Comments on: AG press release causes confusion over butcher

By: Janet Zerlin Fagan

Janet Zerlin Fagan — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:58:00 +0000

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.

By: S.B.

S.B. — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:37:38 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:40:02 +0000

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.

By: Jonathan Abbett

Jonathan Abbett — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:20:53 +0000

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.

By: Elf's DH

Elf's DH — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:18:19 +0000

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.