Love or hate it, kosher Marmite has vanished
AS IF the deprivations of lockdown were not enough, kosher lovers of Marmite have been having to go without the savoury spread.
The rabbinically approved production of Marmite in the UK was recently suspended by manufacturers Unilever.
There is nothing treif in the actual ingredients but a separate production line was reserved for kosher jars of Marmite that was not used for non-kosher products.
A Unilever spokesperson said:
“Unfortunately, we’ve had to temporarily stop making the 70g Marmite which was certified kosher because of changes in our factory.
“Please be reassured we are working hard to find a solution as soon as possible so we can start supplying it again.”
Rabbi Jeremy Conway, director of the kashrut division of the London Beth Din (KLBD), said along with kosher food distributors it was “working with Unilever to find a solution to the lack of kosher Marmite. We understand that Unilever is considering producing a new kosher batch in the coming months.”
He strongly encouraged “Marmite fans to be in touch with Unilever to let them know how much kosher Marmite means to them”.
The KLBD-ceritified run was started in the UK six years ago after kosher imports of the yeast extract spread from South Africa were no longer available.
Fans are asked to get in touch to say how much it means to them’
LAWYERS ACTING for a former Labour staff member are considering appealing against a decision made by a High Court judge that prevented the naming of the people who allegedly leaked a controversial report into antisemitism.
Mrs Justice Tipples ruled this week that the five anonymous individuals, who were represented by the trade union Unite and who deny any responsibility for the leak last April, should not be named because it would risk harm to potentially innocent individuals.
Legal representatives of senior Labour staffer Emilie Oldknow, who had taken Labour to court in an attempt to force it to disclose the identity of the leaker of the report, would not comment on their next moves on Wednesday.
Ms Oldknow brought the case against the party after the leak of the report — which was originally prepared for the equality watchdog, the EHRC, but never submitted — led to serious data breaches now being investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), including the sharing over the internet of private WhatsApp messages, and complaints about alleged antisemitism made by Jewish members against the party.
Five people accused of leaking the report were represented by CarterRuck’s Jacob Dean, who first acted on their behalf, then on behalf of Unite the Union after the judge ruled that the five alleged wrongdoers could not intervene.
The judge then ruled that written submissions from Unite’s lawyer could be considered.
Mrs Justice Tippels ruled that Ms Oldknow’s claim “smacks of a fishing expedition, so that the claimant can cast around to identify potential defendants” in order to sue them.
Noting the public interest in the case, the judge said there was “a real risk that the order sought by the claimant … will release the names of innocent persons”.
The JC now understands that as a result of the judgement, 27 former members of staff and Jewish Labour members named in the report could take action against the party, rather than the individuals who leaked the report, who remains anonymous.
During the High Court hearing Labour’s lawyers argued the leak was “unquestionably wrongful” and the report contained “considerable quantities of private personal data”. But Labour said their own investigation into the identities of the leakers had failed to establish a “smoking gun.”
Ms Oldknow’s QC said she could not bring a claim against the leaker “until she knows who the wrongdoers are, what they did and how. It seems fairly obvious, or you might call it an educated guess, that these documents were leaked by people who were employed by the Labour Party back in March 2020, or acting
Former staff and Jewish members could now sue the party’
as officers of the Labour Party.”
The judge said it was clear that despite Labour’s internal investigation, which had identified probable suspects, there were two other ongoing investigations — including the information commissioner’s and the independent review ordered by Keir Starmer by Martin Forde QC.
The Forde inquiry has been delayed until the ICO’s investigations are concluded.
Mrs Justice Tipples said there was a risk that the outcome of other investigations could unearth new information about the order and that Labour’s own investigation did not conclude categorically who was responsible.
“In my view, if the Labour Party is required to identify individuals …
“It will be doing no more than identifying a list of who it reasonably believes are to be the culprits,” the judge said.