If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Halal/Kosher meat to be labelled
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
MEPs have today approved proposals to introduce mandatory labelling of ritually slaughtered meat.
Meat and meat products from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter, i.e. kosher and halal meat, will need to indicate this. Labels will have to read “Meat from slaughter without stunning”.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the UK’s National Secular Society, which has been campaigning for MEPs to act on labelling said: “We congratulate the Parliament on voting to give consumers the information they need to avoid buying meat from animals not stunned before slaughter. Large quantities of such meat are sold to the general public without them knowing.
“While we welcome the progress on labelling, we believe it should be extended to restaurants and canteens.
“We also call for the lifting of the exemption that religious groups enjoy from general animal welfare provisions for animals to be stunned prior to slaughter. The Parliament voted last year to permit member states to lift the exemption if they chose to, and want member states to do so. Animals should not be made to suffer because of centuries-old religious practices. Religious groups in some countries allow pre-stunned meat to be certified as kosher or halal. We hope all European countries will follow their example.”
Story.
What I find fairly revealing is that there seems to be opposition to this from some Muslim and Jewish groups. Example. Yet these groups continue to insist that their methods are more humane than stunning (generally citing a single 1978 study in which the lead scientist admitted to flaws in the stunning methods). Now correct me if I'm wrong, but meat producers that treat their animals well and are confident in their methods of slaughter tend to be in favour of this sort of thing. It is quite clear why failure to stun has been singled out, because this is the specific instruction that is given an exemption in the interests of religious practice (ridiculous in itself - something is either humane or it's not, and the superstitions of a group of people should not be enough to allow a practice which is deemed inhumane to continue). There may be plenty of other practices that occur that we could address, but this is a specific one where it has been judged to be inhumane, and yet been allowed to continue.
The latest in a long line of studies that show that halal and kosher slaughter causes more pain to animals. Now we can argue about animal welfare more generally, but this is an issue of religious privilege again. We have a line which is deemed the limit of acceptable practice, and we have a specific group of people who because of nothing more than a set of superstitions are given licence to cross that line in a way that no other people can (I've yet to confirm this, but I believe this method of meat production also allows discriminatory practices in employment too, all in the name of religious rights).
Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of Muslims out there (and presumably Jews too) who see no conflict between stunning and halal meat.
But it seems to me that nobody could object to the fact that if certain producers are not meeting the EU standards for animal welfare, be it on religious grounds or any other, the least they can expect is to have to put this on their labels.
0
Comments
Loathe as I am to agree with anything to come out of Europe, but I think they've got this one right. Now, I wait to see what they're going to do about a more pressing issue that could, with any luck, happen soon.
It's not just halal meat which has a lot to answer for regarding animal cruelty. Stunning does not always work and the conditions in which the majority of animals are kept in, for the purpose of meat and dairy would be considered heinous if forced upon a fellow human. There are also issues with transporting animals to slaughter.
Of course, if halal animals are kept in the same conditions as most broiler chickens, or pigs and then killed without stunning then they would be marginally worse.
To move away from the whole animal cruelty argument from the religious one (because those debates get boring and circular), I think the food should be labelled. So Muslims get a choice about how to eat their food and non-Muslims who do not agree with the methods can avoid it.
Actually, I'm mostly worried about how the animals live - partly because a stressed animal doesn't produce as good meat, but mainly because while I have no problem with raising and slaughtering animals, I think it's better to take reasonable steps to make the animals lives pleasant, and I think this is better for the people that work with the livestock as well.
How they die? Well, we're killing them. It doesn't really matter.
Hence while im a meat eater, muchos kudos for vegetarians.
Free range does not usually mean that the chickens are running around the woods happily, or pecking around a farm, it basically means that they are farmed less intensively. Like anything, it is a lot of PR. Even if they're not in tiny cages, how can we guarantee that they are fed, transported and killed painlessly?
Birds held upside down, with their heads dragged through electrically charged water (though some birds are still conscious when they're killed)... Not that nice. :no:
So who should be ashamed of what?
Ashamed of animals suffering because we like the taste of meat?
What reason should Muslims have to be any more ashamed of their own 'ethical consumerism' when compared to the majority of society?
Well I think however you look at it, it is double standards whether it is all a load of PR rubbish or not. I meant that people should be ashamed for not thinking about what they're doing by going out of their way to buy this meat killed in a certain way.
I disagree. I believe if you have any concern for animal welfare at all, you have to consider the conditions in which an animal is kept from birth until the moment of its death - and that includes its last moments in the abattoir. What is hypocritical about wishing the animals we eat not to be put through unnecessary pain and stress in those last moments of life?
The fact that they only exist to be eaten.
Disregarding the best intentions in relation to the upkeep of these animals, surely they would appreciate it if we didnt kill and eat them?
I agree with you to an extent, and Im a meat eater, love a good juicy steak. I would prefer my conscience to be clear regards how an animal lived, but end of the day there will always be that niggle that the animal only existed to feed me.
That's part of the argument for stunning - the idea is that the animals don't suffer fear before they are killed. I know one or two small-scale organic farmers who pride themselves on the conditions in which their animals are kept and go to great lengths to ensure that, when the time comes, the animals know little or nothing about it. These farmers are not overly sensitive types, it's just that they believe healthy, content, animals produce better meat.
win win imo
There's a difference between 'animal welfare' and 'animal rights'.
People who support animal welfare normally support meat, dairy and animal testing, but ask for it to be regulated so the animals suffer less.
Animal rights arguments are very different.
I can see why people feel sympathetically for animals who go through halal slaughter, but I think that they are missing the point. Unless people raise their own meat, or know trusted reputable farmers, it's likely that the animals could have been abused just as badly. For example, that chicken kebab on a Saturday night is very likely to have lived its life in a cage.
Our society kills animals because the result gives people pleasure. However, like everything, it's hard to know how they were treated and how they were killed because it would put the industry's profits at some risk.
Of course a large part of the opposition to halal meat is simple xenophobia. The French opposing halal meat on ethical grounds, for example. The French. The people who brought us foie gras (yes I'm sure there are plenty of French people who oppose that too, but something tells me they're not the same people who are campaigning against halal). It's also why we rarely hear anything about kosher, because Jews aren't the bogeymen any more. And like I said, we can have the debate about where the line should be in terms of ethical practice (and there's plenty that goes on that I would happily support further regulation against), but what this case is about is a situation where we have decided on a line of what is acceptable, and then given specific groups special dispensation to cross that line based on religious or cultural grounds. To me, it's absolutely unacceptable that I could carry out a slaughter in exactly the same way as a halal abattoir (assuming I was fully licensed in all that jazz), and yet I would be charged with a crime and they wouldn't.
Anyone else get the same feeling?
Well, it tastes like chicken.
Halal meat is "badly treated" though. They slit the animals throat and let it bleed to death. I'd imagine feeling yourself bleeding to death would be pretty distressing
I always thought you were supposed to go quite light headed as you begin to get less and less blood to the head.
With an artery cut, should on the most part be pretty quick.
Taking at least two minutes to die is, in my opinion, two minutes too long.
But part of the point of halal meat for Muslims is that it is well treated at it's death, with a slit to the jugular. I think it's an ok way of killing an animal, as opposed to stunning where sometimes only half of the brain is stunned, and then the animal just kind of blunders around for a bit.
If 'stunning' an animal caused them to 'blunder around' in just 20% of deaths, I would imagine there'd be an animal welfare outcry. You use the word 'sometimes'. Even 1 in 100 would be 'sometimes' ... but your post seems to indicate that 'sometimes' may mean the 'majority' of the time.
A comparison for your viewing pleasure (not for the squeamish) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQOKQ__3vQw
Youtube's filtered, what was the video of?
There is something of an animal welfare outcry - http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/std1.htm The animals often aren't being stunned properly before being killed in abattoirs.
I think an argument focusing on the efficacy of stunning methods is a distraction from the main issue. It seems fairly obvious to me that an animal who is unconscious while being killed suffers drastically less than one who is concious. Now I'm sure there's a debate to be had about which methods of stunning are dubious, but striving to ensure an animal is unconscious as it dies seems more humane than casting spells on a conscious animal as it bleeds out.