With respect to these rules, the company will be expected to adopt a proactive policy. As a practical matter, this means the company must affirm in writing that designated personnel are knowledgeable about and conversant in the specifics of dina d’malchuta as they pertain to its business. In addition, the company should be required to submit in writing the specific measures it has implemented to prevent violations of secular law from occurring.
The contract should also specify that if the company is found to be in violation of dina d’malchuta, the kashrut certifier will compare the procedures and preventive measures the company claimed were in operation to the facts as reported by the government. Depending on both the severity of the company’s offense and what the comparison shows, the company may lose its kashrut certification.
The halachic basis for insisting that a company maintain a proactive policy with respect to dina d’malchuta is that only by maintaining such a policy does the company demonstrate its seriousness to be bound by these standards. Without instituting preventive measures and concrete procedures, the company’s attitude toward dina d’malchuta is merely reactive. The worst manifestation of a reactive policy is the attitude that we need not educate ourselves about what dina d’malchuta requires; if the government catches violations, we’ll deal with them after the fact by paying fines and implementing the remedies the government demands.
Recall the infamous 1971 Ford Pinto case. Because of its accelerated production schedule, the Pinto was not tested for rear-end impact until after production. The test showed that a rear-end collision would rupture the Pinto’s fuel system extremely easily.
Despite that finding, cost-benefit analysis dictated policy for the company. Instead of warning the public up front of the danger or even giving customers the option of having a baffle installed between the bumper and the gas tank (for $6.65) that would have made the Pinto as safe as comparable vehicles, the company chose to disclose nothing and face the consequence of lawsuits. The result of this cost-benefit decision was disastrous. Between 1976 and 1977 alone, Pintos had 13 fiery rear-end collisions – more than double the number for comparable-size cars.
The value added by inducing a food company to adopt a proactive policy with respect to dina d’malchuta is that this initiative will force the company not to take a cavalier attitude toward governmental regulations.
To illustrate, suppose government inspectors find that a meatpacking plant was dismembering animals right after shechita while the animals were still conscious. Alternatively, suppose government inspectors discover a big hole in the work area of the plant, which represents a clear-cut hazard for the workers. The company will not be able to escape kashrut de-certification by quickly remedying the violations. Why? Given that these violations seriously violate both dina d’malchuta and halacha, they clearly expose as lies the company’s prior affirmation that it was proactive with respective to dina d’malchuta.
Accordingly, the company would lose its certification based on a “demonstrated ignorance and a cavalier treatment” of dina d’malchuta. Insistence on a proactive policy with respect to dina d’malchuta therefore generates a significant deterrent against adopting a reactive policy toward these regulations.
Requiring food companies to adopt a proactive policy with respect to dina d’malchuta represents a unique opportunity to integrate the ritual with the ethical. This integration will be a welcome advance in elevating the moral climate of society.