To be confused by the Halal meat thing.

[LEMmingaround]

I don't understand why this is a problem. 90% of the animals are stunned before they are killed anyway - so what is the problem?

I do think it should be labelled as there are some religeons (sihks i think) for who this would be a problem but people getting upset over halal meat served in subway/pizza express? REALLY? To me it just sounds like an excuse for prejudice. Those people quite happy to eat the meat from there tht is not halal and probably don't give a flying fuck what happened to the animals during their lives or at their slaughter. If you were tht worried about that sort of thing you would a) be vegetarian/vegan or b) only ever eat meat that you knew where it came from and that was treated properly. Am i being niave that thinking that having to respect and pray for an animal at slaughter (even if the slaughter is not pleasant) that they may well have good welfare standards? Most of the meat you get from TEsco comes from the EU and the standards don't meat the UK standards for living conditions.

The bit I don't get is this: if meat isn't labelled as Halal (or otherwise) how do Muslims know whether they can eat it or not? Surely accurate labelling would allow everyone to have a choice - Muslims, Sikhs, atheists - everyone. I can't see what the argument is against labelling - can anyone explain it to me?

But there is not a lot (if any) unbiased research around. It makes perfect sense for the BVA to lobby for stunning. But without unbiased, gold standard research who knows if their perspective is the only valid one?

There is a fair amount of research studying consciousness/breathing/etc in stunned .v. unstunned animals. Analysis of collapse times, brain waves, blood in lungs, spontaneous clotting of arteries, and so on. I have read several papers myself.

I dislike the attitude, which I have come across before, that because aethists don't believe in God, they shouldn't care if a religious ritual has been performed. I do.

Maid, I did specify 'unbiased' and then acknowledged how difficult that would be in reality.

I too have read many papers. But they start and end with vets, who themselves start with one overriding perspective. Some of those studies have, of necessity, caused a huge amount of suffering for a small number of animals, so I am sure that the measures reported are real.

BUT New Zealand and Australia governments (to name 2) found differently. I would like to see a meta analysis of all studies, as is usual in much research. If you have links to one, please pm me, I am genuinely interested.

I dislike the attitude, which I have come across before, that because aethists don't believe in God, they shouldn't care if a religious ritual has been performed. I do

As an atheist, I'm torn on this.

I do not, in any way, want to appear to validate a religious ritual by allowing it to happen without objection.

However, if I were at someone's house and they said Grace and asked God to bless the food or whatever they say, I don't think I'd refuse to eat.

Nennypops I'm from NZ. I had no idea NZ lamb is slaughtered halal. This is news to me! I don't have a problem with it in the scheme of things, but I do feel it should be put on the labels. Honestly despite my mini rant up thread, I've never been so angry at any particular religion that I've turned around and said 'I'm not going to eat .... today because of it's ties to x religion who've really utterly pissed me off' But I've been pretty pissed at various religious groups in the past and probably will be again in the future. If I ate something then found out it had ties to any kind of religion, I'd be livid. If I picked up a pack of meat and saw a label that said kosher or halal or from the farms of the grand high turtle god, I would be in a position to say, 'well no big deal in my trolley you go', or 'you're a pack of dicks' and I'm not going to eat this today. 95% of the time I'd pick the first option. Mostly as long as it tastes good, hasn't lived an awful life and isn't going to bankrupt me, I don't care. I still like to have the choice of an informed decision and not have my lack of religion dismissed though.

If meat isn't labelled as Halal (or otherwise) how do Muslims know whether they can eat it or not? Surely accurate labelling would allow everyone to have a choice - Muslims, Sikhs, atheists - everyone

A very valid point, and one I don't understand either. Obviously if muslims buy meat at a specialist shop there's more provenance (or should be!!) but what about buying in supermarkets? Does anyone know?

There also seem to be many certifying bodies (some here: barnabasfund.org/US/Halal-Certification-Organisations-UK-Ireland.html) which complicates the issue even more

As I've said so often, just label it all properly, give everyone a choice (obviously within the law) and be done with it ...

Bank not all meat in Nz is slaughtered halal. All exported lamb is, but not domestic.

However all Halal meat in NZ is pre-stunned by law, a decision made with the support of the Muslim community, they do not allow non stun.

Conversely I believe Kosher meat in NZ is NOT pre-stunned as there was too much backlash against the law being implemented.

I think there are many important concerns raised by the issue of Halal/Kosher/Secular meat.

All the animals die in the same way - they bleed out (throat either stabbed or slit).

It's whether or not you think an unstunned animal feels pain,
or suffers more by the process of stunning than slitting alone.

Kosher meat requires the animal to be unstunned. Stunning renders the meat not kosher.
The process of slaughter (slitting the animals throat) is called Shechita. It can only be done by a trained licensed Jew and will be performed in a small scale specialised abattoir.
The special knife is cleaned and checked (sharp enough no nicks in blade) between each use (each kill). Prayers are recited by the slaughterer.
Some slaughter the animal standing, others slaughter the animal whilst it is hanged up by its back legs (just like a conventional secular slaughter).
The animal with then be removed to an area to bleed out.

I believe (but happy to be corrected) that most Halal meat is slaughtered on a conventional production line (line up/crated/stunned/hung/slit/bleed out) with the addition of a pray loop being played.

There are problems with stunning. Not all animals are stunned before they are slit. This can be for a number of reasons. Inexperienced staff/bone density/method of stunning. Captive bolt/electrocution and sometimes gassing are the methods of stunning.

Well I accidentally ate halal meat in Subway last year and I caught Islam. I now regularly recite verses of the Koran to bypassers, only speak Arabic even though my mother tongue is English and can't go into a church. /sarcasm

If manufacturers can put a warning on a packet of peanuts warning that it may contain nuts im sure they can put a label on meat showing whether its halal or not.

FurryDogMother, Puzzled:

re "if meat isn't labelled as Halal (or otherwise) how do Muslims know whether they can eat it or not?"

I don't know about halal, but what happens with kosher meat is this: religious Jews will only eat kosher meat, labelled as such. However, not all of the edible meat on an animal killed via shechita (Jewish religious slaughter, which does not include stunning) is kosher. The hindquarters of the animal are not kosher, but are perfectly edible. So they are sold to supermarkets etc, and the supermarkets do not label them either as kosher (which would not be true) or as killed by shechita (which would be accurate).

Taken from the BBC website today (italics mine): Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability for the British Retail Consortium said: "All our members have confirmed all their own brand fresh meat is from animals that have been pre-stunned before slaughter.

"Some of our members do sell branded halal and kosher certified meat produced by specialist companies and clearly labelled.

"As the overwhelming majority of meat sold in UK supermarkets is own brand and from animals that have been stunned prior to slaughter we do not see the requirement to separately label meat based on the method of slaughter"

I guess whether this matters or not is up to the individual ...

Furry, I don't think the unlabelled meat was intended to be marketed as halal for Muslims. As Muslims don't want to eat non-halal meat, rather than have two systems of slaughter, the default position was halal meat to the general market. Maybe economy of scale, easier logistics etc.

I believe if they labelled all the meat as halal, they would have had a smaller market (would around 10% of the UK be right). Another percentage of general consumers mightn't care either way. However, you'd get a lot of the market put off for various reasons like animal welfare, disagreeing morally as well as an aversion to the religious connection etc.

Therefore, I think the omission of a halal label on a lot of the halal butchered meat was deliberate. People who may not wish to eat halal meat would unwittingly do so.

So they labelled enough for Muslim market and the rest of it left unlabelled. No need for them to have two systems of slaughter.

Thanks for that, HomeHelp

So if I've understood that right, it means that retailers are selling unstunned meat without it being labelled as such. Not my place to decide for others, but I imagine some will thoroughly dislike that idea ...

Home knows more. It may be bits Muslims don't want to eat, although part of the carcass.

I think my opinion about why it's not openly labelled still stands though.

I think my opinion about why it's not openly labelled still stands though

I'm inclined to agree with you - even more so in the case of unstunned meat just mentioned

I'll say it again: I'd much prefer that no matter what the reason for their preference, everyone should be able to choose what they eat, within the law - and that means proper labelling

When the only difference is a recording of a prayer being played its much easier for the abattoir to leave it playing so all animals slaughtered except the pigs can be counted as Halal.

It would be more work to switch the recording on and off than just leave it running on loop.

Surely the scandal here is the mark-up on supermarket Halal meat that is exactly the same as the unlabelled meat?

Atheist and not sure what all the fuss is about. There was an "expert" on Radio 2 earlier, but he was only concerned about "proper" Halal meat, not mass-slaughtered meat.

I totally agree with softly.

And yes, why exactly is Kosher meat being left out of the story most of the time? Is it because antisemitism really isn't acceptable anymore even for the UKIP types, whereas being anti-Muslim is seen as fair game (for some obscure reason? )

WHY is un stunned slaughter still allowed in this country this century? I know stunning is not perfect but it's preferable.

Also concerning that religion is appearing to impact more and more on everyday life. I've no objection to people choosing to believe or worship (whatever religion). But I do object when it encroaches onto those of us who don't want any part of it. And I do object when it has welfare implications for innocent creatures.

Inhumane slaughter needs to stop. But clear labelling would be a start. Sadly it probably won't happen as producers probably suspect that a lot of halal meat won't sell if it is labelled as such.

Puzzled, yes, some retailers are selling unstunned meat.

However:

1. tiny amounts. I don't know the percentage of UK animals slaughtered by shechita, but I would be amazed if it was over 1%. There are fewer than 300,000 Jews in the UK, and I doubt more than half keep kosher. So that is 150k out of a population of 60m, ie 0.25%. So the vast majority of meat is not slaughtered by shechita.
2. the proportion of mis-stunned animals will dwarf the proportion of unstunned animals. Mis-stun rates aren't well recorded but have been observed as about 4% for EU poultry and could be as high as 31%(!) for non-penetrative red meat stunning. Mis-stunning causes considerable harm to animals during slaughter - in my view much more than no stunning at all.

(same goes for kosher too of course)

kinkytoes, unstunned slaughter is allowed because it is not nearly as clearcut that stunning is preferable as you think.

stunning produces paralysis, but it has not been clearly shown that it also produces insensibility. One commonly used stunning method is electrocution: for the life of me, I can't see why it would be assumed that electrocution wouldn't hurt, given that it is a common form of torture!

mis-stun rates definitely do result in pain and harm, and they are not systematically recorded at present. Studies indicate that many more animals are hurt by mis-stunning than are subjected to unstunned slaughter.

There is a link upthread with % of un-stunned by animal. There is far less un-stunned meat out there than the media hype suggests! The Fail etc are conflating Halal with un-stunned and giving quite a remarkably false picture!

I haven't found a reputable mis stun report yet. Probably, as HomeHelp says, because no-one is required to record them! But it would be interesting to see what the BVA etc would say if there were records. Would it change their stance or the regulations?

The BVA article states that it's only allowed to provide for these religious practices. Which I do not believe is an acceptable reason. It also states there is evidence shows that stunning is preferable (why would I question their evidence - I can hardly go out there and conduct my own experiments!) Again, I'm sure that it's not always perfect, but we have to at least try to do our best for these animals.