseglia dismissed the notion that such a measure could be effective. “Oil doesn’t have an identity card; it just goes,” he said. “When someone has two silos of oil, one Italian and the other foreign, you just have to switch them: the other one becomes Italian oil, this one becomes foreign.” Noting that oils labelled “Made in Italy” sell for more than other oils, Marseglia said that De Castro’s legislation would only inspire more fraud. “So what’s going to happen? They’ll do another swindle, and behind the mask of ‘Made in Italy’ there’s foreign oil labelled ‘Made in Italy.’ ” Leonardo Colavita is equally skeptical: “I say that a criminal ought to make the law, because the criminal knows how to outwit the law.” ♦
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mueller?printable=true#ixzz0ZmUSOQCA

Cassein (Dairy) could be natural antioxidant for boosting meat shelf life

2009-09-22T05:01:00.000-07:00

Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - Europe
Casein could be natural antioxidant for boosting meat shelf-life: Study
By Stephen Daniells, 30-Jan-2009
Related topics: Meat, fish and savoury ingredients, Proteins, non-dairy
Modification of the milk protein casein by enzymes could offer formulators a natural antioxidant for beef and poultry products, according to new research from Brazil.
Karina Rossini and co-workers from the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil report that enzymatic hydrolysis of casein produced smaller peptides, which could prevent the spoilage of meat products.
“Casein peptides may be useful in meat processing as another naturally occurring antioxidant, helping to prevent off-flavour formation of meat and its products and increasing shelf life,” wrote the authors in the journal LWT - Food Science and Technology.
Typically, the oxidative deterioration of meat and meat products is caused by the degradation reactions of fats and pigments. Oxidation processes in food can lead to organoleptic deterioration in taste, colour and texture
“At present, consumer demand for natural functional foods has been increasing, and therefore casein peptides can be used as a functional food ingredient in pharmaceutical and food industries,” added the researchers.
The research does indeed tap into growing interest in natural food additives as replacements to synthetic antioxidants like butylhydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) to slow down the oxidative deterioration of food.
According to a 2003 report by Frost and Sullivan, the synthetic antioxidant market is in decline, while natural antioxidants, such as herb extracts, tocopherols (vitamin E) and ascorbates (vitamin C) are growing, pushed by consumer desire acceptance and easier market access.
Study details
The researchers used the commercial enzymes Flavourzyme and Alcalase (Novozymes) to hydrolyse casein. The resulting peptides from Flavourzyme were found to contain more soluble protein and free amino acids than Alcalase.
Measures of the peptides’ antioxidant activity revealed that those produced by Flavourzyme had higher values, compared to those obtained with Alcalase.
When formulated into ground beef homogenates and mechanically de-boned poultry meat, the researchers found that the casein peptides “effectively inhibited lipid peroxidation” in the beef (100 per cent inhibition), and by 21 per cent for the poultry product, and thereby produced an extension of the products’ shelf-lives.
While the study is not the first of its kind to investigate the effects of casein peptides in meat formulations, it does support the potential of these ingredients at a time when food manufacturers continue to look for ‘natural’ additives to their products.
“These results suggest that bioactive peptides from casein hydrolysis may be used as natural antioxidants in meat systems,” concluded Rossini and her co-workers.
Source: LWT - Food Science and TechnologyVolume 42, Issue 4, Pages 862-867“Casein peptides with inhibitory activity on lipid oxidation in beef homogenates and mechanically deboned poultry meat”Authors: K. Rossini, C.P.Z. Norena, F. Cladera-Olivera, A. Brandelli
Copyright - Unless otherwise stated all contents of this web site are © 2000/2009 - Decision News Media SAS - All Rights Reserved - For permission to reproduce any contents of this web site, please email our Syndication department: Administration & Finance - Full details for the use of materials on this site can be found in the Terms & Conditions
© 2000/2009 - Decision News Media SAS - All right reserved.

Shatnez???????????? yes-can't rely on them

2009-09-04T07:17:00.001-07:00

G&G,

EMPORIO,

RIGHT PLACE Boro Park,

Monsey Shatnez Center,

203 Lee Ave & Gelb their tester

copy express

What is the true value of a lakewood lot?

2009-09-04T07:13:00.000-07:00

COMPLAINT- [filed]
Ocean County Tax Board
Lakewood Township Committee
NJ Division of Taxation
August 21st, 2009
RE: Lakewood township assessments.
Lakewood Township values their single family land different depending what the purpose is for.
The Lakewood Tax assessor’s office values their single family land upwards of one hundred and ninety thousand ($190,000.00) dollars.
Lakewood Township Tax Assessor and their professional independent appraiser are testifying under oath at the Ocean County Tax Board to the effect that “Lakewood values of single family lots are valued upwards of one hundred and ninety thousand ($190,000.00) dollars.
In the very last few weeks and as recent as August 20th, 2009, the Lakewood Tax Assessor’s office in a valuation for the Lakewood Township Committee Re: Pine River Development single family unrestricted lots, valued as eighty five thousand ($85,000.00) dollars.
In their official capacity and under oath, Lakewood Tax Assessor is utilizing different valuations for the same type of land taking into account all standard adjustments i.e. location, size, etc.
We believe that it is unacceptable and in all likelihood illegal as well.
This complaint includes but is not limited to the following: the Lakewood Township Committee et al, the Lakewood Tax Assessor et al, the appraisal Company, et al that is currently defending Lakewood’s assessment in front of the Ocean County Tax Board and the New Jersey Tax Court.

I Remain,

Yehuda Shain
1140 forest Avenue
Lakewood, New Jersey 08701

Complaint

2009-09-02T06:03:00.001-07:00

COMPLAINT
Ocean County Tax Board, President & Commissioners
New Jersey Division of Taxation
Lakewood Township Manager
August 31, 2009

On or about August 13th, 2009 the Lakewood Tax Assessor, Ms. Linda Solakian (“Assessor”) in the presence of many people, verbally attacked Mr. P. G. Waxman , a Commissioner of the Ocean County Tax Board and its current president. During the verbal tirade the Assessor included “racist remarks” including “your people”. Judges and other public Officials were forced to step down for similar remarks. The assessor also verbally attacked others from the Orthodox Jewish community.
Commissioner Waxman did not respond regarding the racist remark, nor has he taken any action legal, or otherwise, (as far as I know) towards the Assessor.
It is unethical and unconscionable that Commissioner Waxman has not taken any action towards the Assessor and has allowed her to testify in front of the Tax Board.
Commissioner Waxman, who is a resident of Lakewood, should have been aware that most of the Lakewood tax appeals are from the orthodox Jewish community whom the assessor used the racist remark against them.
Commissioner Waxman should have had the Assessor disqualified and set up a hearing to relieve the Assessor of her duties.
It is fact that, previous Tax Board Commissioners who were intimidated by the above Assessor and allegedly received telephone communications from upper echelon political power brokers not to challenge the above mentioned Assessor, actually resigned from the tax board due to her intimidation and actions. That in itself does not justify Commissioner Waxman’s lack of actions against the Assessor.
The Comps produced by The Lakewood Assessor & Mr. Gagliano “ MAI” ? for the Lakewood Tax Appeals contain much erroneous information and should therefore be disqualified. The Assessor & Mr. Gagliano may have committed perjury by presenting documentation & evidence that they should have known was erroneous.
The appraisals are not conforming to any guidelines in Appraisal practice and were done in complete disregard to the ethics and moral duty required of them.
The erroneous appraisals that Lakewood Township presented to the Tax Board to justify the Lakewood Assessors inflated property values is a clear indicator of the Assessors valuation practice. Therefore there is no “presumption of correctness” for all of the Assessors Lakewood valuations. In conclusion, the only item in front of the Commissioners’ to consider is the Appellants’ Comps or testimony.
The Tax Board Commissioners’ actions are granted “immunity” by the State. It may be a broad immunity but it is not blanket immunity.
The Lakewood Assessors prepared SR1A’s, which are used by the Division for the Ratios, should be disqualified, as they contain erroneous information in determining useable and non-useable sales. The sales that come in with lower than the assessed values which would be an indicator of possible market change, are disqualified as non-useable with the use of #26, etc.
When there is a clear non-useable inflated sale (double of the last sale of a mere 2-3 months ago), it is listed as a useable sale. When there are other verifiable circumstances why a property is sold “out of proportion to the market condition” no sufficient research is done to ascertain the true circumstances.
When the Assessor and Appraiser will opt to use an out of area, out of date, dis-similar properties, etc with loads of adjustments, when there are area comps, closer dates, more similar comps, less adjustments, that should be suspect and looked upon as a discrimination appeal as well, and the appellants should be allowed to show other assessments that are lower as well.
As the board heard from appellants during the hearings, the proper adjustments were not made from the Township’s comps to the appellant subject properties (e.g. pool, square footage, zoning, water & sewer vs. well &Septic , etc).
Additionally, when a selected comp is used by Lakewood to maintain the assessment for numerous properties there is no consistency in that home’s features and line item adjustment values. It just depends on what the Assessor and appraiser want as “the bottom line”.
The Assessor is not in compliance with the state mandated Code of Ethics of Municipal Assessors as appears in Handbook for New Jersey Assessors.
The Handbook for New Jersey Assessors has very clear requirements for Proper “public relations” with an Assessor’s office. It is clearly not being followed by the above mentioned Assessor. There is actually intimidation and fear in dealing with the current Assessor.
The Assessor is also not complying with the Handbooks section 1102.2
INFORMAL REVIEW
Section 1102.3 Second paragraph
Section 320.1 “The Assessor having made every reasonable effort to help……
Section 320.4 “If doubt exists……..The presentation of additional….

I remain,

Yehuda Shain
1140 Forest Avenue
Lakewood, NJ 08701
By Fax, mail & certified mail

all about Lakewood 9/01/09

2009-09-01T09:46:00.000-07:00

http://www.joyceblaynewsandviews.com/freedomofthpress/blog1.php

Where did OBAMA's funding come from?

2009-08-24T06:28:00.001-07:00

New York Times Editorial By MAUREEN DOWD Published: June 29, 2008

OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks.. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history – and this was all from the internet campaign.What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites. Small contributions cam e in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia , Iran , and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia . Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws. It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.This is a shocking revelation.We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributio ns after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.IS IT RIGHT FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO HAVE AN INVESTMENT IN WHO BECOMES OUR NEXT PRESIDENT??? IF YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, PLEASE PASS IT ON. The fact that the NY Times allowed this to be printed is amazing in itself.

ה-פ.ב.אי.

2009-08-21T06:55:00.000-07:00

http://yudelsreport.blogspot.com/

click on link

2009-08-21T06:54:00.001-07:00

http://yudelsreport.blogspot.com/

פ.ב.אי.

2009-08-21T06:53:00.000-07:00

ביקשו ממך לנכות צ'קים? אולי ה-F.B.I. מתעניין בך האם האף. בי. אי. גייס לשירותיו עוד משתפי-פעולה מקרב הציבור החרדי? אם הדברים תלויים בעדותו של אחד מבעלי מפעלי הבשר הכשר הגדולים בארצות-הברית - התשובה היא חיוביתיוסי כץ, כתב בחדרי חרדיםתאריך: 21/08/2009 13:40:00
'פרשיית דיל' ירדה מסדר היום הציבורי. לא בשל חוסר עניין ציבורי, אלא בגלל עומס הפרשות שהיה בעוכרינו: נעדרים, רציחות, אלימות גואה, מעילות, התאבדויות ועוד כיד הדמיון הלא טובה עליכם, הותירו את פרשת 'דיל' אי שם בנבכי הזיכרון הציבורי, הרחק מאור השמש. ענן החשדות עדיין מרחף, ובעיירה דיל עדיין מלקקים את הפצעים העמוקים.אולם, ממידע שהגיע לאתר 'בחדרי חרדים' עולה, כי בעוד התקשורת עברה לעסוק בנושאים אחרים ומאתגרים יותר, האף. בי. אי ממשיך לעסוק בנושאים הקשורים לציבור החרדי - ואינו מרפה מהחקירות האינטנסיביות. האם האף. בי. אי. גייס לשירותיו עוד משתפי פעולה מהציבור החרדי? אם הדברים תלויים בעדותו של אחד מבעלי מפעלי הבשר הכשר הגדולים בארצות-הברית - דומה שהתשובה המזעזעת היא חיובית.על פי עדותו, שהגיעה לידי כתב אתר 'בחדרי חרדים', עולה כי אחד מעצורי הפרשייה החרדים (לא מבני הקהילה בעיירה דיל), התקשר לבעל המפעל וביקש ממנו לנכות עבורו צ'קים תמורת עמלה. בעל המפעל, שמכיר את העצור לשעבר באופן רופף, לא הבין מה לו ולבקשה זו, אך השיב כי אם הוא זקוק לכך בדחיפות, הוא ימלא את הבקשה.לאחר מםפר רגעים סיפר לו אחד העובדים כי האיש שפנה הוא "מעצורי פרשת דיל", ואולי כדאי לחשוב שוב לפני שמבצעים עבורו בקשה שעלולה להתנגש עם החוק. בעל המפעל המזועזע הבין כי חידוש הקשר מצד האברך אינו מקרי. לדבריו, האברך ככל הנראה משתף פעולה עם חוקרי האף. בי. אי. על מנת להפיל עוד חרדים בארצות-הברית. למרות שאין הוכחות חד-משמעיות כי האברך אכן פועל מטעם הבולשת הפדארלית, די בסיפור זה בכדי ללמד על אווירת הנרדפות והחשש העצום המקנן בקרב אזרחים חרדיים בארצות-הברית.

OU-Israel, Reliable?

2009-08-16T05:44:00.000-07:00

1. A New Kashrus Agency in Eretz Yisrael2. 3rd Shuk Tour3. A Look at the Hechsher – OU IsraelThe article is available with accompanying photos on the website. One may also add a comment for posting on the website.
1. A New Kashrus Agency in Eretz Yisrael It was by all accounts a historic event, the launching of a newkashrus agency in Israel, one that enjoys widespread support. The event was hosted in Bnei Brak’s Vishnitz Hotel on Tuesday, August 11,2009.All chassidic bodies have joined force, explaining they have created ahechsher that will integrate the hidurim of all the respective groupsincorporated in the effort.The new agency is being called Badatz Kehillot HaChareidim in EretzYisrael, the product of a year’s work. The official date of the launchof the new agency is 21 Av 5769. Organizers believe that from itsinception, the new agency will be directing products at 30,000families.

The directors of the agency will be Admorim, the Rebbe’s of therespective chassidic courts, who have handpicked the rabbonim who willrepresent them on the board. The list of rabbonim on the new Badatzinclude Rav Zoldon (Haifa), Rav Pessach Horowitz (Ashdod), Rav ChaimSchwartz (Netanya), Rav Shraga Feivel Weinberger (Bnei Brak), RavEliezer Koenig (Tzfat), Rav Nachman Berlind, Rav Yeshayahu Brizal(Jerusalem), Rav Rozovsky (Rosh Yeshiva Slonim), Rav MordechaiEichler, Rav Binyomin Adler, Rav Yoroslovsky (Chabad), Rav Meir Weiss(grandson of Erlau Rebbe Shlita), Rav Simcha Rabinowitz (RamatShlomo), and Rav Shamai Gross (Jerusalem).A number of other rabbonim, currently out of the country, are expectedto join in the future, Chareidim reports.The rabbonim running the organization are reported to be veterans tothe kashrut industry and represent an array of expertise. Rav Schwartzfor example, has been responsible for kashrus in the Laniado Hospitalin Netanya as well as the Ganei Sanz Hotel. The organization plans tobegin by addressing schita.

****2. 3rd Shuk TourBaruch Hashem, on Tuesday evening the third JKN shuk kashrut walkingtour pounded the pavement, and participants expressed satisfaction,with a feeling the time was well spent, learning the ins-and-outs ofthe kashrut maze in Israel, particularly the ‘shuk’.Next Tuesday, August 18th, two additional walking tours are planned.They are booked to capacity. There are many who are wait-listed.Please continue to monitor the list and website for information ofupcoming walking tours. I do not plan any others in August, but whoknows.Yeshivot and seminaries who might benefit from my PowerPointdemonstration for students who spend their year in Israel, dates arefilling rapidly so if you are interested, send an email sooner ratherthan later.By the way, the photo accompanying this article only shows a smallgroup. It appears the participants of this group were quite camerashy.

****3. A Look at the Hechsher – OU IsraelFor me, one who grew up in the East Coast of the United States, OU wassynonymous with ‘kosher’, but not just kosher, a level of kashrut thatcould be trusted, synonymous with transparency, legitimacy, and agenuine concern for the kosher consumer.When the news began unfolding a number of years ago that the OUexisted in the Holy Land, it brought a smile to the faces of many aformer N. American, realizing this premier kashrus organization wouldwithout a doubt remove the complexities of the Israeli kashrus scene,permitting us to sit back and relax, entering an OU restaurant orhotel and enjoy Israel’s finest cuisine with the knowledge the kosherstandard was among the highest available.That is how I began this report about months ago, optimistic, andadmittedly somewhat excited, armed with my pen, pad and digitalcamera, I set out to show the world what the OU is bringing to EretzYisrael.To my dismay, what I found was not exactly what I expected. There isno kashrus transparency, no written or published standard, and nofriendly voice on the other end of the phone to explain thecomplexities of the kashrus situation. I cannot really say what thestandard is, but what I can do is to relay facts, the findings of manymany hours in the street, photographing, speaking with mashgichim inthe industry, checking eateries and hotels, and of course, speakingand meeting with the head of the OU in Israel, Rabbi Yosef Minsky, andhis assistant, Rachel Stewart. I will add that the OU-Israel koshercertificates displayed in hotels do not even all contain the name of amashgiach or mefakaiach to call, as is evident from the photosaccompanying this article.

****I BEGIN WITH SOME TERMINOLOGY & HARD FACTSFirstly, one must understand some of the basic ins-and-outs of kashrusin Israel, in this case, pertaining to the Jerusalem RabbinicalCouncil. There are two levels of kashrus, ‘regular’ and ‘mehadrin’,with the later ensuring a higher standard, one that should becommensurate with many many stringencies that permit the food forpeople adhering to a high standard.This includes proficient inspection of fish, greens and legumes forinsects and bugs, prohibiting the use of many items including but notlimited to strawberries, other berries, certain cuts of meat, and thecertainty that the milk, vegetables, foods and other items are not theresult of chilul shabbos. It also means there is a mashgiach timidi (arabbinical kashrut inspector) present while the kitchen operates. Yes,this is all an over simplification, but I am trying to give a generaloverview and not get bogged down in defining the difference betweenregular and mehadrin).In a regular kashrut environment, a mashgiach pops in from time to time (yotzei v’nichnas), not necessarily daily, and the level ofkashrut adherence in the kitchen is inferior to the mehadrin.The Jerusalem Rabbinate employs mashgichim, as well as a mefakaiach(supervisor) who is not assigned to a special store, but goes to anumber of places supervising his subordinates, the mashgichim.

****OU-ISRAELSometime ago, prior to embarking on this article, I spoke with RabbiYosef Minsky to get an idea of what OU-Israel brings the kosherconsumer. He explained that being that we are in the Holy Land, thelevel is higher than in the United States, guaranteeing chalavyisrael, bishul yisrael, and regarding shmitah, only l’chumra. He toldme in many a conversation that the level of OU-Israel adheres to thestrictest standards, cutting no corners, making certain Americans andIsraelis alike can enjoy, well-assured the level of kosher is amongthe highest in the industry. It is pertinent to the article to insertat this point that on numerous occasions, Rav Minsky added that heviews the OU among the premier agencies, like Eida Chareidit, makingsure to insert he is operating on a higher level than JerusalemRabbinate Mehadrin. This was repeated and stressed on numerousoccasions.I emphasize that I am not making any judgments as to the level ofkashrus, but I will use this forum to present facts, and perhaps toexpress a level of frustration I have not known in dealing with anyother kashrus agencies in Israel.As you, readers are aware, I do not generally write about kashrusagencies as an independent unit in a feature article, but events sortof compel that I attempt to document many isolated incidents into acohesive report. One of the reasons is the fact that JKN is an Englishforum, thereby attracting many former and current Americans, resultingin many a query regarding OU-Israel.I strongly suggest that email recipients take the time to view thearticle online, where photos accompany the documentation.

****MORIAH CLASSIC HOTELThe Moriah Classic Hotel, formally the Novetell, is one of theJerusalem Hotels under the supervision of OU-Israel. It also enjoysthe supervision of the Jerusalem Rabbinate, regular, not mehadrin.I will spare you hours of phone calls and investigatory efforts andcut to the chase. The hotel rav and mashgiach, Rabbi Elyashiv Nafcha,will attest to the fact that there is no OU mashgiach in reality, eventhough the certificate, which is not posted conspicuously as per RabbiNafcha’s decision, since the last one expired, stated the mashgiach isRabbi Eliezer Mendelson. Rabbi Nafcha runs quite the legitimate show,which I will detail in an upcoming report on the hotel. Bottom line,the OU relies on a non-mehadrin Rabbanut hechsher for its OU mehadrinhechsher. In reality, the hotel ingredients are mehadrin but that isnot the point. If one phones the hotel and asks for the rav ormashgiach, Rav Nafcha will tell you the hotel is under J. Rabbinateregular, while the ingredients purchased are mehadrin, but this is notthe same as a mehadrin hotel .JKN phoned the OU-Israel office and we were assured the hotel is underits supervision and mehadrin, “not like the Eida Chareidit, but likethe Belz and other regular mehadrin hechshers”.In short, you the kosher consumer are visiting a non-mehadrin hoteland eating, believing an OU mehadrin mashgiach is there. Sorry folks,but this is simply not the case.

****JERUSALEM PLAZA HOTELThe Jerusalem Plaza Hotel is under the supervision the JerusalemRabbinate Mehadrin, and OU-Israel. Once again, the hotel mashgiach,Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Altman is the rav and chief mashgiach. Asveteran readers know, I am a fan, impressed with the kashrut standardmaintained by this senior veteran mashgiach. In this case too, heexplains, the OU mashgiach, guess who -- Rabbi Eliezer Mendelson, isnot really in control of kashrus. Here again, it appears the OU relieson the Rabbanut mashgiach to cover itself.I will point out that Rabbi Mendelson is a member of Rabbi Altman’sstaff, one of his mashgichim. When I asked the Jerusalem Rabbinate ifthey are bothered by this conflict of interests, I was told thatofficially, Mendelson is a “representative” of the Rabbinate and an“employee” of the Plaza, so no problem.Anyway, here too the OU-Israel enjoys the zealous efforts of the hotelrav and comfortably adds its kashrut sign, but in reality, RabbiMendelson does not make the decisions regarding what foods arepurchased, used, and so-forth. Rabbi Altman runs the kashrut show hereand there have not been any changes in the kashrut operation since theOU added it name.

****MOSHIKO SHWARMAOnce again, Jerusalem Rabbinate Mehadrin and OU-Israel. As you mayremember from a previous report, the Rabbinate mashgiach is presentfor about 8 hours daily, and the Rabbinate supervisor (mefakaiach)visits several times a week. The OU Mefakaiach, Rabbi Avraham Turetzkytold JKN that he relies on the Rabbanut mashgichim and visits from“time-to-time”.Here I must point out that while the J. Rabbinate Mehadrin seems to bedoing its job, the OU office has told me repeatedly its standard ishigher than the Rabbanut Mehadrin and it does not rely on the mehadrinhechsher. It appears Rabbi Turetzky is unaware of this policy decisionsince he does indeed rely on the J. Rabbinate mashgiach timidi.

****JERUSALEM GATE HOTELYou guessed it, Jerusalem Rabbinate Mehadrin and Rabbi Turetzky assupervisor. In truth, all my investigations show the hotel runs justfine, but again, due to the credit of the Jerusalem Rabbinate with theOU taking a free ride. By the way, R’ Turetzky’s name, or anyone elsefor that matter, does not appear on the certificate.I will use this opportunity to add that all my phone calls revealRabbi Turetzky is a serious G-d fearing Rav, one who take kashrusseriously. In addition to his demanding kashrus positions, he alsoserves as an employee of the Rabbinical Center of Europe, where heworks in their Givat Shaul, Jerusalem, office during the afternoonhours. The point, once again, the hotel relies on the JerusalemRabbinate, which the OU office degrades, but in essence, it maintainsthe level of kashrus.Here again, as in the case of R’ Mendelson, R’ Turetzky is the hotelrav/mashgiach for the J. Rabbinate, and the OU.I think it is also noteworthy to add that one who relies on OU foreating out and possibly less comfortable with the Jerusalem RabbinateMehadrin, in the overwhelming majority of cases, you are eating theRabbanut schita, not OU meat or chickens.
****TAIKULocated on Emek Refaim Street in the German Colony, this fine eateryis becoming increasingly popular, it recently decided to leave theAgudat Yisrael supervision and move to the OU [see previous reports].Since that time, I have contacted the mashgiach twice by phone andmade three unannounced visits. Sorry, but he was never on site. Thisdoes not say there are kashrus problems, but this is not exactly whatis meant by “mashgiach timidi”.I use this opportunity to add that in violation of state law, the OUhas granted a certificate of kashrut to this restaurant despite thefact that it does not have a Jerusalem Rabbinate hechsher. The samewas true under Agudat Yisrael as per the Jerusalem Religious CouncilKashrut Department.

****PAPAGAIOThis is without a doubt the new excitement on the N. AmericanJerusalem eating scene. Since moving from Jerusalem Rabbinate regularto OU after Tisha B’Av, it has been standing room only. This branch,the only mehadrin branch of Papagaio is located at 3 Yad CharutzimStreet in the Talpiot area of Jerusalem.This story is a bit longer, even the abridged version --I saw the full page color ad in the weekend J. Post, and decided Iwill call to make an appointment and visit, to write up therestaurant. As is my custom, I phoned to request permission tointerview the mashgiach and tour the kitchen. The restaurant was morethan pleased to comply, as is always the case – realizing thepotential for free media exposure. I arrived at 10:45am, 15 minutesearly, using the time to take photos.

Arriving early permits me some time to check out a place before aformal interview begins; something that helps me assess the situation.In this case too, I did just that and I saw an impressive place, aBrazilian steakhouse busy with the daily getting-the-day-started mode,setting tables, preparing the salads, meats and other foods for the 12noon opening. The prices displayed on the menu were extremelyreasonable considering the ambiance and general feel of the place.

I introduced myself to the branch manager, Yaniv, who actually fit thecentral casting for the part, shaven head and quite suave inappearance, the type of chap one would expect operating such a fineeatery. I learned from him there are seven stores in Israel, 5 withregular rabbinate supervision in other cities, one not kosher and openshabbos, and this branch, under the OU for only a number of days. Idid not know they just moved from Jerusalem Rabbinate regular to theOU, but that is not relevant either. (The J. Rabbinate certificate wasnot on display so I could not know. I did check with the office of theJ. Rabbinate a number of days later).By any definition of the word, the restaurant is an impressivesteakhouse, and it is not difficult to understand why the reservationphone is ringing off the hook since it announced its OU-Israelhechsher.

Anyway, everyone was there except for Shaul Ben-Shachar, themashgiach. I was given his cellular number and we spoke, and itappears no one informed him of the meeting. Anyway, he was apologeticand we agreed I would wait an hour for him to arrive. To speed up thestory, after waiting about 40 minutes, Yaniv informed me that he spokewith Rabbi Y. Minsky (head of the OU-Israel) and he informed Yanivthat I may not enter the kitchen without him being present. I wasasked to leave – a request that I accommodated, somewhat frustratedand angry, but I do not get into arguments over entering a kitchen. Bylaw, no one has to grant me access since I have no state-givenauthority, only a press card.For those who remember the recent updated photo report on Emek Refaimarea restaurants, that report was prompted by this chain of events. Ihad already wasted too much time, and was perturbed. Rather than busit back to the center of town I walked, passing through the GermanColony, using the time to photograph the stores for the updatedreport.After cooling down a bit I decided to phone Rabbi Minsky to confirmthat he actually gave the order barring me from the Papagaio kitchen.He confirmed the facts. After about 15 minutes on the phone I realizedthe conversation was not heading anywhere and tried to end it. Therabbi pointed out I am not a rabbi, or kashrut expert, to which Iagreed, but I pointed out I am quite proficient in documenting factsand have enough learning under my belt and on-site experience to dojust that. I also explained I was not seeking kashrut inadequacies,but just to relay the facts to readers as I have been doing for thepast 2.5 years.When Rabbi Minsky realized I was fed up with his shenanigans, tellinghim I planned to boycott the OU-Israel in future reports to avoidrepeated confrontations, he changed his tone and explained that he didnot realize I was the correspondent at Papagaio, but feared it wassomeone else who might just be seeking to give the OU a bad name. Weagreed that I would telephone and come in to meet with him to talk,which I have not yet done. Quite honestly, I do not see any benefit insuch meeting and blei neder, I have no intention of re-visitingPapagaio today or any other day in the future.I spoke with the Jerusalem Rabbinate to see if Papagaio has acertificate, since only the OU-Israel certificate is displayed. Ilearned it has a Jerusalem Rabbinate regular hechsher and themashgiach is R’ Avi Levy, who is on duty 3 hours daily, usually duringthe afternoon.R’ Levy told me that R’ Ben-Shachar [the OU-Israel mashgiach] is onduty from 8:30am “every day” and makes certain the kitchen neveroperates without a mashgiach present. He assured me that the kitchenNEVER operates without one of the three mashgichim present, not evenduring the early-morning setting up hours.I can only say on the one occasion I popped in, this was not the case.Meats and poultry were being marinated, the grill was lit before myeyes, salads cut and much more was taking place, without a mashgiachpresent. There is also a third mashgiach beginning at 5:00pm untilmidnight R’ Levy told me, also under OU-Israel auspices. (I wasunable to get his name).R’ Levy told me the meat was OU and the chicken Fleish (OU-Israelalso). R’ Ben-Shachar said meat was Agudah and poultry Fleish).Before moving on, I pose a question here for both the J. Rabbinate andOU-Israel -- Those viewing the photos accompanying this article cansee the well-stocked Papagaio bar. Well, I sent the photos to aRabbanut expert on hard drinks and he told me that two items are“problematic” and one is definitely dairy.My question is what is a dairy liquor doing in a meat restaurant and Iask the OU, what is a “problematic” drink doing in a mehadrinrestaurant? Especially since OU America is a leader in raisingawareness to the possible kashrut problems related to hard drinks.

****AGAS VETAPUACHAgas VeTapuach is a high-end operation, dairy/parve, located at KikarSafra, Jerusalem City Hall.In short, I spoke with Yonatan, the owner/manager and the JerusalemRabbinate. The place is under the supervision of Jerusalem Rabbinateregular and OU-Israel mehadrin. The supervisor is R’ Turetzky, and theJ. Rabbinate mashgiach comes and goes, as is fine in compliance withthe dictates of a regular J. Rabbinate supervision. There is not OU-Israel mashgiach, only a supervisor who makes occasional visits. Inshort, this OU-Mehadrin place does not have any mashgiach timidi.Yonatan assures me all his products are “badatz mehadrin and chalavyisrael”.

****SUMMATION1. There are numerous other OU-Israel supervised hotels, eateries andcaterers in the Greater Jerusalem area. I do not plan to visit orreview them. This is not because of kashrut concerns, but due to thelack of cooperation from OU-Israel office staff and the smokescreenthat results in some of my questions.2. This report does not intend to hint at the level of kashrut in anyof the places mentioned, for good or G-d forbid otherwise, regardingthe OU. I have reported on some of the places, such as the JerusalemPlaza and Moshiko, and they indeed are true to their J. Rabbinatehechsher. The OU-Israel adds absolutely nothing other than a red andwhite sign.3. If one is stringent on eating OU schita (beef and poultry) whenentering an OU establishment, think again in Israel. Not all placesuse Fleish chickens and to date, the OU has not succeeded in havingits own cattle schita despite efforts to do so. Therefore, if amashgiach in Jerusalem tells you the meat is “OU”, it may be OU-Israelapproved, which is fine, but it cannot be OU-Israel schita since todate, there has not been any.4. If you expect a mashgiach timidi in your OU mehadrin restaurant,then you are out of luck in some cases.5. Based on what I saw at Papagaio, the kitchen operating without amashgiach, it is difficult to say if OU-Israel satisfies ‘bishulyisrael’ for sephardim, which hold by the stringent rulings of theBeit Yosef. Rav Minsky assures me all OU-Israel establishments arebishul yisrael for both ashkenazim and sephardim.6. There are many many emails that have come in regarding OU chickens,sold under the Fleish name. I mention this so readers do not think Ihave ignored this. I just prefer not to address the matter at thistime.7. Without exception! Any and every hotel mashgiach and rav I spokewith, referring to hotels that the OU-Israel has claimed to be underits supervision, at least three, maintain the OU-Israel has not addeda thing towards mehadrin level kashrus and it appears the organizationis taking a free ride off the services of the J. Rabbinate hechsher,both regular and mehadrin, as well as the reputations of the finerabbonim and mashgichim in those very same hotels.

****For questions please send me an email at Jerusalemkn@gmail.com . Iwill do my best to respond.To comment, please see the article on the website and insert yourcomment at the end of the article.Yechiel SpiraPlease pass this around and encourage others to join this freeinformative service to help get the word out on kashrut in EretzYisrael. To join the JKN mailing list, visit the website. ****Baruch Hashem, a growing number of kosher alert organizations aroundthe world are using this material.Anyone is free to distribute it, but not for commercial use. If youopt to use material, it must be accompanied with the footer “JerusalemKosher News – www.jerusalemkoshernews.com - jerusalemkn@gmail.com”.

Rabanut shechita in Chutz Lu'aretz

2009-08-10T08:40:00.000-07:00

Monday, August 10, 200920 Av 5769
Chief Rabbinate Schita in Argentina

The following is a translation of an article appearing in the shabbosYediot Achronot “Musaf Shabbat” magazine, written by Techiya Barak.Mashgiach kashrus Shimon Tzuberi realized he may be better offremaining silent, but he could not, compelled to report what he saw.The incident occurred when he was part of a Chief Rabbinate of Israelteam, a team of shochtim sent to prepare meat for import to EretzYisrael.Tzuberi saw a piece of meat which he felt was not treibered (de-veined) in accordance to halacha, compelling to file a report.“Turmoil resulted and even before completing our assignment, I wasordered to return home” he explained.

“Upon my return, I informed anumber of rabbonim of the situation, calling for a halachicinvestigation into the matter”.Taking part in the investigation were Rav Yaakov Saban, who heads theNational Kashrut Division, Rav Ezra Refael Hariri, who heads the unitoverseeing schita abroad and the importation of meat. “They asked meto explain exactly what I saw, and I did just that. After this, I wasno longer sent abroad for schita”.Tzuberi approached a number of rabbonim, seeking their assistance andfollowing their intervention, he was sent abroad. He reports that insubsequent trips abroad, he documented kashrus inadequacies. Heexplains that he began hearing there were problems with his conduct,explaining in one case, he was accused of arguing with a passenger ona flight. “I was shocked” he explains, deciding to send letters to anumber of rabbis to intervene on his behalf. After a year, he was informed that a hearing would be held.

He arrived well-prepared, armedwith a letter from El Al that there was no such occurrence, nodisturbance involving Tzuberi and another passenger.During the hearing, Tzuberi explains the accusations leveled againsthim made him quite emotional, becoming agitated. Allegations includedan accusation that his hand trembled, which would render him unsuitedto continue as a shochet (ritual slaughterer). He became so agitatedthat he was offered a glass of water. While holding the glass it waspointed out “see, you are trembling” to which he explained this wasthe result of his temporary agitated state. He understood that he hadbeen set up.Following the hearing he received a letter that informed him that dueto his condition, he is no longer qualified to be part of any teamtraveling abroad for schita. Interestingly, the letter did not mentionhis qualifications to continue schita in Israel.

Tzuberi remained determined to reverse the ruling, calling RabbiHariri repeatedly while seeing physicians and obtaining medicaldocumentation that he does not have a tremor in his hands.Tzuberi began contacting rabbis of stature; people he hoped would bewilling to assist him, a battle that has been ongoing for almost adecade. One can count on one hand the number of times Tzuberi wasincluded in a team heading abroad for schita during recent years.“It was not Sabag or I who disqualified him but the rabbis who gavehim [the glass of] water to test him, determining he has a tremor,states Rabbi Hariri. “We also suspended the team leader for failing tonotify us of the tremor. He is however successful as a treiborer (onewho removes forbidden veins and fats as part of koshering process).

Inaddition, he is not a pleasant person to work with. On more than oneoccasion, importers refused to work with him”.The Chief Rabbinate’s Diaspora Schita Unit might be the last place onewould expect to find such conduct and arguments, but this is not thecase. Some of the stories are a juicy as the steaks that receive akashrut stamp, legitimately so or otherwise.An investigation conducted by Musaf Yediot reveals numerous storiesover the years in which mashgichim report problems with the kashrus ofmeat slaughtered abroad. Some of those involved were ‘grounded’ whileothers found themselves in different departments. Others, likeTzuberi, were compelled to defend themselves against allegations.Allegations against employees who filed complaints include oneofficial disqualifying meat intentionally while another employee isalleged to be conducting a romance with a non-Jewish female. A thirdemployee is accused of running around naked. A protest and hungerstrike held in recent months failed to result in any significantchange.

The personal situation of the Chief Rabbinate employees’ aside, thetales have widespread ramifications, with a survey showing 65% of theJewish Israeli population eats kosher and 40% demand a rabbinicalhechsher. 55% of the meat in Israel is slaughtered in factoriesabroad, 60,000 tons of meat imported from various locations abroad.Some of the shochtim report they have begun slaughtering cattle fortheir families, and they have stopped eating meat, even with the bestof hechsherim. They explain some of the meat imported into Israel isindeed questionable regarding its kashrus, not to mention actualtreif.An importer wishing to bring meat into Israel contact Rabbi Sabag andRabbi Hariri, the former’s subordinate. Most of the slaughterhousesare located in South America, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.There are however slaughterhouses in Australia, the United States,Ireland and China as well.Teams dispatched by the Chief Rabbinate are made up of a team leaderand an assistant, who are responsible for the operation.

They mustultimately determine if meat is kosher and in adherence to thestandard permitting it to carry the stamp “Kosher by the ChiefRabbinate of Israel”. Other members of the team include shochtim,inspectors [of the various body organs following slaughter] andmashgichim.The teams are generally sent for months at a time, depending on thenumber of cattle to be slaughtered. The teams are selected bydepartment heads. Their salaries travel and other expenses must bepaid by the importer, hence part of the problem. Importers may requestto remove or include any team member, but the ultimate decision ismade by the Rabbanut.This is a recipe for conflict at times since the shochtim are beingpulled in opposite directions at times, by the Rabbinate and the meatimporters.

A shochet that disqualifies to many cattle may find himselfcausing too great a loss to the importer who pays his salary. This mayresult in an importer requesting that a particular shochet notaccompany a team in the future.Problems date back somewhat, even to a case in 1995 in which ashochet, who is no longer alive heard rumors that questionable meatwas imported, meat that was purchased by a Bnei Brak yeshiva. Theshochet got hold of some of the meat to inspect it, only to find thatsome of the prohibited fats were not removed.He summoned Rabbi Shlomo Machpud Shlita, who today heads the YorehDeah kashrus agency, and he was seen on hidden camera [on film whichis on file with Yediot] checking the meat, confirming the prohibitedfats were indeed present. At the time, Rabbi Machpud was a posek forthe Chief Rabbinate, one who is responsible for halachic rulings.“18 tons of this meat arrived in Israel. Bnei Brak yeshiva studentsate it” the shochet explained. He read the printing on the cartonwhich attested to the high standard, even paying more for the meat,under the supervision of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Why dupeyeshiva students?

The meat should not have been imported to Israel”.Rabbi Machpud agreed.The shochet brought the video to the Chief Rabbinate. His friend,Michael Ben-Shimol claims he was threatened and instructed toimmediately destroy the video. The shochet feared being blacklistedand ousted, complying with instructions, destroying the video. Twoyears ago, prior to his death, he asked his good friend that followinghis death to please make sure the video gets to the correct people.It appears not much has changed. One inspector, Leon (not his realname), in his 60s, who is responsible for inspecting animals followingschita in South America recently detected many problems. Sincedocumenting problems with kashrut, there have been complaints againsthim, including allegations that he was accompanied by a female whenseen drinking. He is now at home, unemployed.Leon explains that he was employed for 20 years, never encountering aproblem with complaints leveled against him. In one of his visits toS. America, he witnessed non-kosher animal parts being moved to a baglabeled kosher. During that very same visit, a non-Jew was taken andappointed as the mashgiach. Leon explains that needless to say therewere problems.

Once he began reporting, his headaches began.“In the last place I worked in S. America, I saw meats with prohibitedfats that were not removed. I was also shocked that out of thousandsof cattle, not a single one exhibiting marks from the schita thatdisqualified it, something that simply does not happen. After all,angels were not slaughtering the animals”.Worst of hall Leon explains “is the fact that there were threeshochtim as required by the Chief Rabbinate, but only one worked, forconsecutive hours. The others were elsewhere. The schita could nothave been in adherence to strict standards and of this, halacha warnsus. Simply too many cattle for one shochet alone. I informed asupervisor who promised to take corrective action, which he did. Heplaced a watchman at the door of the slaughter chamber so wheneversomeone spotted me, they were alerted.

On one particular day, when theimporter was present, I told him everything. He warned me that if Imake trouble, then will oust him and me as well”.When Leon returned home he spoke with Rabbi Hariri. He explained thata complaint was lodged against him for allegedly being in a nightclubwith a female.“A few months ago, I went to see a friend. On my route I passed anightclub and it was open. I saw some of the members of our teaminside playing pool. There were four women in their general area,skimpily dressed I might add. Later one, when I passed the area again,this time with my friend, they noticed me and realized I saw them.They threw the pools sticks and ran”.“This behavior is most unacceptable. People responsible for kashrutare compelled to be G-d fearing, without a character stain. The storyI told they turned around and used against me.

I told Rabbi Hariri andasked that he investigate the facts. At some point he came back andtold me that he is droping his allegations against me, but months havepassed and I have yet to be reassigned. Others, like me, have citedkashrut problems but I am not aware what actions have been takenagainst them. I will state with absolute certainty that they aredeceiving the public regarding the kashrut of meat that is importedfrom abroad”.A similar unpleasant experience is recorded by Rachamim (fictitiousname), a shochet and post-schita inspector with over 20 yearsexperience in the field of schita of cattle for the Chief Rabbinate.He documented inadequacies in the kashrus while operating in Brazil,reporting to his direct supervisor, but unaware what correctiveactions were taken, if any.The real action began upon his return however, when Rachamim beganhearing stories of how he was intoxicated while in Brazil, removed hisclothing and paraded around nude in the presence of a female maid.Later on it was learned the team leader reported on this in a lettersent to Rabbi Hariri.Rachamim filed a libel suit against the team leader.

Judge NoamSolberg seemed to have a difficult time determining who was tellingthe truth. He rejected the suit, explaining the team leader did speakagainst his subordinate, but then justified his actions since he wasresponsible to report on the performance of all members of the team tothe Rabbinate. During the legal proceeding, one of the shochtimclaimed that Rav Hariri called him to his room and rebuked him for hisreport favoring Rachamim during the legal process.Rachamim recorded his conversation with the shochet and then turned tothe civil service commissioner. According to one member of the staff,attorney Gilat Shoham, in her report, the content of the recordingraises fears of an attempt to interfere with an investigation.Rachamim was questioned on suspicion of intentionally seeking tointerfere with investigators.

The prosecutor decided to close the casedue to lack of evidence. In the very same conversation with theshochet, Rav Hariri instructed him “to tell the entire truth in thematter” and certainly, he did not seek to dismiss him from hisposition.One of the problems is that Rabbi Hariri not only concerns himselfwith kashrus issues, but with advancing the interests of importerstoo. Two years ago, Rabbi Hariri invited a number of importers asguests to his daughter’s wedding. They sat at a table together, peoplewho he maintains a professional relationship with him, but theynonetheless received pampering and special attention despite anobvious conflict of interest. This behavior is contrary to theguidelines governing government employees.In his response, Rabbi Hariri explains he only invited the importersafter consulting with and receiving the approval of the ChiefRabbinate’s legal advisor. The rabbi insists they were no treated anydifferently than other guests, adding at the wedding of his seconddaughter, they were not invited.Other problems include requests filed with the Prime Minister’s Officeto approve travel abroad by Sabag and Hariri. Over recent years, theyrequest approval for travel to meat factories abroad, adding theflights would be covered by the importers. The two traveled around theworld dozens of times, including Australia, Paraguay, France, Brazil,Argentina and more. Each flight was thousands of dollars, in additionto lodging and other expenses, all picked up by the importers.

One iscompelled to address the obvious conflict of interests, just how canthe rabbis disqualify meat from these importers who are funding theirtravel around the world.One team leader explains how Rav Hariri appeared in a factory inParaguay to inspect the schita on location. “In essence, he was notthere for a long time and just asked a number of questions and I wasshocked by them. I prepared him a number of sandwiches and he left [ona trip]”.According to Hariri, trips abroad are divided into two categories, toinspect new factories, at the expense of the importer, and to inspectthe kashrus of an operation that is already approved, at the expenseof the Rabbinate. He explains that it is entirely possible that onthis particular trip, when they traveled to inspect a new factory,that the made a stopover to visit and existing operation. This wouldbe likely since each trip abroad requires applications and approval,adding the ‘trip’ mentioned earlier was a onetime event during travelsto visit factories. He mentioned one trip to Argentina which wasaccompanied by a vacation trip, which he paid for out of pocket. “Attimes, members of the team prepare me sandwiches at their owninitiative” he explains, adding “who knows if kosher food is availableon the flight”.The Movement for Quality Government involved itself in the matter oftravel abroad. Avitar Amira turned to the Chief Rabbinate legalcounsel in 2007, attorney Shimon Ulman, pointing out that trips fundedby importers for kashrut inspectors results in a serious conflict ofinterests. He questioned what action would be taken to address theproblem.

Ulman responded in April 2008, explaining he has beenauthorized to introduce a ruling that would permit the Rabbinate toincur expenses. “I hope to complete this process by the end of 2008”he concluded. Over a year has passed and the situation has not changedwith Ulman admitting efforts to date have failed, adding all attemptsto establish a new entity between the Chief Rabbinate and importersresults in a significant increase in the cost factor.In 2004, ousted shochtim band together and signaled they were movingto the courts, prompting Hariri to take to the waves on chareidiradio, announcing anyone going to the secular courts instead of torabbis does not belong among us. Their actions he explainedstrengthened the feeling they were unsuited to work in the ChiefRabbinate as shochtim. His words were met with sharp criticism by thestate’s civil service commissioner.

Hariri explained that while he is a civil servant, he is a frumchareidi Jew and compliance with halacha must remain his firstpriority. Shochtim explain that Hariri makes the decisions as to whoworks and who does not and who travels and who is ousted, left behind.That is the case with Reuven Said, who awaits a hearing with Sabag andHariri since 2005. Previously, he was a treiborer (de-veiner) inParaguay but after complaining of substandard kashrut, he has beengrounded. He was flown home in the middle of an assignment andeventually, left his position as a result.“There were many shortcomings in the factory” Said explains, I saw non-Jews removing part of the animal without a mashgiach present, and Iinformed the team leader, but nothing was done. I saw non-Jewscarrying non-kosher organs which were then mixed among their koshercounterparts. Nothing was done. This made everything not kosher. Oneday I saw the team leader sign off on a non-kosher animal as kosher. Ipointed this out to him to make certain he knew. He gave me a look andthen insisted the inspector of the internal organs erred, as if nowthe animal was indeed kosher. I saw non-kosher parts placed in bagsmarked kosher. Once again I pointed this out, but this time, heshouted, ‘it’s not your business. Do your work.’”“From then on, the attitude changed and I was the subject of ridicule.After a number of incidents, the team leader informed me that I wasbeing returned home to Israel”. Said quickly phoned Hariri to informhim, demanding an explanation for sending him home.Raful told him that he was nothing and that he was not performingsatisfactorily and therefore, was being ousted from the team. Haririinformed him that the team leader wants him out.

In the heat of theargument, the following was stated.After ten years as a shochet for the Rabbinate abroad, Menachem(fictitious name) had enough, unwilling to continue. The substandardlevel of kashrus in two factories was totally unacceptable and he wasunwilling to tolerate any longer. He decided he no longer wanted anypart of this operation, and on his last assignment, he even paid forhis own return trip and left the team early, heading back to EretzYisrael.“During all the years in which I worked as a mashgiach and knifeinspector in various factories abroad, I encountered kashrut problems.Nevertheless, it was possible to find solutions and somehow continue”,explained Menachem. “This time, the flippant attitude of the team leftme with the feeling there was nowhere to go. I felt that no one cares.It got to the point I would not eat from the meat we slaughtered”.What were some of the kashrut deficiencies?Two uncertified shochtim were permitted to slaughter cattle. This ismost serious. When the team leader was informed, he responded “I do asI please”. In addition, the local non-Jewish workers used electricprods on the cattle prior to schita, using such strong shocks that thecattle were downed onto the ground. The force used was at the veryleast three times that permitted in accordance to halacha. This placedthe entire schita in doubt explains Menachem, but once again, the teamleader would not address the issues.“Another thing, according to halacha, a shochet may not inspect hisown knife.

We usually line up one behind the other and each checks theother’s knife. The knife must be perfect to avoid any unnecessarysuffering to the animal. The pace was so intense that each shochetinspected a knife for a quarter of a second. The halacha says one mustconcentrate on the act, not perform under duress or when one is tired.They did whatever they pleased.“I sent an SMS text message to Hariri in which I stated ‘there areproblems which compromise the integrity of the kashrut. I await yourimmediate reply’. Hariri phoned me and asked ‘do you want theimporters not to select you?’ to which I responded, ‘what’s my job, toworry about importers or kashrut?’ once again, when word got out thatI was a trouble maker, I was left out with colleagues not including mein the group, sitting away from me during meals and so forth.“A number of days later I returned home and I asked Sabag and Haririfor a halachic inquiry in the presence of the rabbonim poskim(halachic authority) of the Chief Rabbinate.

When we entered the roomI realized it was only the three of us. Even those against whom Icomplained were not present. They already left for work abroad onceagain”.Since then, Menachem does not work and has lost touch with colleaguesin the department. Menachem however is content, explaining he is notabout to rubber stamp meat as kosher when he knows the meat isproblematic.He concludes in a letter to Hariri and Sabag about two months ago,writing “simply one who wishes to survive on the team must hearnothing, say nothing and see nothing”. One veteran shochet added “ifthey slaughter donkeys (not kosher) and use forbidden animals don’tsay anything for if you do, you are in trouble”.Who is the Boss?In 2001 shochet Michael Ben-Shimol and two colleagues turned to theHigh Court of Justice, demanding to see their personal files as wellas the criteria of the Rabbinate’s unit which performs schita abroad.They simply wished to understand what criteria are used to assignsomeone to a specific position and what guidelines exist to send ateam member home prematurely. The shochtim were alleging favoritismand discriminatory practices in reaching such decisions.A number of years earlier, Ben-Shimol was working in schita inIreland, reporting that immediately following schita, the animal wasshot, as per the chief veterinarian on location, who was concernedwith needless suffering. I explained that halacha dictates if onewishes to shoot the animal, one must wait a few minutes but they didnot listen and the team leader was not strong enough to oppose thechief veterinarian.

I stood my ground, insisting the animals were nolonger kosher.“Upon my return, I requested a reassignment and that was followed byallocations hat I was intentionally causing animals to become treif(not kosher). It is simple. One who complains and reports kashrutproblems must then face an array of charges. One goes with women andthe other drinks. A third has problems because of hand tremors while Iintentionally render animals unfit. For four years I sent letters toeveryone and did everything possible, but no response. Finally, Iturned to the Supreme Court”.During the court hearing an agreement was reached that was given thestatus of a court ruling. Ben-Shimol received is personal file, thecriteria for the unit’s operations, and that he would be reassigned toteams abroad, three times, on probation.“Hariri: “An importer writes that he intentionally renders animals un-kosher and then continues to work. True he was not travelingregularly, but he did go abroad but importers do not want him.

Thehearing panel decided his qualifications must be retested in light ofthe allegations against him”.About 5 years ago, 14 employees, including Ben-Shimol, turned to theTel Aviv Labor Court. They filed a lawsuit against the Rabbinate. Theyclaimed discriminatory practices were standard and that those whocited problem were subject to retaliation.The court absolved the Rabbinate of responsibility, stating theemployer was not the Rabbinate but the importer. The court made thecase a precedent-setting affair, ruling on who the employer is. In aJuly 2008 ruling, Justice Chagit Saguy agreed with the shochtim,giving support to claims of discrimination and retaliatory practices,but ultimately agreed that the employer is the importer, not theRabbinate. A group of shochtim appealed to the National Labor Court,stating if the importer is the employee, there is a definite conflictof interests. The court’s ruling is pending.About a month ago, a group of shochtim held a protest and hungerstrike in Yerushalayim. Hariri followed the events and photographedsome of the shochtim sleeping on the street, at 1:00am, after a numberof days of a vigil at the scene outside the Rabbinate. They weresummoned to a meeting with Sabag and Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar Shlita.The meeting was cordial and a full investigation into allegations waspromised. The protestor closed shop, folded the protest tent andreturned home.A number of days later, in the mail, the minutes of the meetingarrived and they noticed much of what they said was not recorded inthe transcript. Issues pertaining to substandard kashrut were omitted.They realized they are alone and have no one to rely on.Rabbi Ezra Refael Hariri in his response states all allegations ofkashrut deficiencies were investigated thoroughly. In the last year heexplains, guidelines have been published stating exactly whatqualifications are required for a mashgiach. He adds that they arealways working to ensure the quality of personnel, their professionalexpertise as well as making certain they are God-fearing individuals.

He assures us that all allegations of kashrut problems are probed andwhen necessary, rabbonim poskim are involved. He adds that probes asconducted as thoroughly as possible, adding there are no hiddencameras and they do not possess the ability to monitor every teammember constantly.“I do not recall ever saying regarding any probe ‘why is this yourbusiness?’ If a person seeks to make a personal issue a halachicmatter, and presents it as such, we may not halt production.When there are allegations that animals are shocked or shot Iimmediately phone the team leader. Such allegations would never beignored”.The following response was released by attorney Shimon Ulman, theChief Rabbinate legal advisor.“We are talking about a group of 10 people here of some 700 employeesinvolved in schita abroad. For reasons that are not dependent on us,importers refuse to use them. This due to professional issues thathave been documented including an inability to work as part of a team,as well as a lack of tznius (modesty). They are not included in teamsworking abroad as per the decision of the head of the schita unit.There were a number of attempts to give them additional chances, butit simply did not work out.

We should not take the word of this small number of disgruntledemployees, who by the nature of the situation are distorting thefacts. It is understood that and issues of kashrut are probed asrequired, and have been unfounded in reality. The most mehadrin andpristine kashrut agencies are connected with the teams against whomthey are trying to taint, without justification and contrary to thefacts on the ground. Their allegations of kashrut inadequacies againstthe state kashrut mechanism are simply baseless and unfounded andsimply intentional slander, and therefore, difficult to address thisconcoction of allegations.It is very east to place a doubt on the state-run kashrut mechanism,upon which most citizens rely, and this is done without bringingfactual evidence and documents. Any allegation of kashrut inadequaciesis probed in-depth to make certain the public does not receivesubstandard products, to safeguard them from such a possibility. Thecomplaints of this band of shochtim have been reviewed numerous times,in-depth, by investigators of the State Civil Service Commission aswell, and were deemed as unfounded.

NOTE: I pondered publishing this but decided that it appeared in thenation’s leading newspaper, backed by evidence amassed by Yediot,thereby rendering it newsworthy and perhaps incumbent upon me to bringit to the attention of the English-speaking public.

URUGUAY-Rav Rubin

2009-07-14T09:16:00.000-07:00

י"ב טבת תשס"ט בס"ד

1-ביקור כשרות במפעל בית השחיטה " פול" PUL בעיר מילו בארץ ארוגוואי, בצפון (על הגבול הברזילאי)
בתאריך: י, י"א, י"ב טבת תשס"ט למנינים January 6,7,8 ‘09
בהשתתפות: רב יודל שיין שליט"א והרב נחום זאב רובין ואביו הרב הגאון ר' אברהם רובין שליט"א

2-מטרת הביקור: לבדוק את רמת הכשרות של שחיטת בד"ץ מהדרין עבור קנית בשר לארה"ב לאלו הצורכים רמת "חלק" גבוהה ביותר, כולל שיטת בית יוסף.

3-בית השחיטה נמצא למעלה מחמש שעות נסיעה במכוניות ציבורי ממונטיודאו למילו, המרחק הוא רב ויש שינויים רבים באזורים שהם כשני מדינות נפרדות- על הדרך נבדק כמה שניתן השינוי וככל שהתקדמנו לקראת הצפון וכפי שנראה בחוש שינויים משמעותיים בגידול הבהמות, והדשא, והמזג אויר בין הצפון לדרום. בצפון יותר יבש ורוח מנשב, וזה יכול לגרום ג"כ פחות בעיות בריסים בבהמות, הדשא יותר יבשה, דשא לחה עושה "גזים" בכרס.

הצוות הולכים בבוקר להמפעל רק אחרי תפילה בציבור (לא מתפללים במהירות) ואחר פת שחרית.

4-בדיקת הז'בו( סרבו) ZEBU
מקפידים לבדוק הסימנים הידועים עד ארבעה דורות אחורנית שאין תערובות הז'בו גם לאלו שאין להם גיבנת. יש משגיח מיוחד שבודק הנ"ל ונמצא כל זמן השחיטה בתא השחיטה ומשמש כבודק סכינים, ובכניסה לשחיטה הוא בודק שוב ומחזיק קונטרול מדויק. לא להכניס ז'בו לשחיטת חלק בד"ץ מהדרין. המשגיח למד את סימני ז'בו אצל החברה SGS שהיתה כאן בביקורת חודש שלם של שחיטת בד"ץ מהדרין, הגיעו יום יום מומחה מטעמם.

5-הכנסת הבהמות לשחיטה
הבהמות נכנסות לשחיטה בצורה חופשית ללא דלתות כבדות וכד', במעברים של הכנסת הבהמות מהרפת לשחיטה יש דלתות שנסגרות מלמעלה ללמטה. ויש דלתות שפותחים מן הצד.

6-לא נופל דלת וכד' על הבהמות לכל אורך הדרך עד השחיטה, הדלתות לא כבדות וכן הדלתות ידניות, וגומי חלול בצורה עגולה מחובר לדלתות מלמטה. הכנסה ראשונית לשביל השחיטה ע"י פתיחת דלת צדדית לא דלת מלמעלה שעולה ויורדת וע"י הנפת דגל של המבקר לבהמות, נכנסת קבוצה של בהמות בהשביל כפי הצורך.

7-ואח"כ שממשיכות ללכת בשביל כשיש צורך מקבלים מגע מקל בישבן ע"י מקל עם בטריות עד 5.4 וולט וממשיכים לרוץ אח"כ כרגיל ובאם היתה נגיעה עם המקל בחלק העליון בראש יוצאת הבהמה משחיטה כלל וזה דבר שכמעט לא קורה(ויש ביקורת משגיח על זה, לא כל הזמן) ואפי' שזה מדובר במקל רק של 5.4 וולט מקסימום, ואפילו שהרבנים בא"י החרדים מתירים עד 7-6 וולט ונוהגים כך בא"י בבתי השחיטה וכן בא"י אין הנפת דגל כלל והכל עם מקל כנ"ל הרבנות בישראל מתירה אפי' עד 21-11 וולט, נ.ב. יש שחיטה בדרום אורגוואי שמתיר מקל אפי' יותר וולט כמעט בלי גבול ר"ל- (וזה יכול לגרום כמה טריפות כולל נותקו סירכות הריאה). אמר לי הרב רובין שליט"א לא יעשה כך במקומינו. יש ביקורות לפחות פעמיים ביום שחיטה של החלפת הבטריות ליותר וואלט הגם שאין סיכוי להחלפה, וכן אין בשום אופן מילוי בטריות המחובר לתקע חשמלי, כל חוטי החשמל המקובלים להיות במקומות אלו הוסרו לחלוטין מכל שטח השבילים המובילים לשחיטה.

8- הכנסת הבהמה באופן פרטי לשחיטה
רק בהמה אחת יכולה להיות בתוך הקופסה—אין שחיטה בשום אופן בתוך קופסה (בבוקס) מפני המכשולות הידועות וכן הידועות לי באופן פרטני, אפילו בבוקס המתהפך שמחזיק הבהמה ע"י חשמלי ו"הידרואלי" יש בעיות רציניות כגון שהיות, דרסות. נשברה מפרקת, בעיות אויר נשימה, מסוכנת, וכדומה. וכמבואר בספר שבילי השחיטה הבעיות ב"בוקס" וכו'

9-הבהמה נכנסת בקלות לקופסה (ולא יכולות לראות שחיטת חבירתה) ללא נפילה ובצורה חלקה ופשוטה יורדת לרצונה ע"י מגלשה, מקסימום 15 inches מגלשה בצורה פשוטה, רגליה כפותות 2 הרגלים הימניות (יד ורגל) ומובלת לשחיטה על גבה-והשחיטה מלמעלה למטה- על רצפה של צינורות חלולים שאינם זזים כדי שהדם שעל הרצפה ירד, וכדי שהבהמה לא תריח דם לפני השחיטה (ברור לה מיתה יפה) שוטפים את שטח המקום השחיטה וכל פינותיו לעיתים קרובות מאד ע"י צינור זרם מים חזק, וכופתים הבהמה בצורה פשוטה ומהירה ללא התנגדות מהבהמה, את הראש מותחים ע"י פועל (ע"י מוט) במתחיה קנה וושט באופן שהקנה והושט למעלה באמצע הצוואר בולט היטב מקפידים שהמוט יהיה ללא שפיץ No point (יש שתי מוטות לעבודה).
9+-שוחט לא מפחד מהבהמה בשעת השחיטה שהרי הידים של הבהמה חוץ לתחום והוא שוחט בלי כפיפת גופו (שזה עושה כבידות בידיו של השוחט כמובן), בנחת ובישוב הדעת מופלא כמבואר בשו"ע ובנושא כלים. וכן השוחט מחכה לבהמה בכל פעם ולא ח"ו הבהמה לשוחט כדי שהבהמה לא תשכב עקודה, ויהיה חסר לה אוויר לפני השחיטה.
01-ויש חשש נוסף שהבהמה מחמת שחסר לה אוויר היא משתוללת וזזה בשעת השחיטה ויש חשש שהוא תשחט מאליה כמבואר בפוסקים, השוחט מספיק לבדוק בקלות היכן בדיוק המקום המתאים לשחיטה (מחמת צורת שכיבת הבהמה על גבה) שהרי אין כל פחד שצריך לחטוף ולשחוט כנ"ל.

[1]השחיטה
11-השוחט שוחט ישר ולא באלכסון ומכוון להולכה והבאה בשטח של אמצע הצוואר, וחיתוך שני הסימנים ושני הורידים. למרות והשחיטה מאד מפורעת (ולא כקולמוס) ורואים בעין השחיטה שנחתך הקנה והושט (ומישום ריבוי דם)—יש בדיקה נוספת אחר כל 01 בהמות על הליין, ע"י השוחט ששחטם בשימת יד—יש שימת עין מיוחדת על הכרת חיתוך הושט.

21-מתקנות המקום—"לחלק" בד"ץ מהדרין הולך רק מה שנשחט לגמרי קנה וושט ובאם חסר אפילו כחוט השערה יורדת הבהמה מחלקת בד"ץ מהדרין לכשר רבנות (ואפילו לכשרות רבנות הולך רק מה שיש רוב הניכר לעין אבל כשיש רוב אבל לא ניכר לעין זה לא מאושר אפילו לכשרות רבנות ויורד לטרף).

31-השוחט-קודם כל יום שחיטה חייב לטבול במקווה. ובתוך המפעל בנוי מקוה בשביל הצוות. וכן גם הבודקי סכינים כדי להגדיל את גודל ההרגשה-כל שוחט יש לו 3 סכינים כל בהמה מחליפים סכין חדש מעומד בשלימות מחדש- ובדיקת סכין היא ביבש ע"י הבודק סכינים כמו לפני השחיטה בתחילת היום.

41-כל שוחט, שוחט עשרה בהמות במתינות בזה אחר זה , שוחט בהמה אחת ונותן הסכין לבדיקה וממשיך לשחוט בסכין השני שלו הבדוק עד שמתמלא מכסתו, ואח"כ יוצא להפסקה. בין שחיטה בהמה אחת לשחיטה בהמה שניה נבדק הסכין ברטוב באם יש צורך לקחת על אבן אפילו ירוקה תקנת המקום שצריך ליבש אותה ולעשות בדיקה יבשה כמו בתחילת היום (אין ח"ו ערעור על מה שנהגו באבן ירוקה אלא משום התועלת שיש בזה) הידורים אלו מופלגים שלא נמצאים כמעט באף מקום שחיטה אחרת מהודרת ובפרט כל ההידורים שנתאספו יחד בפונדק אחד.

תא השחיטה
51-שוחטים ששים בהמות לשעה באיטיות (אמיתי ללא פשרות) חמשה עובדים בתא השחיטה (מקום בריוח) -3 שוחטים המתחלפים אחר כל 01 בהמות ז"א שאחר שחיטה של 01 בהמות שהם 01 דקות (בערך) יוצא השוחט להפסקה של 02 דקות למנוחה והעמדת סכינים. שחיטת שישים לשעה זה בלי פשרות-כששוחטים יותר משישים בשעה, לפעמים כשהגוי לא גמר עוד למתוח את הראש עד הסוף והשחיטה בא בסיוע של הגוי והבהמה. ואין מספיק זמן בשביל בדיקות שחיטה, פנים, כרס, חוץ וכו'

61-לאור ההידור הנ"ל שכל בהמה מחליפים סכין ובבדיקה ביבש יש שתי בודקי סכינים אחד ביבש ואחד ברטוב.

71-כל שוחט מעמיד ומטפל בסכין שלו ללא התערבות גורם אחר אין שם מעמיד סכינים כללי. כמעט בלתי אפשרי לשוחט ( ותיק ומומחה וכ"ש ללא ותיקים) לשחוט בסכין שהוא לא מעמידו בעצמו וד"ל-לשוחטים אין אצבעונים ואין כפפות בשום יד ולא באצבעות בכל עבדות השחיטה.

81-הסכינים לאחר שחיטה המאושר ל"חלק" בד"ץ מהדרין הוא רק סכין שאחר שחיטה נראה כלפני שחיטה ואם לא אפילו שהינו כשר לשחיטה כפי המקובל בישראל בכ"ז יורדת הבהמה שנשחטה לכשרות רגילה לרבנות. לא הולכת לכשרות "חלק" בד"ץ מהדרין.

91-ליד תא השחיטה יש צינור מים, לא ברז תקוע בקיר כדי שהסכין לא יפגע בו כשהשוחט רוחצו אחר השחיטה וכן אחר השחיטה שוטפים הסכין ומנקים הסכין בסמרטוט של מים וסבון להוריד מהסכין דם השחיטה, ושומנים ואח"כ חובה לרחוץ שוב הסכין במים שירד כל הסבון, כדי שלא יטעה ח"ו את הבודק סכינים (לדאבוננו מצוי מאד-כידוע וד"ל) הטעויות והקלקולים בהרבה שחיטות בזה.
02-בודקים תמיד בששה בדיקות שהם 21 הולכה והבאה בחוד ובשתי הצדדים ואין בין השחיטות ובודאי בכל מהלך שחיטה מציאות של בדיקת סכין הולכה והבאה בלבד.
12-אחר השחיטה לא נוגעים בבהמה כ-5 דקות עד שיצא דם הנפש לגמרי. ז"א שבדיקת השוחט על שחיטת קנה וושט אחר 5 דקות.

התפעלתי מאד מרגיעות השוחטים בחדר השחיטה שהוא מצוין מאד גדול ורחב. לכל שוחט יש פינה שלו עם ברז ושאר אביזרים הדרושים להעמדת סכין, אורות גדולים, ומאורגן מאד וכתוצאה מכך השוחטים רגועים ושלוים בישוב הדעת מאד. אני רגיל לראות משחיטות שהשוב"ים מלאים זיעה והתאמצות , (וזה ג"כ יכול לגרום בעיות רציניות בשחיטה כולל שהיות ודרסה) ופעמים מלווה בלחץ פנימי ועייפות וכאן מצאתי הפוך לגמרי. השוחטים ובודקים של שחיטת בד"ץ מהדרין אף אחד מהם לא מהסוג של מתלמדים, כולם ותיקים בעלי מקצוע ובעלי י"ש.

בדיקת כריסים-
22-שאלות בריסים באזור זה (צפון אורגוואי בגבול בראזיל) הוא הרבה פחות ממיעוט שאינו מצוי (גם לשיטת המחמירים במיעוט שאינו מצוי וכמבואר שיטת הרב ואזנר שליט"א בשבט הלוי). וזה פחות ממיעוט שאינו מצוי לא רק בסה"כ הכללי של שחיטת יום שלם שפעמים מגיעים הבהמות מכמה עדרים, אלא אפי' מכל משק ומשק עדר עדר בנפרד הוא פחות ממיעוט שאינו מצוי, והענין נבדק היטב אצלם וזה הנחה ומציאות אמיתית, ובכל זאת יש משגיחים על הכריסים מקצועיים ומקפידים לעמוד בנפילת כל החבילה (כרס והמסס וכ') כדי להניח הכרס לבדיקה בצורה הנכונה, וכל השטח הטעון בדיקה נבדק גם ע"י מראה עיניים, באצבעות וגם במישוש כף היד מיד אחר הנפילה מחלל הבטן לפני המישוש, דידא דטחא מטשטש העקבות- ואמר לי הרב רובין שליט"א זה צריך בדיקה כמו פחות ממיעוט המצוי.

32-כדי לבדוק בצדדים או להזיז הכרס וכד' יש לבדוק הכריסים בידית תפסן מיוחד עם ואו, וכן צינור עם מים לידו שאם הכרס מתמלא עם דם שיוכל לשטוף המקום, וכן הריעותא דק מן הדק ובלא לפספס אפי' נקודה קטנה.

42-הבודק כריסים מומחה ומודע לכל סוגי וצורות ריעותא שיכול להיות. (בדיקת מעבדה לכריסים לא בא בחשבון בכלל, אחר כמה דקות כבר לא יכולים לראות כל ריעותא. וכן יש בדיקה מדגמית לכרס בצד הפנימי. וכן הבודק פנים בודק ג"כ הכרס והצלעות כפי שידו מגעת במקסימום האפשרי שלו.

52-סימון הבודק פנים על ניר הבדיקה שלו "כרס" וסימון הבודק כריסים בעגול בצבע כחול בולט וגם מודיע לבודק פנים שממולו.

62- היות שבזמן האחרון יש בעיות ושאלות בעניני הכריסות, וכל אחד טוען שאצלם הכל בסדר וכו' קודם הנסיעה שלי דיברתי עם רב רובין בנוגע לבדיקת כריסות, ורב רובין אמר לי שהוא הסביר ג"כ לרב ליפשיץ מהעדה כל הבדיקות כריסות שעושה וכו', דיברתי עם רב ליפשיץ מהעדה אם הוא מסכים שבדיקת כריסים של רב רובין בסדר?,
אמר לי צריכין לבדוק אם הוא בודק במציאות כפי מה שאומר, שהוא בודק יותר מהעדה בשינוי מראה וכדומה—

תקנת בד"ץ מהדרין לבודק כריסים כל שינוי מכרס רגיל יורד מ"חלק" בד"ץ מהדרין, כל שינוי, פירושו בין שינוי צורה כמו גבעת קטנה וכן סרכות קטנות וכן שינוי מראה או שקוף חלל מבפנים מתחת לעור שאינו מלא שם וכו' כמה צורות וכל שינויים, כגון הנקרא זייגרליך, או תוצאה מהזריקה או שינוי מראה כתם לבן או אדום ולפעמים צהוב. לפעמים הכרס דק במקום אחד יותר מהרגיל או יש נקודות לבנות, גבשושית- ונפיחות קטנות במקום אחד וכדומה- הכלל כל שינוי מכרס רגיל, מורידים מן הליין.

72-ואחר כך שהמשגיח הכריסים או הבודק פנים סימן שיש בכרס שינוי מהרגיל בודק זאת הבודק חוץ ומחליט אם לעשות זאת כשר רבנות או טרף אבל בשום אופן לא חלק בד"ץ מהדרין ואפילו שבבדיקה של חיתוך עור הכרס לא נמצאו כלום.

בודק פנים-
82-לבודק פנים יש מפסק חשמלי מזומן לידו ללא הגבלה כך שיכול לבדוק בדיקת פנים כפי הנראה בעיניו, ואם לא מספיק בבדיקתו יכול לעצור הליין לכמה זמן שרוצה נ.ב. יותר משישים לשעה כמעט בלתי אפשרי, וכן הבודק כריסים העומד ממול הבודק פנים משתמש גם במפסק חשמלי הזה כפי צורכו—מתינות הבדיקה והאפשרות לבדיקת פנים מעולה זה בדוק ומנוסה.-כדי להפסיק הליין, יש רשות לבודק מהמנכ"ל של המפעל לעשות כרצונו לצורך עבודתו. וכן יש לבודק פנים שטח רחב לתזוזה שיכול לבדוק בנוחיות כרצונו.

92-הבודק פנים שולח כל ריעותא אפי' קטנה אך ורק לבודק חוץ של הכשר כמו ניתק, נפל רירים, סרכות קטנות. לשולחן של הבודק- חוץ, "לחלק" מגיע אך ורק ריאה נקיה לגמרי בלי שום ריעותא ואפי' דק מן הדק לדעת הבודק פנים ומסומן חלק. סמני הבודק פנים מדויקים מאד ואפי' דק מן הדק מסומן על הניר.

03- בדיקת חוץ—יש שני שולחנות- שולחן לבודק חוץ לכשר, ושולחן לבודק חוץ לחלק- שולחן של הכשר מיקומו לפני השולחן החלק. ליד שולחן של הבודק חוץ לחלק חלק גדול מהיום ( ומסתובב ושם עין על כל הצוות) עומד שם בנוסף לבודק חוץ גם הרב המכשיר שליט"א שרואה את עבודת הבודק חוץ. (וכן רואה את עבודת הבודק פנים) טובים השנים מן האחד.
בודקי חוץ לחלק, למרות שמגיע אליו רק חלק המסומן "ח" ע"י הבודק פנים בלי שום ריעותא אפי' דק מן הדק שעבודתו של הבודק פנים מדוקדקת ומדויקת להפליא אבל תפקידו לבדוק את הריאה ביסודיות כאילו שלא בדקו הריאה הזאת כלל ע"י בודק פנים ומאידך גיסא מתיחס לכל סימון והערה.
ניפוח הריאה בבדיקת חוץ משתדלים לא לנפח יותר מדי ולא פחות מדי אלא בינוני כמו שנמצאת הריאה בחיי הבהמה ומאד נהניתי מזה, לא כמו מה שראיתי וכפי שידוע לי במקומות אחרים ר"ל- מי שמנפח את הריאה זה רק הבודק חוץ עצמו ע"י לחיצת רגל קלה והגוי שעומד לצידו רק מגיש לו הריאה ומכניס הקנה בתוך הצינור.

13-תקנת הבודק חוץ מבד"ץ מהדרין
לא לוקחים לא סירכות קטנות ואפילו שיורדות בקלות ולא רירים אפי' קטנים ולא ספק רירים גם בשאר שינויים אחרים בועות וכו' נוהגים תמיד על צד החומרא לכל הדעות ולכל השיטות והמנהגים בלי פשרות כלל וכלל ומחמת זה יורדים בהמות שנשלחו לחלק ועוברים לכשר רבנות ולמנוע טעויות מורידים מניר הסימונים על תוצאות בדיקה את הסימון "ח".

23-היות והמפעל רואה שהבדיקות מאד קפדניות בלי התפשריות כלל וכלל רואים במציאות שיום שהבהמות חלשות (או יותר משתים-לארבע שיניים) אז אחוזי החלק הם קצת. וממילא המפעל משתדל להביא רק בהמות בריאות מיוחדות (בין שתי שיניים ל 4 שיניים) ופשוט שהם יקרות יותר במחיר, ואחרי הכל אחוזי החלק יוצאים לבד"ץ מהדרין הרבה פחות מבד"צים אחרים.

33-המציאות היא בגלל הבודק פנים עומד על במה מקום גבוה ממילא הוא מבחין אם יש איזה שבר ברגל או ריעותא ברגל אפי' שהנ"ל לא צריך בדיקה מן הדין

43-לקראת סוף התהליך עוברת גופת הבהמה שטיפה בזרם חזק מאד משני הצדדים ע"י שני אנשים (אחד חלק עליון אחד חלק תחתון) וזה יותר משטיפה ושיפשוף רגיל בזרם חזק ומוריד שכבות שלמות מהבשר והשומן ורוחץ היטב את הבשר וכל צדדיו לפני השריה הראשונה.

נהניתי לראות סידור נפלא זה.

53-מקום שהגופות עוברות הרצפה הרבה פעמים מלוכלכת ותקנו שאין לשטוף הרצפה אלא במים קרים ולא בשטח שיש בשר שלא יתיז על הבשר.

63-ניקור- מוצאים מהבהמה גידי דם ביד ובכתף ע"י הוצאתם לגמרי ולא רק פריצת הגיד אלא ניקור מלא כמנהג חו"ל (מקום שהלך לשם) וכן בלשון מוציאים ארבעה גידים לכל האורך עד מקום שהגיד מתערה עם הבשר, שני גידים מכל צד וכן חותכים את שפיץ קצה הלשון כל זה נעשה כמנהג המקום שיצא ממנו ומנהג המקום שבא לשם.

ניקור הלשון ע"י מנקר מומחה ויר"ש שעושה את עבודתו בעצמו ולא בודק את הנעשה ע"י אחרים ומוציאים הגידים (אפי שהמפעל דורש פחת הלשון)

ניקור במקום הצלעות
73-העקרון לא להכנס בשאלות ובשיטות אלא לתפוס את השיטות לחומרא לכו"ע בניקור החלב וגידי הדם לשם כך חוצים קודם הבהמה באורך לשנים ולוקחים צד אחד וחותכים אותו לרוחב בין עצם העשירי לעצם אחד עשרה ומוציאים מהבשר את כל העצמות הטעונים ניקור גידי הדם דהיינו בעצם התשיעי והעשירי לא משתמשים והכל במסור מיוחד לחלק של בד"ץ מהדרין.

83-מעצם החזה מוציאים את גידי הדם שהם במקביל מהעצם הראשונה עד עצם השישית את כל מקום הטרפש שהוא יונק מחלב הכסלים- חשש אורייתא -מהעצם השישית והלאה עד העשירית חותכים באלכסון כדי לא להגיע למקומות שיצטרכו קילופים וניקור וכו מוציאים את העצמות ולא משתמשים בהם כלל.

93- ויש פיקוח של מנקר מומחה על כל חתיכה וחתיכה שלא נשארו קרומים של הטרפש וכד' ושנחתך כראוי. כל זה ראיתי בעיני, המנקר הוא בעל מקצוע גדול ומעולה אדם מלא וגדוש ביראת שמים וחרוץ ומכיר את העבודה ואת כל שיטות ההלכה היטב ויש לו טביעת עין חדה מאד.

04-כל החותמות בין של החלק ובין של הכשר נמצא ביד המשגיח ורק הוא מחתים בעצמו, ובהפסקות וכדומה המשגיח מכניס אותם בתוך שק ניילן וחותמו בבלומבה או לוקח אותם אתו למקום שהולך.
אחרי שחיטת ושטיפת הבהמות הבשר נכנס ולפריז'דר הגדול ושם זה נכנס החלק בנפרד והכשר בנפרד.

14-לפני המליחה-בבוקר מוקדם, המנקר הנ"ל עובר על כל חתיכה וחתיכה לראות שלא נשאר שום דבר הצריך ניקור וכן מזהה הבשר אם זה אכן הבשר שיצא לנו החלק ויש בו כל הסימונים שסימנו זיהוי ראשוני מקצועי.

24-אח"כ הגוי חותך את כל הדם הנצרר של גופת הבהמה וכן את הדם שעל מקום השחיטה וכן פותח את כל הכיסים שיש בבהמה (כגון מקום השקדים שהוטרינריה הגוי פותח פתח קטן לבדוק השרירים) פתח רחב כדי שיכנס שם מלח בכל המקומות מכל הצדדים וכן נקיון יסודי עם צינור ומברשת את מקום ניקור גיד הכתף שיש שם לפעמים גושי דם, והכל בצמוד משגיח יר"ש גדול וכן פורצים את כל הבורות בגוף הבהמה שהמלח יוכל להכנס ואח"כ בשטיפת המלח יצא בקלות.

34-שריה ראשונה בהקפדה שכל הרבע הבשר הנמצא במים לגמרי ואין צריך לסמוך על ההיתר של פני החתיכה.

44-אם קורא פעם בשר שעבר עליו שלושה ימים בלי מליחה ואף שנשרה במים בתוך השלושה ימים כדת וכדין יורד מחלק בד"ץ והולך לכשר רבנות היות והיו מקומות בחו"ל שנהגו לא לסמוך לחלק על שרית בשר במים.

54-המים בשריה ראשונה הם ללא תערובות דם ואינם מים קרים והם בערך F54 בלי תוספות שום חומר אחר.

64-אחר ההשריה הראשונה הבשר שוכב זמן מסויים כדי שירד המים ולא יתיבש כנדרש בהלכה. הטמפרטורה בחדר לא חמה
בערך F54. המפקח על המליחה הוא אדם מקצועי ודובר גם ספרדית (דבר הנדרש).

74-שתי פועלים מולחים גופת הבהמה ומשגיח עומד עליהם. גופת הבהמה הוא בעמידה ובהשענה על שולחן עומד-המשגיח על המליחה מקבל תוספת במשכורת כדי שיהיה אחראי ומעונין במאמץ מיוחד להצלחת המליחה שעומד כל הזמן במקום קר ולח.

מאד נהניתי לראות צורת המליחה משהו יפה מאד.

84-יש מנורת אור במקום ולפי המלצתי הוסיפו עוד מנורת אור לבנה להגדלת האור. פיזור המלח כגשם ולא עטיפה הבשר במלח ויש הקפדה שהמלח יגיע לכל המקומות בכל הקפלים והחריצים. הבשר עם המלח עליו עומד כך לפחות שעה ועשרים דקות לתועלת המולחים עפ"י הלכה מספיק שעה וכפי הסידור הקודם. ולדעתי זה סידור טוב מאד.

94- יש ברזלים לדחוף הבשר יש ברזלים מיוחדים לפני המליחה ויש ברזלים לאחר המליחה ויש ברזלים מיוחדים לחלק ויש ברזלים מיוחדים לכשר וכך צריך להיות.

05-אחרי שהבשר שהה במלח זמן הנדרש מנפצים המלח ע"י זרם מים חזקים ביותר, משני הצדדים באופן שאם אדם נכנס לשם יכול להנזק מעצמת חוזק מי הזרימה. מתקן זה נעשה מיוחד לבד"ץ מהדרין וע"פ הוראותיו ואח"כ כשהבשר נקי לגמרי ממלח ע"י הניפוץ עובר שלש בריכות.

15-יש אפשרות אם נמצא בשר שלא נעשה בו כל ההידורים להוציאו לגמרי מהמקום שם.

25-אח"כ הבשר נכנס לפריז'דר- עד הפירוק לפריז'דר יש הפרדה מוחלטת בין הבשר החלק לבשר הכשר ע"י שני ניילונים קשורים באופן שלא יהיה נגיעה קלה בין הבשר "החלק" לבשר הכשר. להצעתי להאריך ניילון בעוד 51 אינטש מסוף הבשר והוארך למעשה בעוד 63 אינטש בערך.

35-פירוק הבשר-השולחנות שעליהן נעשה הפירוק מנקים במשך כל הלילה ע"י חברת נקיון וכן כל הסכינים והווים הכל הכל ע"י החברה הנ"ל ,נקיון יסודי ביותר (ללא השארת כל שומנים וכו'). ומוציאים הסכינים והווים לגמרי מהחדר פירוק.

45-לבד"ץ מהדרין יש סכינים מיוחדים וכן ווים ועוד כלים מיוחדים הדרושים לפירוק עם ידיות בצבע אחר רק לחלק בד"ץ מהדרין.
כשעוזבים המפעל לילך לא"י בין השחיטות חותמים ואורזים כל הכלים.

55-לפני הפירוק המשגיח בודק היטב השולחנות שיהיו נקיים לגמרי לגמרי ללא שומנים. לפני שהבשר נכנס לפירוק עובר זיהוי שני ע"י משגיח מקצועי אחר אשר עשה את הזיהוי הראשוני. התוויות נותנים לאורזים עם הולגרמות לפי מספר מדויק בצמוד עם משגיח והכל בהקפדה חזקה מאד כך שאין אפשרות לכל טעות וזיוף. והמשגיח נמצא שמה בחדר פירוק כל הזמן.

65-המלח והצבע הדיו וכו' והניילונים של הפירוק והאריזה נבדקים בבדיקת מעבדה לכשרות לפסח.

75-בחדר של המליחה של חלקי הפנים היות ויש שם חלקים שלא מוחתמים וממילא בהפסקות כשהמשגיח יוצא מן החדר נסגר החדר במנעולים בלומבה כדי שלא יהיה חשש של בשר שנתעלם מן העין.

85-שוחטים 003- ראש ליום במקרים חריגים מקסימום 013 ראש ליום ובתעניות שוחטים פחות מ003 כפי הצורך ולא גומרים השחיטה מאוחר כך שהשו"ב והצוות יהיה בישוב הדעת מלא. המפעל נותן הפסקות, פעמיים 51 דקות ופ"א חצי שעה-החשבון של שישים לשעה לא כולל זמני הפסקות

הנהגות הצוות
95- יש תקנון הנהגות הצוות על דפים תלוים על הקיר בבכנ"ס של הצוות שתמציתו הוא שיש פיקוח על כל אחד ואחד מהצוות גם אחרי העבודה והוא כפוף לסדרי הבית והשיעורים וכד'. כל הצוות הוא צוות מובחר ויש בו בעלי מקצוע במדרגה ראשונה ואחוז גבוה גם ת"ח וכולם יראי שמים ומדקדקים מאד התרגשתי מאד לראות צוות שלם מושלם כ"כ. הייתי עם הצוות בזמני אכילה, תפילה, לימודים, שיעורים, וכדומה יש אווירה של רצינות של כלי קודש.

06-מתקנות הבית שאין לצאת לרחוב (פרט מהדירה למלון הסמוך שגרים בו) אלא שנים שנים. אין להכנס למטבח סתם כשהעובדות נמצאות בו. בימים שלא עובדים יש סדר כולל רגיל—ואין לצאת לטיולים וקניות וכד' סתם.

16-לא היתי שם לשבת אבל שמעתי שבסעודת שבת יש אווירה של שבת במדרגה גבוהה ביותר לעילא ולעילא עד כדי שאנשי הצוות לוקחים הנהגות מכאן לבתיהם. לא יוצאים לשחיטה יותר מחודש ימים שהם 02 ימי שחיטות מקסימום וזה תיקון עצום. והמבין יבין, וכדאי שכן יראו ויעשו גם אחרים ואפי' שזה הנהגה שעולה הרבה כסף אבל סוף סוף יש בה תועלת עצומה.

26-טענת רבים שיש כאן בזבוב באנשים שאין בהם צורך, אחרי הביקור שלי ראיתי שהדבר הוא הפוך ושיש אנשים עובד בדיוק כפי הנצרך. וברור שכל ההידורים הנמצאים כאן דורשים צוות גדול ומורחב.

1 -רב המכשיר ומ"מ קבוע
-2 בודקי סכינים
-3 שוחטים
- 1מנקר ראשי ומפקח מומחה בהכרת הבשר והליכותיה
- 1בודק כריסים
1-בודק פנים
- 1בודק חוץ לכשר (ומקובל האדם על בד"ץ מהדרין) כדי שיוכל לשהות איתם יחד באותו בית
-1בודק חוץ ל"חלק"
-1 מחתים גופות הבהמות
1-מחתים ראשים
-1 משגיח על המלחת הגופות
-1משגיח על פירוק ואריזה וזיהוי וחיתו צרירות הדם
1-מבשלת ומשגיחה יהודיה-כל הבישולים זה גם לשיטת בית יוסף ולא סומכין על פילוט או אש של ישראל (עליה יש פיקוח כשרות של אחר הבודקי סכינים ושל הרב שליט"א)
36-סה"כ שש עשרה אנשים מוכנס בזה גם עובדים שעבודתם מתפצלת חלק בוקר וחלק לילה.

46-לסיכום: רואים שמושקע כאן הרבה עבודה והרבה מחשבה להעמיד הדברים בצורה מהודרת ברמה גבוה של כשרות.
בכל שחיטה ושחיטה מגיע הרב הגאון ר' אברהם רובין שליט"א בעצמו ואפי' שהמקום שבו שוחטים הוא קבוע לשחיטת בד"ץ מהדרין והצוות הוא מורחב וקבוע בכ"ז מכתת הרב רובין שליט"א את רגליו לחדש ולרענן את הדברים ( בכל יום ויום יהיו בעיניך כחדשים) בתוספת וזה כל זמן השחיטה שהיא כחודש ימים יש רב מכשיר מ"מ הרב רובין שליט"א חלק זמן נמצא בנו הרה"ג נחום זאב שליט"א וחלק זמן הנותר הרה"ג ר' יהושע בריזל שליט"א מו"ץ חסידי קארלין. בשעת ביקורי היה שם מלבד הרב רובין שליט"א גם בנו ונוכחתי לדעת שהוא בר הכא ות"ח מובהק ויודע את כל הנדרש לתפקיד זה ויש לו כל הכישורים הנצרכים והמתאימים לכך.

56-וראיתי שכל מה שיש אנשים שלא מאמינים על כל ההידורים פשוט שלא מתארים להם מה שנעשה שם בכשרות ובהידור לעילא ולעילא. ורמת הכשרות הגבוהה והמיוחדת נוחכתי לדעת שהם שרירין וקימים והתרשמתי יותר ממה שחשבתי.

66-וראיתי דבר מענין אני רגיל כשאני בא לביקור במקומות אחרים עושים קצת הצגות וכאן בחנתי הדברים מכמה כוונים וראיתי שאכן זה סדר עבודתם בלי שום הצגות. ועוד הם פתוחים לכל הצעות יעילות טכניות וכד' לשמור על רמת הכשרות הגבוהה. נדהמתי לשמוע סקירה על העליות של כל חומרא וחומרא וכן על צוות גדול ומורחב ושבאמת הם דרושים לביצוע הדברים והחומרות.

ברכתי את הרה"ג ר' אברהם רובין שליט"א וכל הצוות שה' יעזור שמהם ילמדו וכן יעשו בכל המקומות ויעמוד לזכותם.
[1] יש להפליא את רגיעות השחיטה וצורתה והידורה שהיתה למעלה מהשערתי לפני הביקור והכל בגלל סיבת איטיות השחיטה והפסקות המנוחה המופלגת שיש לשוחטים בין השחיטות שע"ז אפשר להוסיף את כל בית השחיטה למעצמה של כשרות והידור.

cheerio manufaturing

2008-11-12T18:14:00.000-08:00

Cheerios are made from oat flour and some other ingredients, such as sugar, salt, and starch. The dry ingredients are mixed with water and formed into small, hard circles by cooking and forcing through dies. The small circles are partially dried and then puffed by heating with steam in a cylinder under pressure, then allowed to release from the high pressure to atmospheric pressure. This causes the circles to expand as water inside turns to steam. The puffed pieces are further dried, then vitamins and minerals are sprayed on and they are dried again.