To think the new halal and kosher labelling bill is a great idea?

Then we need to ban the meat/diary industry completely and go vegan. How do you rear, transport and kill an animal in a way that doesn't cause suffering?

Non- stunned slaughter needs to be banned asap with imprisonment and immediate closure for non- compliance. Ideally religious slaughter should also be banned.

Animal welfare in this country needs to be improved, banning pointless rituals to the process is a good place to start. If your religion requires the poor treatment of animals your god is either evil or the rules have been made up by a complete toss pot

That’s fine. If there’s demand clear labelling it will mean those who want to buy it still can.

No, they actually have higher costs because to gain and retain halal certification costs money. And the majority are also maintaining and using stun equipment.

Restaurants serve halal where there is a demand for it. They don’t do it for shits and giggles.

Yep, and guaranteed that 99% of them then go to their local Indian restaurant and stuff themselves with halal chicken korma.

That suggests that we may as well repeal the animal cruelty laws around slaughter altogether though? Level the playing field. Currently slaughterhouses working on religious exemptions will have lower costs than the others which is rather unfair. If the stunning doesn’t make enough of a difference why enforce it?

But more generally as a society we had an agreement on the level of suffering we will accept in order to farm and eat animals. The public are currently being lied to at the behest of religious groups. People already have the choice of whether to accept a certain level of suffering with attempts to minimise by stunning by choosing not to eat meat at all.

This should be fully transparent so people can make more informed choices.

Thank you for this, it's very refreshing to hear it from someone who knows and has witnessed the process.

I do have to say that the animals suffer regardless- from the moment they go in the haulage crate it's not pleasant for them, and waiting in the queue to be stunned is terrifying for them, you can see it in their eyes. Having witnessed it, I'm not actually convinced that stunning is much less cruel, though may feel so to the average consumer.

And before anyone says "well the RSPCA says it's less cruel" I don't think the RSPCA are very good (having volunteered for many years at their animal hospital/ rescue centre near me). We have to have a minimum standard, and the RSPCA do ensure that this is met, but it is a very, very low bar.

True.

Although I would imagine that the majority of people who want to avoid halal meat a) haven’t realised that they have been eating it unlabelled and b) want to avoid it because of the stunning issue rather than by other reason.

But also halal type stunning may not be a rigorous as proper stunning they’ve already got the religious exemption so in many cases it could be ‘why bother’?

And then we’ll have the issues of inspectors who are instructed to respect ‘cultural differences’ (as regulators are in so many other areas like elections for example) turning a blind eye to unofficial halal non stun being claimed as stun.

This whole issue makes a total mockery of EU and UK animal cruelty laws - maybe slaughter standards should be repealed across the board?

Why does religious groups get to make additional profit from the suffering of animals?

It's also not as simple as looking up the slaughter house registration as many do both stun and non stun (stun is actually cheaper which is why it's the most common).

And just because meat IS halal, doesn't mean it's non stun. And meat which isn't halal isn't automatically stunned either. The stun/non stun argument for clear halal labelling is actually clouding the issue - meat needs to be labelled as stun or non stun and THEN as halal or not halal as one doesn't ensure the other and vice versa. (Kosher is always non stun so the labelling of kosher is sufficient in itself).

There will be people who want to eat meat which is not halal and don't care if it's not stunned. People who want to eat only stunned meat and not care whether it's halal, and then people who want to eat neither non stun nor halal meat. (And of course people like me who don't give a shiny shit either way!).

Below is the current EU regulation on this. Even culling animals for disease must adhere to welfare standards.

It appears that the religious exemptions are being abused in the UK. Many other European countries are removing those exemptions and banning ALL non stun slaughter.

The EU legislation on the killing of animals aims to minimise the pain and suffering of animals through the use of properly approved stunning methods. It applies to farmed animals.

EU legislation to protect animals at the time of killing already existed (Directive 93/119/EC) but was outdated in many respects. The new regulation contains several important changes:
It is a regulation:

• This means that it is directly applicable and it facilitates a harmonised application in the EU.

• Each operator has to know what they are doing through the use of a standard operating procedure. Such methodology is not new for slaughterhouses as it is already required and in place for food safety (the so-called HACCP system = Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point). But it is new to require standardised procedures for animal welfare.
• Operators are required to evaluate the efficiency of their stunning method through animal based indicators. As a consequence, stunned animals have to be regularly monitored to ensure that they do not regain consciousness before slaughter.
• Each slaughterhouse has to appoint an Animal Welfare Officer who is accountable for implementing the animal welfare measures. This does not replace the official inspection and there is derogation for small slaughterhouses.
• Furthermore, the regulation requires manufacturers of stunning equipment to provide instructions on the use of their equipment, on how to monitor their efficiency and keep them in order.

• The regulation requires staff handling animals in slaughterhouses to possess a certificate of competence regarding the welfare aspects of their tasks. The obtainment of the certificate is submitted to independent examination by bodies recognised by the competent authority.
• The regulation also aims at scientific support animal welfare to provide technical assistance for officials working in slaughterhouses. Although there have been some research centres in many Member States, the results of their research and their technical competence were not sufficiently available to official inspectors. As a result, inspectors had often difficulties in assessing complex stunning systems. The regulation remedies this important issue.

https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-welfare/eu-animal-welfare-legislation/slaughter-stunning_en

It’s not clearly labelled though unless they are specifically selling it to people that want halal. Much of non stun slaughter is only identifiable by looking up the registration of the slaughterhouse on the pack which is not ‘clear labelling’. Presumably non stun is cheaper to do so some slaughterhouse will be taking advantage of the cost benefits.

If there is now no meaningful legal reason to stun before slaughter, why bother stunning any animal? If that’s an abhorrent idea on animal cruelty grounds, why are we allowing it for some?

There is also the issue of non stun being served in hospitals, schools etc. Apparently in Wales all meat served in schools is halal.

When did we as a nation decide to ignore animal cruelty laws on religious grounds? It was obviously easier to turn a blind eye when the numbers were tiny but now it’s millions of animals.

No, the bill is ensuring that meat which is halal or kosher HAS to be labelled as such. Currently almost all chicken is halal slaughtered (and stunned) but it isn't all labelled halal - only meat which the seller wants to sell as halal is labelled. There's no compulsory requirement to label, which the new law will bring in.

Yes it was stating the obvious. Kosher is already labelled as is halal so the bill is pointless then as nothing has changed.

I don't understand. You asked if it included other foods, I answered?

Which I understand already. So not sure what the issue is as it is already labelled. So why the drama? Especially when things like pop and milk and apple pies are labelled.

Other foods are already labelled as kosher, if they are kosher. If they are not labelled (and are not single ingredient like an apple) then they are not kosher - depends how strict a Jewish person is though. Some only apply kosher rules to meat, or simply to whether anim could be kosher (e.g. some Jews don't eat pork or crustaceans, but would eat chicken even if not from a kosher slaughter house).

For orthodox Jews, kosher not only applies to the food stuffs but also it's preparation and other strict rules.

Does it include more foods that are kosher or just meat? If so, why not other foods?

Yes, I agree the labelling needs to be quite clear.

I do also wonder what will happen in circumstances where the animal is killed in what is normally a stun abbotoir but where the bolt pistol misfires, is broken etc. In my experience the animals are still slaughtered, just without the stun but I don't know how that specific carcass would be tracked as non-stun.

It's extremely complicated, I can understand why it hasn't been addressed before now.

I think in principle labelling meat so that people know what they’re getting is reasonable.

However the obvious flaw with this system is that just because meat might not be labelled halal or kosher - for example if it didn’t meet all the requirements - wouldn’t guarantee the animal either had been stunned or had been killed in any way humanely (with a big question mark as to whether that’s achievable anyway). So to achieve that effect you’d need some sort of labelling that gave assurance as to how the animal actually had been killed, not just the absence of religious labelling.

I don’t eat meat anyway but the proposed system seems like it leaves something to be desired if what you’re looking for is assurance that the animal was killed in a way you approve of.

It's not true. Plus most stun is pretty light anyway and there's often a delay in stun and kill and animals often come round.

The least cruel form of slaughter is direct farm slaughter, regardless of stun.

FYI, I do eat meat! (I know some of my info can sound like I'm a vegan or something).

I didn't know that. I was looking at info on the RSPCA website, you'd have thought they would mention it!

Yes it is cruel for sure.

Loads of stuff - prayer cutting out at some point, being pork having been slaughtered on the same slaughter line/ used the same stun machinery (there's specific rules on how the production lines / stun equipment needs to be cleaned before they can be considered halal again, separate to any hygiene related cleaning). Occasionally the packaging can be wrong, or the little absorbent pads be considered non halal. Some parts of the animal can't touch others in some circumstances as well. There's a list of requirements that make it halal.

It's not contamination in an unfit for human consumption perspective.

What would be the nature of the contamination?