End 'cruel' religious slaughter, say scientists

[Umm Ahmed]

End 'cruel' religious slaughter, say scientists

Beasts should be stunned before their throats are slit, Jews and Muslims are told

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Meat Hygiene Service suggested 114 million animals were killed under halal and 2.1 million under kosher methods each year in Britain

enlarge
Religious slaughter techniques practised by Jews and Muslims are cruel and should be ended, says a scientific assessment from the Government's animal welfare advisers.


The Farm Animal Welfare Council says that slitting the throats of the animals most commonly used for meat, chickens, without stunning, results in "significant pain and distress". The committee, which includes scientific, agricultural and veterinary experts, is calling for the Government to launch a debate with Muslim and Jewish communities to end the practice.

One Muslim organisation, the Halal Food Authority, already insists on the slaughterhouses it regulates stunning animals first on welfare grounds, as long as they are still alive when their throats are slit. But in other halal and almost all kosher slaughterhouses, animals have their throats slit without prior stunning which would render them insensible to the pain. Religious groups say that doing so would be against their interpretation of religious texts.

Related articles
Jerome Taylor: The beliefs behind the halal and kosher rituals
They are granted an exemption to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, which stipulates that creatures such as cows, goats and chickens be stunned first.

In a report into the slaughter of white meat, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (Fawc) said evidence suggested that chicken and turkeys were likely to be conscious for up to 20 seconds as blood seeped out of them. The animals are killed by a transverse incision across their neck, cutting skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and major nerves.

"Such a large cut will inevitably trigger sensory input to pain centres in the brain," the council said. "Our conclusions ... are that such an injury would result in significant pain and distress ... before insensibility supervenes. Fawc is in agreement with the prevailing scientific consensus that slaughter without pre-stunning causes pain and distress. On the basis that this is avoidable and in the interests of welfare, Fawc concludes that all birds should be pre-stunned before slaughter."

While recognising the difficulties of reconciling scientific findings with matters of faith, it urged the Government to "continue to engage with religious communities" to make progress. In a 2003 report on red meat, Fawc called for ministers to repeal the religious groups' legal opt-out.

The Shechita Council, which oversees kosher meat, was contacted but did not supply a comment. Massood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority, insisted that its animals were stunned, unlike those regulated by another group, the Halal Monitoring Committee. "The Koran says use your brain, ponder about things and that's what we are doing," he said. "It's a question of animal welfare."

The Government no longer keeps statistics on religious slaughter, but five years ago, the Meat Hygiene Service suggested 114 million animals were killed under halal and 2.1 million under kosher methods each year in Britain.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it would not change its "long-standing policy of religious tolerance" by ending the opt-out. "And while the Government would prefer to see all animals stunned before slaughter, we will continue to ensure that required standards of animal welfare are effectively monitored and enforced in all slaughterhouses," it said in a statement.

Last year, Lord Rooker , a minister in the department, called for meat slaughtered without stunning to be labelled for the public's benefit, since some cuts were considered unacceptable to eat, and sold back into the food chain.





End 'cruel' religious slaughter, say scientists - Home News, UK - The Independent

[Iqra]

I had a discussion about this with some people last week. After explaining how an animal is slaughtered, I said that the animal is going to be dead on their plate when they eat it so how can they claim more respect for it and that I think it's disrespectful for an animal to be stunned. Please discuss this.

[Abu Najm Muhammad]

It wouldn't be a sacrifice if there wasn't some 'suffering'- all the more reason why it must be done in the Name of Allah...

I think the kuffaar are just jealous of the animals, since some part of them must know that at least the animals are not facing eternal damnation after it's all over...

[Mikebloke]

I had a discussion about this with some people last week. After explaining how an animal is slaughtered, I said that the animal is going to be dead on their plate when they eat it so how can they claim more respect for it and that I think it's disrespectful for an animal to be stunned. Please discuss this.

I think your right, if they are so bothered about how an animal dies, yet are still prepared to eat meat which they don't know how it is slaughtered it ends up as double standards.

Most butchers and supermarkets do not openly state the conditions of which their meat are slaughtered under, let alone what condition or quality of life they had when they were alive.

I support those that are genuinely concerned about animals enough to care about the meat that they buy as well as what others buy.

Kosher and Halal slaughter has been reviewed several times, and many other reports from non-Jewish or Muslim sources have stated the total opposite by saying not stunning and cutting through the neck is relatively painless and quick; and some even promoted it as an preferable alternative to stunning.

The BNP also has organised groups against Jewish and Muslim slaughtering standards.

[Umm Ahmed]

They don't suffer though, the slaughtering of meat is much more humane than stunning or passing through electric baths.

[Frederiksen78]

I think the kuffaar are just jealous of the animals, since some part of them must know that at least the animals are not facing eternal damnation after it's all over...

I think this is very wrong. If someone believes just a little in hell and eternal damnation, then they would do whatever they could to avoid it. If they don't, then they don't believe in it. If someone thought there might be a hell, but didn't care to find out how to avoid it then that person would be incredibly stupid.

As for the topic, I had a minor argument with my mother recently about this. She was arguing this same case - about the action of slitting the throat of the animals being cruel. I argued that even if it *is* cruel to slit the throat of an animal, letting the blood run from it's jugular vein, it is far less cruel than to have animals stuffed together in a small cage (as with poultry) or tied up to a metal bar unable to move (as with cattle).

What would you choose if you could? A painful death lasting a few seconds (before you go unconscious), or months (perhaps years) of torture in being tied up and confined to a small space, not even able to lie down or turn around - before being "humanely" killed by a knock to the head stunning you - and then having your throat slit.

I mean, it's silly how people find it completely okay to disregard the perhaps 6 months of torture that a cow might endure in its confined space, and then focus solely on the last few seconds of its life.

Why not instead focus on having the cow walk free on green pastures, and then kill it (no matter how you do it, it takes but a few seconds). I personally think that if I am to eat the meat of a cow, I can at least make sure it hasn't been suffering its entire life. A happy cow makes me happy. Life and death comes to us all - we can at least try to not make the part in between suck.

A technical question: How can an animal (or a human being) stay conscious for up to 20 seconds with the throat cut? If blood does not enter the brain, it would go unconscious within a few seconds - to save "power" and increase the chance of survival. It's an automatic defense mechanism.

[Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari]

The direction of this thread is wrong. Allah tells us how to slaughter animals, and Allah knows best.

We will never convince atheists on a rational basis that our method of slaughtering is the best on the level of official acception (some non-Muslims like Friederikson are accepting it, but majority will never do that for political reasons: Islam should be presented as immanently foreigh, intrinsically "barbaric" religion to the Westerners).

[AbuYusuf1429]

Assalam aleikum, I worked in a halal slaughterhouse that adhered to federal regulations which necessitated stunning the animal before cutting the throat. A captive bolt gun is usually used basically explodes a hole in the animal's skull to stun it. The animal goes down immediately but if left will die slowly. The brains are essentially scrambled like an egg and as far as mad cow disease goes, the force of the shot pushes brain matter into the blood which at this point is still circulating.
I read a research paper online from Germany I believe where it actually was proven that this stunning business is more cruel than cutting the throat without it. This whole deal about stunning really isn't about the animal's sufferring. It's about people'e delicate sensitivities. The fact is, in order for you to eat meat, an animal has to die. No matter if you stun it or not, it really isn't a pleasant process.
Allah has set out the method and practice necessary and believer or not, one cannot dispute the science. The only real benefit derived from stunning is that the animal is easier to deal with when cutting the throat.
In any event, the stun the animal is cruel and should NEVER be considered but once again, westerners think they know better. Oh and btw, I can provide a link for those interested in seeing the results of the research paper

[Frederiksen78]

Oh and btw, I can provide a link for those interested in seeing the results of the research paper

Please do, thanks Abu.

[AbuYusuf1429]

Here is a link to the research paper in English, my apologies, I can't find the original german. In any case I hope this clears up the issue... http://www.halalfocus.com/artman2/up...eport_1978.pdf