Postville, IA - Response From Agriprocessors To NY Times - PETA Claim Of Law Prohibiting Second Cut A Simple Lie

Dear Julia:

I was terribly disappointed in your piece this morning that included a quote from me, which makes me wonder whether the sense of fairness you tried to display in your previous piece was somehow missing here.

For starters, there are several inaccuracies: You write: “Under the regulations, a “second cut” in an animal’s throat can be made only in exceptional cases by rabbis or under their supervision. These cuts are sometimes made to speed blood flow from the animals.” There is nothing in the regulations that mentions exceptional cases and in fact if you had read the regulations, you would see a blanket permission for the second cut.

Here are the Direct quotes from the regulations on the subject of a second cut:Inspection program personnel are to verify that after the ritual slaughter cut and any additional cut to facilitate bleeding, no dressing procedure (e.g., head skinning, leg removal, ear removal, horn removal, opening hide patterns), is performed until the animal is insensible.

Inspection program personnel are not to interfere in any manner with the preparation of the animal for ritual slaughter, including the positioning of the animal, or the ritual slaughter cut and any additional cut to facilitate bleeding.

Secondly: Whoever told you that Agriprocessors agreed to suspend the second cut when it was never demanded of them and the procedure continues?

Third: You conveniently omitted my quote that the second cut in fact only hastens the elimination of any pain or suffering, if there is any?

Finally, this story would have been more appropriate to point out that PETA’s activities were illegal and that the USDA used the strong term that Agriprocessors is “in full compliance.” Why not tell the truth?

Menachem Lubinsky
President & CEO, LUBICOM Marketing Consulting, which represents Agriprocessors and
Editor-in-Chief, Kosher Today