The recent decision by the Orthodox Union to withhold kosher certification from Impossible Foods’ newest product, Impossible Pork, has sparked no shortage of discussion in the kosher (and halal) world. Impossible Pork, like its predecessor, the Impossible Burger, is completely plant-based and vegan; the Orthodox Union acknowledged that its decision was based not on ingredients, but rather on “sensitivities to the consumer“. Rabbi Menachem Genack, the CEO of the Orthodox Union’s kosher division, recalled that a previous attempt to certify a kosher “bacon” resulted in a deluge of “calls from consumers who either don’t get it or they’re uncomfortable with it”.
Kosher consumers themselves, however, were split on their feelings about the decision. The Shalom Hartman Institute’s David Zvi Kalman calls the OU move “[a] first, tentative step towards a stance on technological innovation that desperately needs to become more common”, a “fight back against the cultural unmooring that the present onslaught of new technology continues to cause”. On the other hand, one Pittsburgh-area Chabad rabbi said that he “absolutely would” try the new product, were it to be certified (Beyond Meat has a similar offering, Beyond Sausage, which is also geared towards pork-abstinent consumers).
I agree wholeheartedly with the stance that the OU’s ruling is a ruling on technological innovation. The OU is undoubtedly drawing its own line in the sand, saying that products which too closely resemble non-kosher meat should be forbidden, regardless of their origin. By this reasoning, a completely synthetic pork substitute would also not receive an OU hechsher. The OU position is perfectly valid, and millions of observant consumers will undoubtedly hold by their decision. Indeed, Jewish social media is rife with comments from people for whom “pork” – of any kind, whether vegan or not – is unwelcome in their homes. No amount of soy would make such a product palatable to such a consumer.
The people clamoring for Impossible Pork’s certification, however, are not necessarily such consumers. As the JTA notes, this is not the first time the OU has withheld kosher certification for reasons other than food: the OU required a Manhattan restaurant “Jezebel” to change its name in 2013. The consumers whose “sensitivities” render a “Jezebel” restaurant unpalatable are not necessarily the same consumers who put Impossible Burger into their mac and cheese. While an “OU” symbol on Impossible Pork may tarnish the brand in the eyes of some consumers, the OU’s refusal to certify Impossible Pork is tarnishing the brand – and the brand of Orthodoxy in general – in the eyes of other consumers.
Instead of lamenting “cultural unmooring”, should we not be calling to leverage technology to serve as many consumers who wish to keep kosher as possible? A blanket prohibition here tells one set of kosher consumers that “it’s not enough to refrain from pork, shellfish, and mixtures of meat and dairy, etc.,” – they must also patronize brands that adhere to a set of extra-alimentary “moral” considerations which may be arbitrary or based on brand perception, designed to cater to a separate set of consumers. Withholding kosher certification because of the word “pork” or the word “Jezebel” allows the skeptical consumer to wonder if non-kosher products are “actually” non-kosher, or if it “really isn’t about the food”. It empowers the person who keeps “ingredient kosher” (basing a product’s kashrut solely on ingredients) – do they have the same “sensitivities” as the people who require something be excluded?
Technology like blockchain could allow for all supervision data to be made indelibly, immutably available to all interested consumers. What is “continuous supervision” (mashgiach temidi) in the age of the Internet of Things? Should local rabbinical courts and regional rabbinical councils not be more empowered to lead their communities in kashrut, communities which may be able to benefit from an Impossible Pork or a Beyond Sausage? Leveraging the immutable, permanent blockchain, or continuous real-time IoT data, could provide a backbone of trust for newer, smaller, or independent certification agencies.
(Also, for Jews of Color, some of whom come from families whose “family recipes” contain pork as a staple, could Impossible Pork contribute to family harmony for converts and those newly observant?)
The decision to forbid Impossible Pork is not necessarily a bad call on the part of the OU – but this also is a perfect opportunity for a smaller certification organization to step in here, or to turn the hashgacha industry on its head. Unlike Israel, America does not have a Chief Rabbinate to answer to. In America, the lack of such governmental control presents an opportunity: independent rabbinical courts and organizations could much more easily provide supervision for observant consumers here, with unprecedented data transparency and permanence.
Perhaps this is the time for more supervision to be done, and standards to be set, from inside local and regional communities, with less dictates from national organizations who may be driven by business and branding concerns beyond any local community’s scope. Maybe this is the time to move control into the hands of smaller organizations. Maybe this is the time to decentralize kashrut.
