Five Towns Chicken Scandal Update

The Jewish Star files another dispatch on the Five Towns chicken controversy I blogged about here and here. Let me begin by saying that the Jewish Star's new editor continues to impress me with his thorough reporting and his clear insistence in following a story - no matter where it might take him, and who in the "establishment" it might annoy. We have a woeful dearth of responsible yet truthful and hard-hitting reporting on issues that pertain to the Orthodox community, so any steps in that direction are welcomed.

On to this week's story. This week's installment of the Five Towns Chicken Saga asks yet more questions that it answers. We learn from the article that Mark Bolender, the owner of Gourmet Glatt, is demanding a retraction from the Empire Kosher Poultry company for their statement in last week's Jewish Star article that some vendors mislabel their chicken deliberately to take advantage of the higher prices Empire's quality and reputation demand. He also disputes the Vaad's claim of last week that the mislabeled chicken that started the whole kerfuffle was actually problematic. The problem is, I can;t figure out what he's claiming as his defense. First, Mr. Bolender claims that the chicken was actually an Empire chicken after all:

The owners of Gourmet Glatt Emporium said they now believe that a one-and-a-half-pound Cornish hen their store was accused of mislabeling may have been an Empire bird after all, deep-frozen months ago, before Empire stopped producing birds of that weight.
...Bolender acknowledged that Empire no longer sold one-and-a-half pound birds. He said he believed the chicken that was the subject of a consumer complaint to Empire and was later found to have been mislabeled actually was made by Empire, and frozen.
"It's possible these hens were from older shipments. I didn't agree with their fundamental findings," Bolender said, referring to the Vaad Hakashrus of the Five Towns and Rockaway.

Okay. So Mr. Bolender seems to claim to have information that would seem to cause him to believe that the chicken that he sold was, in actuality, an Empire chicken, sold by his store after being frozen for over nine months. Fine. That's an intriguing, and seemingly plausible, line of defense. My only real questions with that line of defense are: (a)How does that theory jibe with the fact that last week, a spokesman for Empire was quoted as saying that the chicken was cut in a way that the Empire machines are not capable of producing, and (b)Why did it take Mr. Bolender two weeks (and two extremely damaging news cycles) to come up with this defense?

But that's not all that bothers me. Take a look at the next statement Mr. Bolender makes to the Jewish Star:

Bolender objected to the fact that he had never been offered the opportunity to confront the person who made the original complaint, and had not seen any proof, such as a register receipt, that the chicken was actually purchased in his store.
"I would be ready at any time to face my accuser," he said, "to see my receipt, my label and my alleged product, when it could have been from another store."

So, wait. Mr. Bolender first claims to have an idea of how the type of chicken that Empire says it no longer sells got sold from his store - and then he raises the question of whether it was actually bought at his store? Which is it?

But wait, there's more.

Please remember that in last week's article, Gourmet Glatt was reported to have been caught in two instances of mislabeling of chickens. So Mr. Bolender addresses the other, evidently indisputable case of mislabeling by his store, which was caught by the Vaad during a surprise inspection:

He said the other chicken believed to have been mislabeled was stored in his freezer at home, following its discovery by Rabbi Eisen.
Twenty-five thousand different packages came out of the Gourment Glatt meat room over the holiday season. Bolender said he strives for 100 percent accuracy, but acknowledged that mistakes will happen.
"We're human," he said.

Um, so, again? Which is it? Was the chicken in actuality a frozen Empire chicken, was it actually a chicken sold at another store, or was it a human error that could happen to anyone? I have no judgement as to whether any of the defenses presented by Mr. Bolender are true, but I do know that the triple lines of defense are confusing and seem contradictory. If I were him, I would try to pick a story and stick to it.

Moving on to another big question raised by Mr. Bolender's defense - but not, in this case, a Kashrut question. The frozen and thawed chicken claim:

Deep-freezing meat and poultry is a common industry practice, done to avoid supply interruptions, Bolender explained. Small notices in his meat and poultry cases alert customers that while most of what the store sells is fresh, some chickens and certain cuts of meat have been frozen to 15 degrees below zero, then carefully thawed and offered for sale at times of great demand. He said that when done properly, such freezing had no impact on taste.

First, on a note specific to Gourmet Glatt. I'm not sure how "small" the "small signs" that are claimed to have always been posted in Gourmet Glatt's refrigerator cases notifying customers that meat may have been frozen and thawed are, but they must be small enough to have been missed time and again by my naked eye in the close to a decade that I have been steadily purchasing meat at Gourmet Glatt. I mean, I frequently buy meat and immediately refreeze it without cooking it first. According to the following information from the USDA:

Q. May I refreeze the food in the freezer if it thawed or partially thawed?
A. Yes, the food may be safely refrozen if the food still contains ice crystals or is at 40 °F or below.

Well, let's consider how that figures into the following scenario. I purchase chicken at Gourmet Glatt (or, if Mr. Bolender's claim that the practice freezing and thawing is an industry-wide practice is true, any other kosher market). Said chicken has been deep-frozen and thawed by the vendor. Then I put chicken in my car and do another errand or two. By the time I get home, the chicken is still quite cold when I refreeze it for later use - but has it been exactly below 40 degrees at all times, as recommended by the USDA's guidelines? No clue. But I also had no clue that it was required to be kept below that temperature, due to its potential frozen/thawed status. Is this claimed "industry-wide" practice as outlined by Mr. Bolender a food safety issue? Anyone have a clue?

Moving right along. Another issue that I have is this anonymous quote, in reference to Mr. Bolender's protestations of innocence:

A person knowledgeable of the history of the relationship between Gourmet Glatt and the Vaad Hakashrus told The Jewish Star, "He's missing the point, as usual." The person was granted anonymity so as not to give the impression of public disagreementwith the Vaad's handling of the situation. "It's less about the bird than the word. Whenever Bolender is confronted it's always duck and dodge." He said the store's history with the Vaad was marked with mistrust as a result of different episodes over the years. He declined to go into detail but said, "hashgacha is there to catch mistakes, but it assumes a basic amount of trust" which, he said, does not exist.

I just don't like the whole quote. Anyone who reads my blog knows how I feel about anonymous critics who take potshots at individuals in the news - which unfortunately seems to be a far too common occurence. I think it stinks. It's one thing if an anonymous source supplies certain facts that are essential to a story but insists on anonymity for personal or professional reasons. But when a source, who may or may not have a personal vendetta or axe to grind, levels criticism or poorly characterizes a subject in a newspaper article and then hides behind a veil of anonimity, I just hate it. If the source feels the urge come on to anonymously level criticism at someone/something, let him do what I did. Start a blog. Anonymous bloggers give up a large chunk of credibility by remaining anonymous - and that is something I am fully aware of. But we look to news for a far different service - facts. Mr. Bolender may or may not have been wronged here by the Vaad - I have no idea, and am in no place to judge. We can just hope the facts will eventually come out. I will say , however, that he has clearly been done a disservice at the hands of the anonymous source who brings nothing but innuendo and supposition to the conversation.

In addition, the anonymous source's credibility is further undermined by the rest of his quote:

Given the lack of trust, why does the Vaad continue to provide its hashgacha to the store?
"Because they trust the supervision," explained The Jewish Star’s source.

Huh? Which is it? First he says there are trust issues. Then he says that the Vaad does trust the supervision that Gourmet Glatt is hiring? What in the world is our anonymous source trying to say? Unclear.

All in all, the Five Towns Chicken Scandal (That Wasn't?) just seems to get murkier and murkier as the he said/she said continues. Doesn't the Kosher consumer deserve better than this?