I was just browsing the internet and came upon a website where Muslims were discussing what chips and snack foods they can and cannot eat, due to some chips and snacks using pork enzymes in the ingredients.
They were saying that in Middle Eastern countries some of our brands use halal ingredients that aren't halal here in the US.
I suppose my question is this- some Muslims want the US to change our snack ingredients to be halal. Should we do this? Should we stop using pork enzymes?
I think if companies want to address that niche of the market by making food that doesn't have pork enzymes, then more power to them! But I don't think they should be forced to make these changes, any more than they should be forced to offer kosher foods.
Clear labeling of ingredients is and should be the law. It's our responsibility to read the labels and make informed decisions.
If Muslims want to invest in companies that meet the dietary needs and demands of other Muslims, more power to 'em. Heck, I might buy some of their goods as well -if they're good quality and competitively priced.
If a company wants to profit from that niche in the market, then they'll produce products for it.
It's no different than companies producing kosher products. There is a lot that goes into it; not only do you have identify every ingredient, but the equipment and facilities must be regularly inspected and certified and the whole process is supervised by the certifying agency.
But it is a specific market that has proven profitable to many companies that have chosen to make products for it.
It is down to the market.
what ever the market demands someone will supply.
I can not remember a time when there were not Jewish food shops.
That does not mean every one had to sell kosher foods.
Round here there are plenty of halal butchers, grocery stores and wholesalers because there are enough Muslims to support them. Just as there are west Indian specialist vegetable and ingredient shops. Even the supermarkets supply a wide range of special foods.
Some areas already have a majority of Muslims, so they are well catered for.
There is absolutely no need to change everyones food.
I think if the demand is there, the market should deliver. The only caveat is that all products should be clearly marked as conforming to given rules. For example, if some animal was butchered using halal methods, it should say so right on the package/menu. Ditto Kosher, etc...
I assume that if a person can't eat, say, beef because of their religious beliefs, they still won't be able to eat halal or kosher beef, but I'm not sure how a particular type of food could be rendered "inedible" to another religion just by having it prepared in accordance with halal/kosher rules.
I think if the demand is there, the market should deliver. The only caveat is that all products should be clearly marked as conforming to given rules. For example, if some animal was butchered using halal methods, it should say so right on the package/menu. Ditto Kosher, etc...
Actually, this raises an interesting point: given a choice between halal or kosher meat and "standard" meat, I'd normally avoid the halal or kosher option, since in the halal/kosher method, the animals aren't stunned before they're killed.
That's because the method of killing is specifically designed to be pain-reducing. Butchers stun animals because the most common method of killing them is pain-producing. Cheap, but pain producing nonetheless.
I know that if some of my favorite products became less tasty just to humor some small group's religious whims I wouldn't be too happy about it. The local grocery stores each have a whole isle dedicated to halal and kosher foods, so they aren't without alternatives.
I'm not so sure about that, and there are other problems with common kosher slaughtering practices:
In North America some kosher slaughter plants use very stressful methods of restraint such as shackling and hoisting fully conscious cattle by one rear leg.
Observations of the first author indicate that cattle restrained in this manner often struggle and bellow and the rear leg is bruised. Bruises or injures caused by the restraint methods (or from any other cause) would be objectionable to observant Jews. In Europe, the use of casting pens which invert cattle onto their backs completely mask reactions to the throat cut. Cattle resist inversion and twist their necks in an attempt to right their heads. Earlier versions of the Weinberg casting pen are more stressful than an upright restraint device (Dunn 1992).
Also, there may be differences between the rules of kashrut and how things actually happen in a "kosher" slaughterhouse:
Ritual slaughtermen must be trained in knife sharpening. Shochets have been observed using a dull knife. They carefully obeyed the religious requirements of having a smooth, nick-free knife, but they had failed to keep it sharp.
I realize that many of these problems can be reduced or eliminated with better practices, but we can never be sure that the whole process will be perfect, and when problems occur (which they will), the lack of stunning makes things worse, IMO.
I realize that many of these problems can be reduced or eliminated with better practices, but we can never be sure that the whole process will be perfect, and when problems occur (which they will), the lack of stunning makes things worse, IMO.
All of those things are things which would be problems for Orthodox Jews. In general, it is a worry that many must worry about. The way animals are slaughtered should be a concern for observant non-Jews as well because we are not allowed to eat meat that was taken from the animal while it was alive. So if the animal was alive at all, then we may not eat it.
I would say that in the ideal, though, Kosher meat is slaughtered much more humanely than non-Kosher meat.
Another suggestion given earlier was one I am not entirely opposed to, the veggie option. It does take away a lot of the concern and problems one may face as vegetables and fruits are Kosher so long as they do not contain insects.
I realize that, and I'm not the most fit person in the world myself, but it's silly to place all of the responsibility regarding our own health on the shoulders of the government.
I assume that if a person can't eat, say, beef because of their religious beliefs, they still won't be able to eat halal or kosher beef, but I'm not sure how a particular type of food could be rendered "inedible" to another religion just by having it prepared in accordance with halal/kosher rules.
Yes, by all, I meanall halal and kosher food. Not just beef. Chicken, lamb, turkey, whatever. No go.
One of the four acts of apostasy in Sikhism is the consumption of meat that has been slaughtered in a ritualized manner towards the Deity. Generally, it is as considered superstitious to prepare meat in a ritualized way thinking it is religiously ordained, and also considered unnecessarily cruel to what is a cruel enough act already.
In fact, it is considered such a sin that it is one of four sins that make an Amritdhari (Baptised) Sikh a patit, one who has deliberately turned away from Sikhism's teachings and is therefore no longer considered to be practising Sikhism. The only way for them to become Amritdhari again is to confess their wrongdoing in front of the Sikh community, and perform menial chores for some time (cleaning the worshipper's shoes, helping in the free kitchen, and so on) before they can go and take the Baptism Ceremony once more. It is also one of the acts that even Sehajdhari (Slow-Adopting, non-Baptised, hair-cutting Sikhs) will still not consume this "kutha" meat unless they are the most lax of Sikhs.
Many Hindus where I live consider the consumption of halal meat to be a sin, even if they consume meat ordinarily, because it has been made to suffer unnecessarily.
Traditional Hindu and Sikh meat consumption is jhatka. This is where the animal is beheaded with a heavy axe to reduce the suffering given to it. Since Western meat requires stunning, thereby killing the animal instantaneously, most Sikhs and Hindus in the West who eat meat are okay with Western-industry style killed meat.
The general idea I have come across is: if you're going to eat meat, at least try to make it as quick and painless on the animal as possible for it to die. Slitting its throat is not considered quick or painless. I have seen the "studies" that have claimed halal and kosher slaughter stops them feeling pain, and I've seen other studies claiming otherwise. I side with the others.
So, yes. Why should this style of meat be effectively forced upon Hindus and Sikhs, and others, who do not wish and in many cases cannot eat it?
It wouldn't be necessary to change anything. If manufacturers thought it would be worth their while to start producing products minus the pork enzymes, they could just add a new line.
Personally I would not mind removing the pork enzymes from like snack foods and things. It wouldn't be the first time snack food recipes have been modified, and I doubt it'd change the taste much. To my understanding that is the only issue with the snack foods to Muslims is the pork based ingredients.
Is there some reason we shouldn't remove the pork enzymes as a courtesy to our fellow man, so to speak?
I think it would be more courteous not to expect others to make sacrifices for arbitrary reasons. When you choose to live by a certain rule, you also accept the downsides that may come with it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
