Let the market decide who registers for Halal certification
Unnecessary regulation festers corruption
Over the last month, a proposal is being mooted that any restaurant that doesn’t serve pork or alcohol must seek Halal certification. There has been lot of resistance to this edict from both Malay and non-Malay business communities.
Avoid loopholes for potential corruption
This is the brainchild of one of the two deputy Director-Generals of The Malaysian Islamic Development Department (JAKIM). Unfortunately, according to sources the motivation behind this proposal is not to extend the influence of Islam over the food and beverage market, but rather a ‘cheap cash gab’. The certification of many hundreds of thousands of restaurants and stalls in Malaysia could run into a couple of hundred million Ringgit. However, the consultancy and certifying industry that will grow up alongside this new edict should it come to fruition, could be as high as RM 400 million per annum.
Imagine how much the gatekeepers of such a program could earn if consultants and certifiers collected 10 to 20 percent as an access fee to this industry. A little mafia inside JAKIM could earn as much as RM 40 million. This is good money if you can get it.
Nobody, except for a few want to see a corrupted domestic Halal certification industry in Malaysia.
Let Market forces work
Traditionally, a proprietor’s reputation guaranteed whether a restaurant was Halal or not. People voted on this with their custom. Any bad stories would immediately drive all the customers away.
Now within big cities, its more difficult to maintain reputation and integrity. A Halal certification has great merit. Simply speaking, if a restaurant is not Halal certified in an area where there are Muslim consumers, that restaurant will miss a percentage of the market.
This is a strong incentive for a restaurant to seek Halal certification.
My experience in Thailand is that most restaurants, if not all, which want to attract Muslim consumers will seek formal Halal certification. Why would this not be any different in Malaysia?
Compulsory Halal certification not necessary in Thailand, most restaurants participate voluntarily.
Not compulsory anywhere else
Halal registration as is being proposed is not mandatory in any other markets that I know of (Please correct me if I am wrong). The best way to promote Halal is to do so in a persuasive manner, not be regulation. Frankly, this proposal is sowing community discord.
Why not, in an effort to steer Halal away from a religious paradigm, why not promote Halal as health for all. Halal should not be politicised and used as a source for streaming funds into the pockets of ‘Halal gangsters’.
Subscribe Below:
Are bog rolls halal?
Or the only halal way is to go digital, use fingers, paint them Mars bars colour and let them stink?
If halal certification is really concerned about muslim's health or religious regulation, or making money without any science or nutrition truth behind it, let's read about how poison becomes additives fit for human consumption.
A 1996 review of past research conducted on aspartame found that every industry-funded study had said the sweetener was safe to consume. However 92 percent of independent studies claim one or more problems exist with its use, the British newspaper the Guardian reported.
Aspartame (C14H18N2O5 ) is a compound of three components. These components are methanol, aspartic acid and phenylalanine (the latter being free form amino acids).
Methanol (methyl alcohol or wood alcohol) is a colorless, poisonous, and flammable liquid. It is used for making formaldehyde, acetic acid, methyl t-butyl ether (a gasoline additive), paint strippers, carburetor cleaners for your car’s engine, and chloromethanes, et al. This poison can be inhaled from vapors, absorbed through the skin, and ingested.
The Aspartic acid, in aspartame, is also an excitotoxin. An excitotoxin, is a deleterious substance that excites or over-stimulates nerve cells. This occurs in the brain, as well as the peripheral nerves, because aspartic acid, in free form, is an absorption accelerant & easily crosses the blood-brain barrier.
What makes this all the more intriguing is that “excitotoxins” appear to play a key role in degenerative nervous system diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) and many others.
But the story doesn’t stop there. It appears that an imbalance of these excitotoxins during critical periods of brain development can result in an abnormal formation of brain pathways; that is, a “miswiring of the brain.” This may lead to serious disorders such as behavioral problems (hyperactivity, aggression, attention deficit disorders, learning disorders, poor learning ability, and ADD)-and a lifetime of endocrine problems such as menstrual difficulties, infertility, and premature puberty.
One of the earliest observations seen in animals exposed to large doses was gross obesity. Some neuro-scientistsA have voiced concern that America’s explosion of childhood obesity may be related to excitotoxins in food.
Aspartame creates altered brain function, nerve damage, and systemic organ complications. Information collected reveals that aspartame clinically exacerbates any borderline (even yet undetected) predisposing illness, and absolutely complicates certain known medical illnesses like Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s, diabetes, retinopathies, allergies, mentation disorders, etc. (See list of symptoms
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan's transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners' authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan's new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor.
One of Hayes' first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI's recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame. FYI, here's Rachel Maddow on Burson-Marsteller: "When Evil needs public relations, Evil has Burson-Marsteller on speed dial." Evil, thy name is chemical food additives.
Here's the kicker: When Searle was absorbed by Monsanto in 1985, Donald Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus, pretty big money in those days. Also, while at Searle, Rumsfeld was awarded Outstanding CEO in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981)! Imagine that...
Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.
, aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors, chemists and consumers about its safety and neurotoxic properties. Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia, headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few.
The artificial sweetener, Aspartame, was approved by the FDA, in 1981. By the 1990’s, the FDA had a list of 92 symptoms reported to them by 10,000 consumers, a list revealed to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. (2)