AG press release causes confusion over butcher
This article replaces an earlier post.
Yesterday, Universal Hub reported that the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office issued a press release stating that they had settled allegations against Newton glatt-kosher butcher Gordon & Alperin for infractions of the Commonwealth’s kosher labeling laws which had occurred after the store dropped its supervision last year. (Their sign and website had not been updated to remove references to their kosher status.)
I appreciate the state’s efforts at consumer protection, but it seems the press release is causing more confusion and misrepresentation than it sought to prevent. Today, the Boston Herald, our bastion of journalistic integrity, published the story and called the store “faux kosher” and a “kosher faker butcher,” despite also mentioning late in the article that they were resuming their supervision.
In fact, as Kosher Blog readers know, their glatt certification was restored last month.
Moments ago, the Va’ad Harabonim of Massachusetts issued an urgent press release to clarify the confusion.
In the October 13, 2009 edition of the Boston Herald, an article appeared regarding the Massachusetts Attorney General fining Gordon and Alperin Butchers of Newton, MA for “advertising ‘Kosher Meat’ when the shop was no longer kosher certified.”
This is referring to the time period between September 2008 and August 2009 when Gordon and Alperin did not have any kosher supervision. Since the Rabbinical Council of Massachusetts has been giving supervision starting on September 2, 2009, there have been no violations of any kosher laws and the highest kosher standards have been maintained in the facility with a full time kosher supervisor present.
The article mentions that one of the violations had been that the proprietor advertised on his website as being under kosher supervision. In May 2009, we received a phone call from a consumer informing us that the Gordon and Alperin website had on it that the store was under the kosher supervision of the Rabbinical Council of Massachusetts. We immediately sent a letter directly to Ricardo Bosich, the owner, requesting that he remove the information from the website. Within a week, the website had been taken down.
We look forward to maintaining kosher supervision at Gordon and Alperin as it continues to provide Glatt kosher meat to the Greater Boston Jewish community.
In the end, what started as a reasonable settlement of a bygone issue by a repentant and cooperative store owner has become a wellspring of negative publicity. Let’s support Gordon & Alperin so they can weather the storm. We made a delicious carbonnades à la flamande with Ricardo’s “french roast” over Sukkot, and his skirt steaks looked beautiful — there’s still time to grill them before it gets too cold out!
Update (5:23pm): A friend reports that the Brookline Tab has also picked up the story. Their article spares us the epithets, but it has flaws. First, it states that the store has only “sought certification on Sept 2″ and “reapplied for kosher certification last month.” Second, it quotes rival kosher certifier Rabbi Rachmiel Liberman, of Diamond-K, for comment on the situation. He’s relevant since he drafted the state’s kosher labeling law, but it’s an obvious conflict of interest for one agency to size up another.
I’m surprised that MA’s kosher law is still on the books as-written. Similarly written laws (which establish “orthodox Jewish” standards as the final arbiter of kashrut for the purposes of state law) were found unconstitutional in NY and NJ.
I don’t think the law as written establishes orthodox Jewish standards as the final arbiter. IANAL, but it looks as if the law defines a series of phrases that the government wishes to control, those being “kosher,” “kosher for Passover,” “pareve,” and “prepared in accordance with orthodox Jewish religious standards.”
From a superficial reading, it sounds like I cannot say “kosher” if the food isn’t kosher, and I cannot say “prepared in accordance with orthodox Jewish religious standards” if it isn’t prepared in accordance with orthodox Jewish religious standards.
As a consumer, I’d be content with amending the law to simply assure that anything advertised as kosher has some sort of verifiable certification behind it, whatever the source. In the end, caveat emptor.
Ricardo needs our help, not fines. He was clear that he dropped supervision, and while he should have stopped saying he wasn’t kosher a $1000 fine seems to be too much. He’s struggling with his business, and we need him to stay in business. This supposed consumer protection is more likely to hurt those it intends to help.
We have been shopping at Ricardo’s for years. He has always been nothing but kind and generous to our family. In fact, we feel so strongly about the quality of his products that we shopped for the entire period in which he did not have supervision. If anyone had bothered to ask, they would have learned that Ricardo was struggling to make ends meet during a very tough time. The cost of supervision was astronomical, and no one would cut him a break when he needed it most. The last thing he needed to be worrying about (or should have been worrying about) was spending more money to change his storefront sign. He was very clear with all of his customers about what was going on, and he put up paper signs on the doors letting folks know about his change in status. Everything was clear and upfront. I’m thrilled he has his supervision back, and I urge everyone to continue to support Ricardo. You will be hard pressed to find better kosher meat anywhere else in the area.
After reading the article in The Newton Tab yesterday which has a very misleading headline, after calling various folks in the know, and now after searching the web for information about Riccardo’s situation, I am dismayed that the power of the press could be used so negligently as to endanger the small business of a good person trying to make a living and simultaneously provide kosher meat to his community. I agree with SB who contributed to this blog on October 20th. The headlines of the Boston Herald articles were unbelievably inflammatory and unnecessary. I speak on behalf of others in support of Riccardo and his business. We are so sorry, Riccardo, that you were put through this and we are hear to speak on your behalf when necessary.