The symbol of the Halal Certification Authority Australia

[Weatsop]

Yes I would. Where there is a financial relationship between the certifying authority and the applicant there is a much higher likelihood of bribery than there is via a government department.

Would you prefer a privatised police force ? Not that bribery doesn't occur in the police but if it was privatised there would be a lot less scrutiny.



How would the consumer know if the Authority does no checking ?

The old RSPCA certification for eggs got knocked on the head, didn't it, when people found out they weren't checking properly...?

Plenty of people will cheerfully blow the whistle on something like that, and the small cost / small (but a bit bigger) profit nature of that sort of thing would, I'd think, keep people reasonably honest, just because having your brand associated with dodginess is probably just not worth it.

Personally, I'm with you - any of that stuff should involve a fee to a government certification agency, rather than a company, with nice open books and auditing.

But it's a pretty damn minor issue, I would have thought, when in THIS case we have an Australian company being hit over the head with what is, in effect, bigotry.

 

[luutzu]

Yeah, it's best not to think about it.

My policy is: I don't eat anything that has a face. Recognisable body parts are definitely a point against, but faces are right out.

Seriously do not understand high-end seafood. Why the hell is the fish's head still on, and why is the crab meat still inside the bloody crab?! Am I not paying you enough to fully prepare the food, so you need to make me do half the job?

I do not want my food looking at me. Prawns... they look so accusing.

My brother is like you, he just wouldn't eat anything he can't cut off with knife and fork.

Speaking of face or body parts... on our wedding ceremony, part of tradition is there have to be a BBQ-ed suckling pig - the whole pig minus internals. The face, the ears all the way to its curly tail, four legs with hoofs still on them. Fark. Tastes good though.

 

[Julia]

W
T
F?

NOT EVERYONE ON EARTH IS LIKE YOU.
Who the hell are you people to tell other people what they should or should not eat??? How is it any of your god-damned business? And what in holy HELL does the stuff people eat have the SLIGHTEST thing to do with terrorism?

Ugh. Just... ugh.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean liking everything. You don't need to tolerate things you like. Tolerance means recognising that plenty of people will do things you don't like, but you need to get over yourself, and if it doesn't hurt anyone, then just get on with your life and not make theirs harder.

I didn't see wysiwyg's comments as telling anyone what they should or should not eat. Just his own declaration that he would not be purchasing anything with Halal certification. That's his right, isn't it? Hard to see why you need to respond so aggressively or tell anyone that they should 'get over themselves'.

Just as you're entitled to your view, so are others to theirs.

Tolerance also applies to accepting simply that others might have different views to yours. not just that they should necessarily be obliged to like something because you say they should.

It's economics, not ideology. You're the ones taking issue with a non-issue, not Muslims imposing anything.

Agree that it's economics, but if someone sees it through their own view of any particular ideology, and wishes to avoid that product, that's probably what's OK for them.

PS I almost never eat meat but have to admit to a weakness for good pork crackling. Best I ever had was that on a roasted pig's head. I did need to get the butcher to remove the eye, however.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I didn't see wysiwyg's comments as telling anyone what they should or should not eat. Just his own declaration that he would not be purchasing anything with Halal certification. That's his right, isn't it? Hard to see why you need to respond so aggressively or tell anyone that they should 'get over themselves'.

Just as you're entitled to your view, so are others to theirs.

Tolerance also applies to accepting simply that others might have different views to yours. not just that they should necessarily be obliged to like something because you say they should.


Agree that it's economics, but if someone sees it through their own view of any particular ideology, and wishes to avoid that product, that's probably what's OK for them.

PS I almost never eat meat but have to admit to a weakness for good pork crackling. Best I ever had was that on a roasted pig's head. I did need to get the butcher to remove the eye, however.

I do not have a problem with Halal Certification as long as I'm not paying for it when I buy food.

A reasonable answer to the kerfuffle would be for the Halal Certification Authorities to PAY the Food Manufacturers or Farmers for the certification, out of revenue from other activities.

That seems fair and reasonable to me.

gg

 

[herzy]

I didn't see wysiwyg's comments as telling anyone what they should or should not eat. Just his own declaration that he would not be purchasing anything with Halal certification.

That's his right, isn't it? Hard to see why you need to respond so aggressively or tell anyone that they should 'get over themselves'.

Just as you're entitled to your view, so are others to theirs.

Tolerance also applies to accepting simply that others might have different views to yours. not just that they should necessarily be obliged to like something because you say they should.


Agree that it's economics, but if someone sees it through their own view of any particular ideology, and wishes to avoid that product, that's probably what's OK for them.

Yes, that's his right. And even if I find it ridiculous that he's bothered by it, it's his right.

That said, he went beyond that when he started getting outraged that companies would pander to religious minorities. I think that comes not only from a place of xenophobia, but also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation (i.e., economics). It's that that I object to.

Couldn't care less what he purchases.

 

[herzy]

I do not have a problem with Halal Certification as long as I'm not paying for it when I buy food.

A reasonable answer to the kerfuffle would be for the Halal Certification Authorities to PAY the Food Manufacturers or Farmers for the certification, out of revenue from other activities.

That seems fair and reasonable to me.

gg

These companies aren't doing it because they have to. They're paying for it because it makes commercial sense. Luutzu explained it quite well.

Like all the other labelings mentioned above (heart smart, free range, dolphin free, fair trade, etc), these are largely things the company pays for because it makes sense to do so (and thereby gives you cheaper products).

Not really. If producers could sell more, chances are they would lower prices. So without a Halal certification, Muslims wouldn't buy it, leads to less sales, could lead to higher prices to make up the margin.

But if it wouldn't, if the price is too high still, then you don't have to buy it. The producers would consider what is beneficial, losing you or losing the Muslims and others who don't care about it. Capitalism, its only colour is green, as the Americans would say.

Yea, trust the producers to certify their own products. Don't there will be enough gold stars to go around.


Thinking about it, I think I'll start to look for Halal and Kosher food. Beats eating meat product filled with pink slime - you know, the bits of meat left on bones and cartilages that's then boiled, chemically treated, spun and then ooze out at the end to be filler in most meat products.

 

[SirRumpole]

These companies aren't doing it because they have to. They're paying for it because it makes commercial sense. Luutzu explained it quite well.

So people are being held hostage by vested interests. What I want to know is who guards the guards ?

What assurance is there that the consumers are getting what they think they are getting ? Maybe there should be a law that if some banned substance is found in a certified food then the certifier can be sued or not allowed to certify any more.

If people are paid money to certify a product, the onus is on them to ensure compliance.

 

[herzy]

So people are being held hostage by vested interests. What I want to know is who guards the guards ? What assurance is there that the consumers are getting what they think they are getting ? Maybe there should be a law that if some banned substance is found in a certified food then the certifyer can be sued or not allowed to certify any more.

If people are paid money to certify a product, the onus is on them to ensure compliance.

LOL

Are bakeries held hostage to provide gluten free bread?

As for assurances... The ACCC, consumers and perhaps the market? Some certifications are quite reputable, others aren't.

There is a law for that. It's called Misleading and Deceptive Conduct (among others) under Australian Consumer Law.

 

[SirRumpole]

There is a law for that. It's called Misleading and Deceptive Conduct (among others) under Australian Consumer Law.

So who gets sued, the suppliers or the certification agency ?

 

[Wysiwyg]

Yes, that's his right. And even if I find it ridiculous that he's bothered by it, it's his right.

That said, he went beyond that when he started getting outraged that companies would pander to religious minorities. I think that comes not only from a place of xenophobia, but also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation (i.e., economics). It's that that I object to.

Couldn't care less what he purchases.

Nuh. It's the affiliation with a religious group that I reject. Never seen it before anywhere in Australia but accept I may have been unknowingly exposed to this halal dogma. I accept the food and drug authorities of Australia which are non-religious to monitor and approve what food and drink is allowed.

I completely reject the religious affiliation these companies have made for financial gain. I care f'n not about Muslim dietary issues, dietary issues spawned of their religious scripture. The companies affiliated with the Islamic religion in Australia are off my list of products I purchase.

 

[SirRumpole]

They don't impose it, Manufacturers that meet the standard can request to have their product labelled as halal, The reason they do this is to market their products to those 400,000 people and the millions more in export markets.

So you are justifying the religious certification of food in one breath, while huffing and puffing on other threads about the evils of religion ?

I find that just a little hypocritical.

Surely one of the evils of religion is to enslave people to their ideas of what is good to eat or not, based not on nutritional criteria, but on some weird archaic teachings ?

We don't need multiple certification agencies holding their hands out for money, we just need government regulations of what should and shouldn't go into foods on nutritional grounds.

 

[Value Collector]

So you are justifying the religious certification of food in one breath, while huffing and puffing on other threads about the evils of religion ?

.

Yes, Because in a country that support religious freedom, which I also am a firm believer in, there is nothing wrong with having a private company get their products certified to show they meet certain standards.

I find that just a little hypocritical.

Why?

Surely one of the evils of religion is to enslave people to their ideas of what is good to eat or not, based not on nutritional criteria, but on some weird archaic teachings ?

Humane treatment of animals is not a teaching I wish to protest.

As for enslaving people to beliefs, I will protest the indoctrination of children, I will protest people being forced to stay in a religion through threats of violence against apostasy etc, etc I will openly debate the validity of the religion with anyone who wants to make claims it is real etc.

But I won't stop people practicing it as long as they are not harming anyone or infringing on the rights of others.

We don't need multiple certification agencies holding their hands out for money, we just need government regulations of what should and shouldn't go into foods on nutritional grounds

It's a free market, we can have as many certification agencies as we like, nutritional grounds are different, there are many groups that have sorts of reasons to care about ingredients other than nutritional, If your products met their requirements, then advertising to them makes business sense,

a 5 years certification, costs less than 1 prime time TV advertising spot lasting 20seconds. It seems like value to me.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am also in favour of the free market, I see nothing wrong with private companies marketing their produce to whom ever they want.

Marketing is one thing, commercial extortion is another. The fact that producers have to pay an external agency to say their product is suitable for a certain group of people is just a roundabout way of religion imposing itself on the free market. The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation.

What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ? If the consumer is not happy that the product satisfies the description, then they can take the supplier to court like anyone else.

the closest I have come to giving any praise to Islam, is on there early adoption of humane treatment of animals, that's it, nothing else.

It may have escaped your notice but the entire live cattle export trade to Indonesia (a Muslim country) was shut down due to their mistreatment of animals.

 

[Value Collector]

Marketing is one thing, commercial extortion is another. The fact that producers have to pay an external agency to say their product is suitable for a certain group of people is just a roundabout way of religion imposing itself on the free market. .

They don't "have to" do it, no one forces them to do it. If they wanted they could probably just write it on there themselves, But it always is going to look better when it comes from an independent body who the members concerned trust.

for example, in the early 90's It became a big thing in the media that Tuna fishing was killing dolphins, and people who were concerned about that started avoiding eating tuna.

But not all fishing methods killed dolphins, getting the world wildlife fund to come and check your operations, and allow you to say "Dolphin safe, world wildlife fund approved" gives you a lot more creditability than just saving "trust us, we don't hurt dolphins"

It's not extortion.

The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation.

Provide me one example of a private company being forced to get certification.

What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ?

They can do that if they like, but it would be less credible to a Muslim consumer than a certification from a company they trust.

Just like sunglasses or sun screen that says "Cancer Council approved"

 

[SirRumpole]

They don't "have to" do it, no one forces them to do it. If they wanted they could probably just write it on there themselves, But it always is going to look better when it comes from an independent body who the members concerned trust.

Independent body ?

Independent means that there is no financial or other relationship between the two parties. If the certifying authority receives licence fees from a company, how keen are they going to be to wipe that company's certification for non compliance ? How keen will they even be to do any testing ?Hush it all up and the consumers will never know any difference, we'll just take your money thanks.

OK , great for a "feel good" feeling for the consumers and a market for producers , but practically useless in terms of genuine consumer protection.

But it always is going to look better when it comes from an independent body who the members concerned trust.

If they can't trust our country's laws and compliance regimes, they shouldn't be here in the first place.

 

[Value Collector]

Independent body ?

Independent means that there is no financial or other relationship between the two parties. If the certifying authority receives licence fees from a company,.

Independent - 1, free from outside control; not subject to another's authority.

this is how I am using it.

how keen are they going to be to wipe that company's certification for non compliance ? How keen will they even be to do any testing ?Hush it all up and the consumers will never know any difference, we'll just take your money thanks.

Is that really the point your worried about?

It's in the certification bodies interests to do the job correctly, because if the public loses faith in the accreditation, the producers wont want it, so will stop paying.

If they can't trust our country's laws and compliance regimes, they shouldn't be here in the first place

Australia has no laws requiring food to be halal, and I wouldn't want there to be those laws.

so in a market where some products are and some aren't, what's wrong with labelling.

they shouldn't be here in the first place

would you say the same thing to a Scottish immigrant who chose cancer council approved sun screen for his pale skin instead of another sun screen.

This sort of comment is when I wonder what your true problem with it is, It starts to get xenophobic when the comments like this come out.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's in the certification bodies interests to do the job correctly, because if the public loses faith in the accreditation, the producers wont want it, so will stop paying.

What the public doesn't know won't hurt them, so really the CA doesn't have any incentive to do testing as long as they get their fees.

Australia has no laws requiring food to be halal, and I wouldn't want there to be those laws.

Not the point I was making. If producers want to label their products suitable for Muslims without paying for Halal certification, their are laws in place (misleading advertising) that allow action to be taken against them if their claims are not true.

This sort of comment is when I wonder what your true problem with it is, It starts to get xenophobic when the comments like this come out.

Well that's just a straw man. In case you haven't got the idea, what I have said could apply to ANY certifying agency not just Halal.

The essential point I'm making is that the relationship between a certifying agency and a supplier is not arms length, and not independent, there is a financial relationship which allows for bribery and or negligence and the consumer has little chance of finding out.

 

[luutzu]

...

This sort of comment is when I wonder what your true problem with it is, It starts to get xenophobic when the comments like this come out.

VC, you're a very smart guy. But you can be slow sometime. haha

 

[Calliope]

Hooray VC, now have flushed out another xenophobe. I guess you apply the xenophobe label to all those who don't agree with you on all things Islamic.

 

[luutzu]

Hooray VC, now have flushed out another xenophobe. I guess you apply the xenophobe label to all those who don't agree with you on all things Islamic.

You'd guessed wrong.

I really don't know why people would have problems with Halal or Kosher certified food. It doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make nutritional or ethical sense either.

It seem some of us have a problem with it because it appear like Halal or Kosher food require some magic Islamic or Jewish ingredient, and if they're neither Muslim nor Jewish, they'd catch the fanatical bug from it.

Anyway..