After reading an article from Culture watch http://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/09/02/halal-certification-follow-the-money/ I was thinking is halel food certification merely a religious tax passed on to consumers.

Food produced and sold in Australia has to meet quality health standards to be fit for human consumption. Should further impost be placed on companies and passed to consumers to support a religious organisation? Should there be laws to stop religious organisations intimidating companies who meet health standards from boycotting foods not carrying halel certification when they meet Australian standards on food.

Dear Josephus,

What is the difference between Halel certification and
Kosher certification? Isn't it a choice left up to the
consumer which product they will support?

My orthodox Jewish relatives do not purchase foods from products with a kosher certification label that has imposed costs on the producer, they purchase from the shelf of the supermarket foods they know to be kosher. The producer is not required to pay [fund] a Jewish organisation to carry a kosher certification label.

However this is Australia and all foods produced and sold in Australia must meet standards fit for human consumption. All persons can choose from the range of foods available they for example do not have to eat kangaroo or crocodile meat which aboriginals may prefer. Those religious laws are ancient health laws because meat was being sold or exchanged from beasts that had died from disease or other causes. In Australia such beasts can only be used for dog meat.

Foxy,

There is a cost for Halal Certification and it is passed on to the general customer.

Were there a way for Muslims to be charged more at the cash register then I can see no problem but unfortunately there is not so the rest of us have to cop the extra because of their Koranic food laws.

Producers say that the cost is insignificant but that is not the point, if I go to a foreign country I am careful to observe their customs.
When I'm in India I eat with my right hand especially when in my favourite Muslim cafe as eating with the left hand, the one that is used in the loo, is considered very bad manners and offensive.
Hindus and Catholics there also generally only eat with the right hand.
I don't eat pig meat of any sort, except Bockwurst, so a lack of pork is no problem, however when in vegetarian areas I don't go looking for meat.

If I believed, as an article of faith, that my meat must be killed in a particular way and the customary method of killing in a country that I intended to live in did not conform then I'd either not go there or I'd kill my own or go without.
I'd not expect non-believers to cater to my religious whims.

Dear Josephus and Is Mise,

The following two links may be of interest to you:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/halal-food-outrage-from-antiislam-critics/story-e6frf7jo-1226992523050

And -

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/11/27/4137397.htm

Cheers.

Josephus, do you regard advertising on A Current Affair and Today Tonight as merely a bogan tax passed on to consumers?

If not, what's the difference?

Just read yesterday, that if you are not a moslem you cannot get a job
as a slaughterman in many abattoirs.
I thought that would be illegal.

The Halal extortion, which is what it is, is put onto any purchaser
of the product. Sanitarium told me that they have to pay or they will
be banned in their export markets.
The little circle with the Arabic script is not placed on Sanitarium
products, so as as not to put Australians off.
The irony is Sanitarium is a Seventh Day Adventist compamy.
How do they feel about the other Christians in the Middle East.

BTW Halal is only needed for meat products, but it is levied on many
none meat products such as Soy Milk So Good, which on medical advice I use.
There are other brands and I have dropped Sanitarium and am looking
for an alternative to Weetbix.

Follow the money should be an exercise for our security people.
It is alleged that some of it goes to Islamist terrorists.

Dear Josephus,

I'm all for you raising a topic and putting a point of view but if you are asked a direct question about Kosher certification in Australia you don't squib it by claiming;

“My orthodox Jewish relatives do not purchase foods from products with a kosher certification label that has imposed costs on the producer, they purchase from the shelf of the supermarket foods they know to be kosher. The producer is not required to pay [fund] a Jewish organisation to carry a kosher certification label.”

That is dishonest and deceitful.

Dear Foxy,

A quick Google shows two main organisations doing Kosher certification.

Kosher Australia

“A typical certification for a single facility will cost between $AU 1500 to $AU 3000, but this is dependent on the actual conditions of the certification as stipulated by the Rabbinic Board. Blanket certificates are generally only granted for a 12-month period.”
http://www.kosher.org.au/content/certification-process

and;

Kashrut Authority

“Upon assessment of your application you will be contacted as to a plant visit. The usual charge for a plant visit is $250.00. If the visit leads to certification then this amount will be credited to your annual plant registration fee. For a domestic certificate, plant registration can be between $550.00 and $2,200.00 per annum. For an international certificate, plant registration can be between $2,200.00 and $6,600.00 per annum. This will depend on many factors and will be assessed by the Rabbinic Administrator and his team. While many products require only an annual visit some require many more visits per year. The Rabbinic Administrator will assess this at the time of his visit. These visits may cost between $250 and $1000 per visit depending on the nature of the visit required. Of course travelling costs will need to be borne by the company seeking certification.”
http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/Kosher_Certification_Guidelines.html

Hope this helps.

Halal describes what is lawful for Muslims to eat. Halal food laws are based on interpretation of the Quran, the Muslim scripture, and set out the range of beverages and foods (including meat) that are acceptable for Muslims to eat. The procedures for Halal slaughter can vary from place to place because of the differing interpretations of the Quran: this article describes Halal slaughter in Australia.
The main concern with halal slaughter is whether or not pre-slaughter stunning is used. In Australia, the national standard for meat production requires that all animals must be effectively stunned (unconscious) prior to slaughter. The vast majority of halal slaughter in Australia complies with this standard, that is, all animals are stunned prior to slaughter. The only difference is that a reversible stunning method is used, while conventional humane slaughter may use an irreversible stunning method. The time to regain consciousness following a reversible stun may vary depending on the intensity of the stun. At Australian abattoirs, the aim is to ensure that reversible stunning is done in a way that depth of unconsciousness is sufficient to allow for the animal to bleed out and die before there is a chance of regaining consciousness.
Halal slaughter in overseas abattoirs often does not include stunning - this is the key difference between halal slaughter in Australia and many other countries

There are a small number of abattoirs in Australia that have been granted permission from the relevant State or Territory food authority to conduct religious slaughter without prior stunning – for either Halal or Kosher (Jewish slaughter) purposes. These ‘approvals’ are effectively exemptions to standard Australian slaughter practice. The proportion of animals slaughtered under these exemptions is very small, but nevertheless that any animals are slaughtered without stunning is of concern to the RSPCA.

Bazz,

The allegations that some of the certification money goes to islamist terrorists are baseless, though I'd be very surprised if our scurity people haven't investigated it anyway.

Even if it it meets your extremely dubious definition of a tax, halal certification is not a consumption tax. Logically there are only two possible ways it could increase the prices you pay: firstly it could result in the producer being able to sell more products without having to resort to discounting. Having to resort to discounting may sound good, but it means the producer's less profitable, more likely to go out of business, and less likely to gain economies of scale.

The second way it's possible for halal certification to increase domestic proces is if it is done inexpectation of an increase in exports that never eventuates, withh the cost then being forced back onto the consumers. The classic example of this is the yoghurt producer in SA who paid for he certification to win a contract to supply Emirates Airlines, but was forced to avoid using it (and so lose the contract) by anti halal certification scumbags like you boycotting the product. Even so, the price per tub is extremely low — you'd have to eat an awful lot of it to pay even a cent more.

As for Christians in the Middle East, I doubt any of them would object to buying halal certified food.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thank You for the information.

It clears up quite a few things for me.

for those who justify the Halel distortion by comparing it to Kosher

http://www.qwire.net/2014/12/what-about-kosher.html#.VKY1YXslt_h

For those not understanding the ethics of
ritual slaughter:

http://theconversation.com/explainer-the-ethics-of-ritual-slaughter-2101

Dear Josephus,

<<Food produced and sold in Australia has to meet quality health standards to be fit for human consumption.>>

True, but this is not something to be proud about - it's about the nanny state imposing and enforcing its views on what is fit and what isn't. What about those who consciously agree between them to sell and buy food that is presumably unfit for human consumption? Oh, they are believed to be healthier in jail (or if they commit suicide to avoid it), would they?

<<Should further impost be placed on companies and passed to consumers to support a religious organisation?>>

Definitely not, but why "further"? These two issues, health and religion, have no significant relation between them.

<<Should there be laws to stop religious organisations intimidating companies who meet health standards from boycotting foods not carrying halel certification when they meet Australian standards on food.>>

There are already laws against intimidation, all is needed is to enforce them.

However, the whole health issue is a red herring: health standards and religion have little to do with each other and are not designed for the same purpose.

<<Those religious laws are ancient health laws because meat was being sold or exchanged from beasts that had died from disease or other causes.>>

That is only a hypotheses. It could perhaps be correct, or more likely partially correct - who can tell what the authors had in mind 2500-3500 and 1400 years ago respectively, but even then the reasons Jews and Muslims keep the Kosher/Halal rules today have nothing to do with health. Actually for most Jews/Muslims who consider buying Kosher/Halal, health had probably never crossed their mind.

Actually Yuyutsu it had everything to do with health.
In their ancient context pig meat was definitely unhealthy and was
banned by the Rabbis and the ban was picked by Mohommad.
However the Chinese worked out what was wrong with the animal husbandry
of the time and made changes to keep the pigs parasite free.
The word got passed back to Europe about Roman times but the Middle
East could not find God's phone number to get the ban lifted.

So the present Moslem paranoia about ham & bacon was valid in pre
Christian times but is now an anachronism.

Dear Bazz,

<<Actually Yuyutsu it had everything to do with health.>>

That's a speculation - your guess is as good as anyone's and the evidence is long gone or obfuscated.

<<So the present Moslem paranoia about ham & bacon was valid in pre Christian times but is now an anachronism.>>

That's a misunderstanding of motive: the Muslims of today are not paranoid about the health issues related to pigs, but most likely about the possibility of disobeying their prophet, their leaders and their parents and the result of being cut-off from their group of reference.

To illustrate, suppose your father told that if you were ever to eat pig then you will be disinherited: the health of the pig is not an issue - your relationship with your father is! Wouldn't you also be paranoid about it in that case?

Wrong Yuyutsu they say quite specifically it is unclean.
They could not even be buried with a ham sandwich.

Dear Bazz,

"Unclean" is not necessary about physical cleanliness, or about the derived health hazard. If you look at the dictionary, "unclean" also means "morally wrong", "morally defiled", "ceremoniously impure", "morally or spiritually impure", etc. It is derived from the biblical Hebrew word, 'Tame`', which has no exact English equivalent, but could be translated as both 'impure' and 'filthy'.

I suppose that the first mutton that I ate was killed in the approved manner for Muslims.
The local butcher simply slit the sheep's throat or rather stuck and cut from the inside as the wool impedes the blade, then the sheep was hung to bleed out.
The butcher used a different technique with cattle, he first shot a beast in the head with his revolver then lifted the carcass with a block and tackle in an A frame at the corner of the paddock.

Gutting was done in the field, then the meat and salable offal thrown onto a bit of canvas in the back of a light wagon (pulled by one horse) and taken into town to the shop.
Of necessity killing was done early in the morning, there being no refrigeration.

I was six and on my way home from school, when I first saw a sheep's throat cut; the men were killing badly injured animals that had just been taken off a train at Uralla (NSW) railway stockyards.

Hmmm Yuyutsu, a bit umm well maybe isn't it ?
Surely they originally meant not clean ie dirty covered in bacteria if
they had known about bacteria.
I believe they knew it was bad for health, the Rabbis realised the
connection between eating the pork and the illness the people suffered.
Could be they got sick same time each year when they were able to buy pork.

It could not have been what God wanted so they made it a rule.
Our doctors made many similar conclusions over the centuries.
I went to an agricultural high school and I think that was where I
first heard of the suggestion.
We had a couple of classes a week on animal husbandry.

Jews in the first century who became followers of Jesus Christ had the conflict of kosher food and the Council at Jerusalem [Acts 15] decided that Christians were to abstain from food dedicated to idols, from meat from strangled animals, and from consuming blood. However Paul a former devout Jew often ate food from the market place asking no questions for conscience sake.

Muslims in isolated communities in Indonesia often eat pork in mixed community celebrations.

The fact is if food is qualified suitable for human consumption that should be sufficient certification. The ancient belief that some foods are unclean needs to be clarified as to the reason. A religious belief by a section of the community should not be imposed upon the whole society

Yuyutsu,
I just remembered that the Jews have a custom of having
separate kitchens or parts of kitchens for different types of foods as
part of the Kosher regime.
This it seems to me to be an acknowledgement of the existence of
bacteria even if they had no idea what was the actual cause.
It was therefore "unclean" to have meat and vegetables and milk
products in contact or on the same surfaces.
It was an attempt to avoid cross contamination and food poisoning.
It became religious text based on unknown science.

That is what the moslem thing about pigs & their meat is all about.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote;

“The fact is if food is qualified suitable for human consumption that should be sufficient certification. The ancient belief that some foods are unclean needs to be clarified as to the reason. A religious belief by a section of the community should not be imposed upon the whole society.”

If you are indeed attempting to be consistent then I can only applaud the effort.

In light of this can I ask your opinion of the following excerpt from an end of year report from Kosher Australia, one of the entities I mentioned earlier;

“In 2013 we once again experienced another year of expansion in all areas of Kosher Australia’s activities. Almost every week the office receives an enquiry or indeed multiple enquiries from manufacturers for certification. Each enquiry is carefully examined in order to determine whether the granting of certification is possible. The central platform of Kosher Australia is to whenever halachically possible to grant certification to as many products as possible in order to give the consumer the widest choice of food and the ability to purchase those products from as many shops, beyond the Caulfield/East St Kilda area.”

“Last year I reported on the programme initiated by Coles supermarkets whereby our symbol was placed on the shelves next to the price tag in order to indicate that the marked product was kosher according to our list. After carefully monitoring the programme, we met again with Coles in order to modify the programme to minimize the accidental errors in the display of our symbol against products which are not on our list. Coles has been and remains a very strong supporter of the kosher community and I am pleased to record that Coles took on board our suggested changes. There has been an overwhelming positive response by consumers to the programme, acknowledging that this initiative was making shopping easier.”

Kosher foods is based on cross contamination in other words growth of bacteria or reduction of nutrition. Example of nutrition; meat and milk if combined in cooking reduces nutritional value to humans.

I lived for 12 months on a holiday camp site, when the Jewish schools booked the site the whole kitchen utensils and surfaces were steam cleaned to ensure no bacteria contamination. Uncleanness in their view was bacteria that might contaminate their food preparation and handling.

Dear Josephus,

Lol.

I'm still here mate.

Here is the 70th annual report of the Mizrachi Organisation Melbourne

http://www.mizrachi.com.au/sites/default/files/Full%20Report%20-%20with%20financials.pdf

It is the controlling group of Kosher Australia which looks after Kosher certification in Victoria.

On page 81 (page 12 of the financial section) you will find a figure for the income for 2013 of Kosher Australia for certifications. It was a whopping $2,065,739.

So perhaps your question should more properly read;

'Is Halel and Kosher certification a form of religious tax on consumers?'

My take is no. Most businesses will make their decisions based purely on cost effective means of access to customers and will judge whether the costs involved impact positively or negatively on their bottom line. Isn't that the marketplace at work?

Perhaps you have a different view.

It is a trade embargo.

Of course it is a religious tax.

Of course the money can be diverted to nefarious purposes. What exactly is there to prevent that happening? Of course Islam has form.

Referring to ritual slaughter, anyone who asserts there is anything 'ethical' in it is lying through his teeth. No farmer, no processor and no worker involved in production and processing accepts anything but full stunning of animals. A works is a controlled environment. Within reason and wherever possible we are duty bound to ensure that all possible risks are treated.

Unlike chickens, where it is easy even in a rush of processing to locate and sever the main blood vessels in slaughter, that is by no means certain in the larger food animals that are considerably larger and more muscled around the neck. Would anyone propose a new method of slaughter that involved a single 'sweep' across the throat of a cow with a knife? They would be laughed at, or more likely 'outed' for public contempt and censure by the very people who are here defending the indefensible. So much for their ethics.

It is always a slippery slope isn't it where multiculturalism is concerned? Politicians are pragmatic, particularly in marginal seats where the ethnic lobbyists can bully and call the shots.

However it isn't only politicians. The prevailing political correctness ensured for years (still does) that even where animal welfare groups and the media were criticising live animal exports, there was and is silence on ritual slaughter without stunning at home.

What it boils down to is that no one, other than the relative authorities, should say how food should be killed/handled/packaged, Both the Jews and the Muslims should be told that religious certification has no place in Australia.

onthebeach
<<Of course it is a religious tax.>>
Do you regard advertising on A Current Affair or Today Tonight as a tax?

If not, what's the difference?

<<Of course the money can be diverted to nefarious purposes. What exactly is there to prevent that happening?>>
There are laws against funding terrorism.
<<Of course Islam has form. >>
Islam has many forms.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Josephus,
Firstly, that question about advertising on Today Tonight or A Current Affair was originally aimed at you, and I notice you never did answer it. Can you?

Secondly,
<<Example of nutrition; meat and milk if combined in cooking reduces nutritional value to humans. >>
Is there any evidence for that claim?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Is Mise
<<What it boils down to is that no one, other than the relative authorities, should say how food should be killed/handled/packaged,>>
Why should consumers be denied a say?

If I was the food manufacturer I would say, fine I will put your label on.
I will work it out and send you an invoice.

"Do you regard advertising on A Current Affair or Today Tonight as a tax?"

You are setting up a false comparison, a fallacious argument.

"There are laws against funding terrorism"

It would be a foolish and irresponsible government that relies on reactive enforcement alone.

"Islam has many forms"

You play word games to avoid the issue, but I will answer nonetheless. The Islam that coerces individuals and business into paying for it is definitely the wrong form.

So much for the claimed moderate Islam in Australia. What do they say about it anyhow? When will the views of the mainstream be sought and considered? After all, an overwhelming majority are claimed to favour the existing secular State. It is not so very long ago that other religions were telling Australians what to do on the weekends, and coercing government to limit trading and entertainment on Sundays and so on.

Now, what about you address my point about it introducing an unfair trade embargo?

Good one, Bazz.

Aidan,

Consumers in Australia aren't denied a say; they have elected representatives who make the laws regarding the preparation of food.

Our food preparation is up with the best in the world and doesn't ned the imprimatur of a political/religious group that cannot fit into our society.

If one joins the Roll Royce Owners Club don't expect the members to embrace your Model 'T' Ford.

Dear Bazz,

The reason Jews split their kitchens is that it is forbidden to them to combine, eat or cook together meat and milk. Other foods, such as fish and vegetables can be combined with either, thus each Kosher food is marked as either: "Meat", "Milk" or "Parve" - the latter means that it has neither meat nor milk thus can be cooked and eaten with either.

The reason meat and milk cannot be eaten or cooked together is the biblical commandment, "Thou shalt not cook a lamb in its mother's milk" (appearing three times).

While the original prohibition is very specific, eventually the Rabbis extended it to any milk with any meat (but some Rabbis exclude chicken); and while it was only about cooking, they interpreted the fact that it appeared three times to mean that eating and enjoying it are also prohibited.

Some Rabbis claim that the reason for the prohibition to cook a lamb in its mother's milk is to prevent animal cruelty. Others suggest a metaphysical theory (too long to bring here), but most scholars today agree that the real reason was that cooking a lamb in its mother's milk was an ancient pagan ritual, thus the purpose was to keep the Jews away from paganism.

There is no basis to assume that health was high on the Rabbi's priority list. Keeping the Jews separate from "gentiles" was much higher on their agenda, which was essentially to preserve the Jewish nation intact. They realised that eating together with others might invite boy-meets-girl situations, thus the horror of mixed-marriages, so they had a strong interest to prevent Jews from eating with others - and the Kosher rules provided a perfect opportunity for that!

Yuyutsu,
Well you must have researched it well.
It does seemed to have caused a lot of expense and trouble over 1000s
of years for no good purpose.

Aiden,
There is an implied threat of banning unless a fee is paid.
I doubt they would make such a threat implicit, but it would be interesting
to hear if threats have been made.
Extortion is a very serious crime and I presume their lawyers have
advised them on what not to say.
What would be interesting is if any publicity was given to a refusal
to pay the fee. The publicity might be a criminal act itself and turn
a legal conversation into an illegal one.

What could happen if the manufacturer let them inspect, put the
label on but refused to pay, alleging extortion ?

Sounds like a legal minefield.

onthebeach
<<"Do you regard advertising on A Current Affair or Today Tonight as a tax?"
You are setting up a false comparison, a fallacious argument.>>
On the contrary, I'm using a true comparison to tear down your fallacious argument. Because there is no characteristic of a tax that applies to halal certification that doesn't also apply to advertising on Today Tonight or A Current Affair.

<<"There are laws against funding terrorism"
It would be a foolish and irresponsible government that relies on reactive enforcement alone.>>
What makes you think they don't? That sort of thing is what ASIO's for.

<<You play word games to avoid the issue, but I will answer nonetheless. The Islam that coerces individuals and business into paying for it is definitely the wrong form.>>
But there's no evidence of any coercion.

<<So much for the claimed moderate Islam in Australia. What do they say about it anyhow? When will the views of the mainstream be sought and considered? After all, an overwhelming majority are claimed to favour the existing secular State. It is not so very long ago that other religions were telling Australians what to do on the weekends, and coercing government to limit trading and entertainment on Sundays and so on.>>
As I'm not a Muslim I don't know for sure, but I expect most would support its use and the rest wouldn't care, but none of the moderates would want it to be made compulsory.

<<Now, what about you address my point about it introducing an unfair trade embargo?>>
What embargo? Which country bans the importation or export of food that is not halal certified?

Is Mise
<<Consumers in Australia aren't denied a say; they have elected representatives who make the laws regarding the preparation of food.>>
Those laws set minimum standards, but consumers have, AND ALWAYS SHOULD HAVE the freedom to make their own choices. For instance they have the right to buy certified free range eggs even when the law does not ban eggs that are not free range.

<<If one joins the Roll Royce Owners Club don't expect the members to embrace your Model 'T' Ford.>>
If The Rolls Royce Owners Club (or indeed the Model T Owners Club) decide to only buy certified hugh octane fuel, should we obect to the certification of that?

_________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

<<There is an implied threat of banning unless a fee is paid.>>
An implied threat by who of banning from what?

It seems there's no rational case for opposing halal certification so you're basing it on threats which occur only in your imagination.

<<What could happen if the manufacturer let them inspect, put the
label on but refused to pay, alleging extortion ?>>
The manufacturer would probably be sued under contract law, and possibly also defamation law.

<<If one joins the Roll Royce Owners Club don't expect the members to embrace your Model 'T' Ford.>>
If The Rolls Royce Owners Club (or indeed the Model T Owners Club) decide to only buy certified hugh octane fuel, should we obect to the certification of that?"

Yes Aidan we should as it might lead owners of early Rolls and all Model 'T's into wasteful spending for no benefit at all.

If the Jewish and Muslim certification bodies gave certification for nothing, in the interests of those of their faiths, then I can see no objection; I've cut plenty of sheep's throats and it is a very quick death and stunning is only a sop to city sensitivities.
In the field, killing for the property, there is minimal fear experienced by sheep, in fact no fear at all if they are used to being handled.
Beef I prefer to shoot with a bullet to the brain.
In either case they do not experience the fear that is apart of abattoir killing.

Aiden said;
But there's no evidence of any coercion.

Sanitarium told me that if they did not pay it they could lose their
Asian market. I suspect he meant the Indonesian market.

He did not say they were threatened.
Perhaps they were made an offer they could not refuse.

You said;It seems there's no rational case for opposing halal certification

I do not oppose the labeling.
If he was not threatened then there would be no reason to alledge extortion.

However if the manufacturer was told he would lose the market if the
product was not labelled then it sounds like a threat.
I would record the discussion and if they refused then ask why.

Somewhere in the world there will be precedent on this.

Aiden, I have just realised that as most Halal certified products are
not labelled and Sanitarium is only one case, does it mean that the
Halal organisation will have to run a publicity campaign for and
against all the products that have either accepted or rejected Halal ?

They must have explained that to Sanitarium for example.
Surely that would be prima facie extortion ?

Advertising provides useful service to the public as well as the supplier. All forms of advertising including the local phone book costs the supplier of goods and services, but it is information for all members of the public.

I like the idea suggested that an invoice be supplied to persons requiring certification. Try gluten free labeling, or free range eggs, or permeate free, or GM free, or nut free etc, etc suppose the organisations requiring these labels all required to pay fees to bear these labels.

Dear Josephus,

In Australia, it is not an offence to write "Kosher" or "Halal" on a pack of food, provided it indeed is. However, most Jews/Muslims would not accept that package unless it also has a symbol of a known certifying body, including the Rabbi who authorised it. It is obviously fraudulent to include such a symbol without authorisation.

In Israel it is an offence to place your own "kosher" mark on a product or a restaurant or food outlet: while it is not compulsory to be kosher or to state that your product/outlet is kosher, if you do state so, then certification must by law include the formal state's Rabbinate authority's (but may and often does include other Rabbis on top). What's interesting is that while the state enforces this law in most places, it does not dare to enter and enforce it within Ultra-Orthodox Haredi neighbourhoods, where they have stricter standards and only recognise their own Rabbis and not the state of Israel. Anyway, that's all crazy and fortunately we don't have such a law in Australia.

What then is the situation where it is not required that the product
be labelled, just that the money for the fee be paid ?

From a quick look around in the supermarket not many are labelled.

Here is a Muslim journalist who lifts the veil to expose the hypocrisy of Halal certification,

"To put Halal labels on water bottles, cereal packets vegetable oil, sugar, flour, tooth paste etc. and for a person or church to dare certify them and declare oneself as God’s agent, is at least ‘playing minor God’.

This action produces confusion, disharmony and division in the community of Muslims. Any action that causes difficulties and strife in the community is akin to shirk, (30-31,32)—sinful!

Who then has nominated them as the certifying authority? Certainly not the Quran!

The general non-Muslim community is entitled to protest at the additional invisible tax levied on them as customers, in terms of increased prices which it has to pay as a result of the increased cost that the manufacturing businesses have to fork out to the certifying bodies. They then pass on the additional cost to the customer!

As a result one has to sympathize with the “Boycott Halal” movement. Why should the non-Muslims who had never been burdened with this additional tax on their consumables before now have to pay for other peoples’ religious requirement?"
http://newageislam.com.sultan09.arvixevps.com/the-murky-waters-of-halal-industry-and-its-labelling-income/islamic-society/d/100165

Is Mise,
<<Yes Aidan we should as it might lead owners of early Rolls and all Model 'T's into wasteful spending for no benefit at all.>>
But who are we to stop their wasteful spending for no benefit at all? They may claim it reduces engine wear. Others may say the evidence shows it doesn't, but the decision should be up to the owners as they're the ones who foot the bill for engine damage.

We have a right to ensure the octane rating of the fuel is not boosted by adding harmful substances such as tetraethyl lead. But what car clubs endorse what fuel (and whether they charge for it) is none of our business.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, there's absolutely no evidence of extortion. What you interpret as a threat of losing the market (which the certification organisation would not have the power to carry out) is more likely to be a warning about losing market share to competitors. So they make a self funding commercial decision to make their product more attractive to overseas buyers, and people like you try to punish them for it!

Well Aiden, it was not me that suggested they would lose the market,
it was Sanitarium that made the suggestion.

If what you say is correct, then why pay the fee and then not put
the symbol on the package ?
It all looks pretty suss to me.

Bazz,
<<Well Aiden, it was not me that suggested they would lose the market,
it was Sanitarium that made the suggestion.>>
True, but it was you who interpreted "lose the market" as "lose access to the market" rather than "lose its position in the market".

<<If what you say is correct, then why pay the fee and then not put
the symbol on the package ?>>
Because displaying the symbol on domestic packaging would lose them more customers than it gains them, of course.

Dear Onthebeach,

<<The general non-Muslim community is entitled to protest at the additional invisible tax levied on them as customers, in terms of increased prices which it has to pay as a result of the increased cost that the manufacturing businesses have to fork out to the certifying bodies. They then pass on the additional cost to the customer!>>

But that's just a drop in the ocean compared to what corporations waste on general advertising. I think we should boycott all those who advertise their products, then pass on the additional cost to the customer!

Yuyutsu, First give us a full list of companies that do not spend any money advertising no even in the phone book.

Advertising companies are not a religious organisation demanding fees for a product. They are a service company employed by the producer to inform the public. One overlords the company "carry our religious logo or loose customers" the other is employed to serve the company with no threat to the company of loss of sales by people deliberately avoiding the product.

How can wheat flour have a 'Halal' certification?

It would seem to me that it would be impossible to so certify wheat products in Australia.

Dear Josephus,

Advertisers don't do it because they like people, but because they like their money!

Advertising is intended to tempt people to part with their money for goods and services which they wouldn't otherwise want to spend it on, but writing the address and contacts of one's company in the phone book along with a brief factual description of the goods and services they provide, is not advertising because it is intended for those who already know what they want and are looking for ways to obtain it of their own volition.

Such organisations that extort in the name of religion are not truly religious.

Some people's jobs is to carry out initial, regular and unannounced inspections on behalf of a religious community in order to ensure that the food they purchase fits and continues to fit the requirements of their religious convictions. For those people, it is their livelihood and they also incur travel and office expenses, so there is nothing unreasonable about them asking to be remunerated.

No food company should be obliged to use the services of those people, but if they don't then the community in question would not trust their products and therefore not purchase them. This is not a threat but a statement of fact.

Yuyutsu,
Such religious organisations are not more than stand over men to demand fees to inspect the quality of food. We have Govt inspectors visiting the premises of those selling food they do not ask for fees from the suppliers. Surprisingly many of those premises fined by the Govt inspectors are Muslim selling substandard food in infested premises.

When I shop for food I inspect it for quality I do not charge the supplier for it meeting my standards of quality and the fact I had to spend time and petrol to purchase.

This religious fee for certification is a wrought. I am deeply religious and love good food and I find it offencive that some religions seek fees for quality food.

Dear Josephus,

<<Such religious organisations are not more than stand over men to demand fees to inspect the quality of food.>>

I am not that familiar with Halal certification, but those who produce Kosher certifications don't inspect the quality and health-wise worthiness of the food since it's not their job:

If a loaf of bread is stale, hard and full of mould or bacteria, it can still be kosher (because Judaism has no prohibition on fungi and considers only such creatures which can be seen by the naked eye as animals), but if it contains bits of shrimps or a "471" emulsifier which could be derived from pigs or kangaroo, then it's their job to disqualify it.

Yes, there is some intersection, because if the bread contains worms or cockroaches then it is neither healthy nor kosher, but mostly the two authorities check for very different things.

Believe it or not, having sufficiently deep understanding of the Kosher rules as well as the current practices and sources of foods in the market, requires extensive study. Those who make the inspections should also possess high character standards, otherwise their community would not trust them and their certifications.

The introduction of Halal certification has been done for marketing purposes by manufacturers to increase sales - just like "fat free", "sugar free", "low salt", gluten free" and so on.

The Heart Foundation tick is also something that is paid for by the manufacturer but passed on to the consumer.

Halal and Kosher certification also allows export into foreign markets.

Kosher foods also add costs to manufacturing but in local areas of the USA many of these go directly into the pockets of local representatives and have previously been seen as a scam - for example, re-blessing of meat being transported every 72 hours by a local Rabbi.

The labelling is not a response to Muslim or Jewish demands but a deliberate commercial choice.

Those who believe it has a sinister terrorist purpose will probably see the same thing everywhere - yet they still buy petrol from the Saudis who directly fund all manner of nasty things.

Wobbles, I certainly do not know if the fees are directed to what
would be illegal organisations.
The main question I have is why do companies who have paid the fee not
put the logo on their packets ?

I know that there are a lot of people who odn't care what kind of meat comes out of the storage rooms as long as it tastes good, but when the prices make a difference, I suppose we have a right to make a little bit of noise about it. I mean for an establishment to serve Halal certified food, or Kosher or Gluten-free or whatever it may be, as much as possible, the costs SHOULD be passed on to the people who actually need to consume such specially produced items right?

UdyRegan, You are right, as organic grown foods, free range eggs and gluten free foods costs more on the shelf so the certified foods costs should should be passed on to persons requiring such and a range of foods that meet our basic standards should be free of such add on religious certification costs. This gives the customer choice.

Bazz,

I've never heard of any organisation paying a fee for the right to display a logo and then deliberately not doing so.

Care to share some examples?

Yes Wobbles how about Sanitarium.
Have a look on your Weetbix box.

I had a look in the super market at a number of products.
Cadbury was one I looked at, no label. For others I was doing it from
memory, next time I will take the list with me.