I would like to provide some nuance to the three CJN columnists – Jean Gerber, Daniel Held and Yoni Goldstein – who have recently addressed the need for ethical considerations in kashrut supervision.

To summarize the issue briefly: Agriprocessors, the largest producer of kosher meat in North America, was raided in May by U.S. immigration officials, and close to 400 workers were arrested, jailed and charged with immigration violations. It was the largest immigration raid in U.S. history. In addition to employing illegal immigrants, the Postville, Iowa-based company was alleged to have violated various labour laws in its treatment of its workers.

In the aftermath of the raid, the Orthodox Union, the OU, was questioned as to how it could provide kosher supervision to a company that violated basic ethical standards in the treatment of its workers. Calls were made to form a kashrut supervisory agency that would only give hechshers to companies that also passed certain ethical standards.

I agree with these sentiments, but disagree with the proposals.

For one thing, the OU and every other supervising agency have protocols for dealing with non-kashrut-related issues. If Agriprocessors is found to have been aware of the illegal immigrants and to have violated labour laws, then the OU ought to use its protocols to determine the conditions of its kosher supervision.

Secondly, there are mitzvot that govern the ethical behaviour of workers, as well as the behaviour of employers toward workers. There are also mitzvot that govern personal ethical behaviour. We should all be honest. We should pay our taxes honestly. We should maintain the laws of our country. We shouldn’t hire nannies or housekeepers who are illegal immigrants. We should not pay for things in cash when we know the vendor wants to avoid taxes. We should be polite, kind, generous, pleasant and honest.

That’s a pretty big job, but it’s our personal obligation.

The issues concerning Agriprocessors are not personal. They involve the question of how we can use our economic leverage to bring about changes in big business – and specifically, how can a kashrut supervisory agency use its leverage to ensure that a company’s practices are kosher before stamping its food as kosher?

In other words, we are asking the OU to use its leverage –its muscle – to achieve a broader good.

The sentiment is fine – to predicate kosher supervision on kosher business practices. However, the process is inherently flawed, dangerous and, to my mind, to be avoided in the extreme.

Let’s examine this idea. Why not use kashrut supervision to leverage compliance with other mitzvot? After all, ethical treatment of workers is not the only mitzvah in the Torah. Why use leverage only for that particular mitzvah?

What other mitzvot of the Torah are important? How about Shabbat? Let’s say a family wants to have supervised kosher bat mitzvah lunch on Shabbat. The hosts are not observant of Shabbat and gather the family for pictures at lunch. Should the Kashruth Council of Canada (which oversees the COR hechsher) state in its contract not only that the food should be kosher, but that Shabbat must be observed by the hosts?

And what about the entertainment? What if there are scantily clad female dancers? This is sexist and demeaning to women. Should the Kashruth Council state in its contract that the entertainment must also be “kosher”? It could thereby leverage its service to avoid having women being demeaned.

Take gambling. Perhaps the Kashruth Council should not give supervision to a bar mitzvah event where the theme is gambling, thus leveraging its service to avoid guests developing a possible life-ruining addiction.

It doesn’t make sense to pick only one mitzvah out of so many and predicate the kosher supervision of the food on ethical business practices alone.

I personally don’t want the Kashruth Council using its leverage as a tool to dictate to me the type of event I want. If we want it to use its leverage to achieve better working conditions, why stop there? Workers’ rights are not the only mitzvah in the Torah. Maybe we should use our leverage to deal with other weighty issues – such as Shabbat, the treatment of women and gambling.

I think the notion of using leverage to force companies to treat workers fairly is not prudent and will create an inappropriate use of coercion in other areas as well. By the way, these are not simply theoretical possibilities. These have all been discussed by the Kashruth Council, which has taken the principled position that it will not dictate behaviours, but rather will only supervise kashrut.

My other objection is in the area of leverage in general. Why has the issue of ethics become the responsibility of the OU alone, and why has it been linked to its supervision of one company? We as consumers have every right to use our own economic leverage. If we care about the ethical treatment of employees, we ought to demand that our shuls ascertain that the cleaning companies they employ hire only legal immigrants and that the cleaners work reasonable hours. And we should demand the same of our shul caterers and office suppliers, and so on.

And perhaps we shouldn’t shop at Wal-Mart, since it blocks unions. And maybe we shouldn’t have watched the Olympics and supported a regime that is totalitarian and restricts freedoms. Or perhaps we shouldn’t buy items made in China, or products made by Coca-Cola, a sponsor of the Olympics. And perhaps we should require these embargoes of our shuls and schools as well.

So, let me summarize:

• I believe in ethics – we should all act personally with the highest of ethical behaviour.

• I believe that the use of leverage by kashrut agencies is a bad idea. Leveraging one mitzvah – ethics – invites leveraging in other areas. Let kashrut agencies supervise kashrut, and kashrut alone.

• Let’s be consistent with how we use our economic leverage. While kashrut agencies should avoid using leverage, we as consumers ought to use our own leverage. We should be consistent in avoiding businesses that employ illegal immigrants, that treat workers unfairly, that block unions (if we feel that doing so hurts workers) and that support totalitarian regimes.

I agree with Yoni Goldstein’s conclusion: let’s seize the awareness of ethics that the Agriprocessors case has brought to our attention. Ethical behaviour is a lifelong pursuit that needs constant reinforcement. Rather than pointing the finger at the OU to do our ethical posturing for us, we ought to take personal responsibility to increase our personal ethical behaviour. Let the OU supervise the kashrut of the food, and let the OU respond appropriately if illegal activities are discovered in the companies it supervises. And let’s personally take the initiative in using economic leverage at the grassroots level as a way to effect changes in big business and totalitarian regimes.

Rabbi Reuven Tradburks is spiritual leader of Kehillat Shaarei Torah and a member of The CJN’s advisory board.