The Kosher Food Tax: How Boycott Watch and Snopes plagiarise the ADL

In my forthcoming book on the issue of the much misunderstood Kosher Food Tax theory: 'The Kosher Food Tax'. I have pointed out in passing that it is easy to locate a single genesis for most articles written about this subject by jewish and non-jewish debunkers. That genesis can be found in the small pamphlet written and published by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (the ADL), (1) which was itself written in response to Ed Fields' article on the subject in the June 1990 edition of his magazine: 'The Truth at Last'.

As I have long been inclined to intellectual scepticism as well as being a general critic of most 'sceptics' - who I have elsewhere styled as frequently irrational guardians of intellectual orthodoxy and not the daring researchers they self-identify as - I think it is important to stress where sceptics have not only got it wrong, but haven't applied any critical thinking at all.

The controversy over the 'Kosher Food Tax' is an excellent case study in this kind of thinking precisely because it is the kind of subject that requires the sceptical inquirer - whether they like it or not - to put aside their personal intellectual prejudices (and lets face it we all have them) and look to see whether there is in fact a basis in the evidence for a highly controversial theory.

What seems to have happened is very simple: in so far as the sceptical authors have come across a theory they don't like and/or are inclined to disregard - or as they would style it 'woo' - that said their belief in scepticism dictates that they need to answer the claims in order to make sure their intellectual impression is correct. What has not happened however is the putting aside of ideologically-driven assumptions and what has occurred in its stead is that the sceptical authors have an ideologically-driven need to find a debunking argument.

In essence the sceptics have violated the cardinal rule of scepticism and conceived of their conclusion before they understand the arguments for and against. That then allows the sceptical authors to find some tit-bits of information and read a few internet articles on halakhah so they seem to know what they are talking about: (2) this then enables them - as sceptics are often quite bright - to write a seemingly well-reasoned 'debunk' of the Kosher Food Tax thesis.

However as I have observed in my book: they have not taken the time to understand all sides of the argument, have used Utopian assumptions (another cardinal intellectual sin) and have not performed sufficient original research into the issue itself to comment on it. I have remedied these factual errors in my book.

In order to prove my contention regarding the uncritical acceptance of sources; such as the small ADL pamphlet on the subject, I will reproduce parts of the ADL pamphlet and then parallel claims from the two major sceptical hatchet jobs on the Kosher Food Tax thesis.

The ADL pamphlet states:

'Attacks on the labeling of food with the symbols for kashruth (traditional Jewish dietary laws) have been a standard ploy of anti-Jewish bigots in the U.S. for decades. Such symbols as the “U” emblem of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations (UOJC), among others, confirm that products are kosher—i.e., that foods and production processes have been inspected by competent rabbis from the respective organizations and found to be in compliance with Jewish dietary law.

[…]

Indeed, according to marketing manager Steven Zamichow, quoted in the Washington Post, "Entenmann's Inc. received kosher certification in 1981 and sales of [its] baked goods 'increased substantially.' " Visits to the Entenmann's plant from a "mashgiach" or kashruth inspector, are provided by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. The UOJC is one of several groups that maintain such a kosher inspection service, certifying foods and related products to be in compliance with Jewish dietary laws through all phases of production. The profit from these products goes, of course, to the companies that manufacture them and the stores that sell them, not to "the Jews."' (3)

Compare this to the 'Boycott Watch' article's summary:

'First, the kosher symbols are certifications regarding the content of the products to inform consumers who are interested in abiding by kosher laws that the product is in fact kosher. This means that the product, in essence, contains no animal products as defined in the five books of Moses as non-clean, such as pig products or byproducts, and that the product does not contain both meat and dairy products in the same package.

[…]

Second, the fees associated with the kosher certifications do not aid any special groups or Israel. There is no money as part of the fees involved by any certification organization that is earmarked for Israel. Rather, the certification organizations, which are primarily non-profit entities, use the fees to pay the salaries of the rabbinical administrators and administrative expenses associated with the certification programs.' (6)

Now looking at the above we can can clearly see that the 'Boycott Watch' article is simply a reworded version of the section entitled 'The Facts' from the ADL pamphlet.

To highlight some of the specific instances of clear borrowing: we can note that the first point made by the 'Boycott Watch' article simply takes the explanation for the use of kashrut symbols from the ADL and re-words it in a summary. We can see this in that it literally adds nothing to the definition and doesn't even go as far as to explain - as the ADL article does not - that kashrut and necessarily the Kosher Food Tax thesis encompasses a lot more than merely rules around the consumption of meat and shellfish.

In essence the 'Boycott Watch' article makes an intellectual faux pas by assuming that Kashrut is just 'Jewish Dietary Law', which is what the ADL article explicitly claims (and articles on Kashrut usually try to explain that this is only half-right) and nothing else. Indicating one of two things: either the author of the 'Boycott Watch' article knows very little about kashrut or they have simply reworded the paragraph from the ADL pamphlet.

In the second point made by the 'Boycott Watch' article: we can also see clear borrowing in its rephrasing and inversion of the claims made by the ADL pamphlet. For clarity's sake I reproduce the two passages side by side.

The ADL pamphlet:

'The UOJC is one of several groups that maintain such a kosher inspection service, certifying foods and related products to be in compliance with Jewish dietary laws through all phases of production. The profit from these products goes, of course, to the companies that manufacture them and the stores that sell them, not to "the Jews."'

Boycott Watch:

'Second, the fees associated with the kosher certifications do not aid any special groups or Israel. There is no money as part of the fees involved by any certification organization that is earmarked for Israel. Rather, the certification organizations, which are primarily non-profit entities, use the fees to pay the salaries of the rabbinical administrators and administrative expenses associated with the certification programs.'

We can see from the above that the ADL pamphlet talks about the kosher certification and inspection service as well as how this has no actual profit for the kashrut certification organisations at all. Indeed the 'Boycott Watch' article not very intelligently merely substitutes the term 'Israel' for the ADL's preferred terminology: 'the jews'. The intended meaning is however identical in both cases with the assumption of a highly organised community significantly profiting from the profits of these kashrut certification organisations.

In essence we can see that the 'Boycott Watch' article makes exactly the same points as the ADL pamphlet and merely disguises this direct borrowing by inverting them and changing the language used a bit.

The scale of the borrowing in the 'Boycott Watch' article is even more obvious when we read the following phrase in it:

'The primary adherents to the kosher code are orthodox Jews, but many non-orthodox Jews, Muslims, vegetarians and other consumers prefer foods that are certified kosher.'

Compare this to the following paragraph from the ADL's pamphlet:

'Contrary to the anti-Semitic charge that kosher labeling is a tightly guarded "Jewish secret" kept from Christians and others, it is not only Jews who prefer to purchase kosher food. According to the Washington Post (Sept. 27, 1990), "Some kosher marketing officials estimate there may be as many as six million Americans who seek out Kosher foods in the supermarket. Of these only 1.5 million are Jewish. Moslems and Seventh Day Adventists also adhere to certain aspects of the Jewish dietary laws, but the bulk of Kosher shoppers appear to be consumers who believe the Kosher certification. . .means higher quality food."'

We can see here that the ADL article is clearly being used a non-cited crib by the 'Boycott Watch' article precisely because this claim (of wide non-jewish usage) is first found in the ADL pamphlet and is in itself a very unusual claim to make because it assumes that Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists and others actively seek out kashrut certified food, which is simply not the case (or even imaginable to someone approaching this subject as a beginner).

This makes it very clear that the 'Boycott Watch' article is simply lifting its arguments and assumptions from the ADL pamphlet without attribution.

Further we may note with amusement that the author of the 'Boycott Watch' article clearly doesn't understand kashrut in the first place, because they state that 'the primary adherents to the kosher code are orthodox jews', which is a pretty extreme intellectual clanger.

This is because all forms of Judaism endorse kashrut as it is direct from the Torah (rather than through the Mishnah and Gemara); hence it is required by all the major groups and sects of Judaism. Orthodoxy is only one of these and indeed the different sects have different levels of kashrut observance and accordingly tend to have their own kashrut certification groups with different levels of halakhic stringency.

Also one needs to ask: what on earth has being vegetarian got to do with actively consuming kashrut certified products (as the 'Boycott Watch' author claims)?

The solution to this conundrum indicates the ignorance of kashrut displayed the article's author in that they are probably thinking of vegans (not vegetarians) and the kashrut certification of 'Parve' (lit. 'Neutral') meaning that there is no meat or milk in the product.

This unfortunately falls flat on its face as chicken and duck eggs for example are kosher, but are not considered meat or milk. Meaning that a kashrut designation of 'Parve' would be without utility for vegans, because it doesn't mirror their dietary requirements. In fact any vegan trying to do this would end up being a vegetarian in short order due to their consumption of animal-based produce.

We can thus see the 'Boycott Watch' article; which professes intellectual scepticism, shows nothing of the kind and uncritically borrows directly from the ADL pamphlet without attribution. Thus we must dismiss this article as a credible source as it is simply an unattributed rehash of the ADL pamphlet and is thus very misleading to the reader as well as lacking in intellectual rigor.

The other major 'debunker' article is the one at Snopes: the author of which - Barbara Mikkelson - actually understands what Kashrut is (in contrast to most detractors of the Kosher Food Tax thesis). Unfortunately Mikkelson having given a reasonable short summary of the theory and practice involved in kashrut also copies her 'debunking' arguments from the ADL pamphlet.

Compare the following quote from Mikkelson:

'Does certification add to the price of a product? Certainly, but the amount is minuscule, especially compared to the advertising, packaging, shipping, research, testing, admin and finance-related costs, and a myriad of other components that contribute to the process of bring a product to market or making it better appeal to customers.' (7)

To the ADL pamphlet:

'The cost to the consumer for this service is a miniscule fraction of the total production overhead; it is so negligible in practical terms as to be virtually non-existent.'

Now clearly Mikkelson is simply taking what the ADL pamphlet says verbatim and then rewording it into a sceptical summary.

To highlight the points of comparison to be aware of: we need to note the use of the term 'minuscule' by both Mikkelson and the ADL article in relation to the costs born by the firm which is suggestive in itself, but when Mikkelson talks of the other costs of production. We can see clearly that she is simply paraphrasing the ADL pamphlet's claim about the kashrut costs being a 'minuscule fraction of the total production overhead' or in other words a tiny amount compared to all the other costs associated with production of a good (i.e., what Mikkelson states).

We can thus see that Mikkelson is drawing directly from the ADL's pamphlet and as with the 'Boycott Watch' article, she doesn't attribute that that is where she is getting her 'facts' from.

Mikkelson also gets the other central paragraph (i.e., the intellectual core of her 'debunk') of her Snopes article on the subject directly from the ADL pamphlet when she states thus:

'Those seeking kosher certification for their products have to adhere to kosher practices through the manufacturing process, use only kosher ingredients, and have their facilities regularly vetted by qualified inspectors. Kosher certification companies do charge for this service, which is the backbone of the “secret tax” claim – it costs money to obtain and maintain kosher certification, thus this is an extra expense a manufacturer must bear if he's determined upon having that certification. Where the rumor and reality part ways, however, is where the money goes. Fees paid to kosher certification companies go to keeping those businesses afloat with the profits siphoned off by those companies' owners; they do not flow off into some special Jewish fund used to advance Zionist causes.'

Compare this to the ADL pamphlet:

'The UOJC is one of several groups that maintain such a kosher inspection service, certifying foods and related products to be in compliance with Jewish dietary laws through all phases of production. The profit from these products goes, of course, to the companies that manufacture them and the stores that sell them, not to "the Jews."'

We can clearly see in the above passages that Mikkelson - like the author of the 'Boycott Watch' article - is using the ADL pamphlet as an non-referenced source and factual crib. Mikkelson has simply once again reworded the ADL's paragraph rather than make an original argument. We can see that like the ADL pamphlet she talks of the kosher inspection service and then proceeds to near enough quote the ADL's claim that the profit goes to companies not the jewish community.

Once again Mikkelson - like the author of the 'Boycott Watch' article - changes the ADL's preferred terminology of 'the jews' to 'Zionist causes' - directly parallel to the 'Boycott Watch' article's use of 'Israel' - in her statement, but once again the meaning is exactly the same.

Thus one can see that Mikkelson has; apart from giving a reasonable summary of the theory and practice involved in kashrut, actually copies without mention or citation the ADL's pamphlet on the subject.

Thus - like the article at 'Boycott Watch' - we must dismiss Mikkelson's article at Snopes as it offers no original argument against the Kosher Food Tax thesis and simply uncritically repeats the claims the of the ADL's pamphlet without any apparent factual check or critical examination whatsoever.

From this we can now see that one of the problems with scepticism - certainly as an intellectual label anyway - is that it is too often used in the vein of how the term 'scientist' was utilized from the nineteenth century to mid-late twentieth century. In so far as it is a catch-all self-identification with rationality and having a large amount of evidence, but it does not necessarily invoke the rigorous intellectual method that both science (repeatable empirical evidence) and scepticism (the minimalist interpretation accounting for all of the evidence) have at their core.

Instead the term 'sceptic' - like the term 'scientist' - is used as a positive rhetorical characterisation (in most cases as it can and is used sometimes as a negative characterisation) to claim by implied extension that the assertion made inevitably flow from the most stringent of all intellectual methodologies available.

In essence as we have seen with 'Boycott Watch' and Mikkelson; the profession of scepticism is often simply an intellectual smokescreen to hide a lack of originality and conclusions made a priori.

After all can we to assume that an honest and non-partisan researcher would all but quote the ADL's pamphlet without citing or mentioning (let alone showing due criticality to its claims)?

The fact that the author of the 'Boycott Watch' article and Barbara Mikkelson did what they did speaks volumes I think!

References

(1) http://www.adl.org/special_reports/kosher_tax/print.asp

(2) A great example is: http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/koshertax1.htm

(3) http://www.adl.org/special_reports/kosher_tax/print.asp

(4) http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/koshertax1.htm

(5) http://www.snopes.com/racial/business/kosher.asp