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 counter argument still runs that without records for mis-stuns we can't measure what is best in real life, only what would be preferable in an ideal world.

If the rate of mis-stuns is high and repeated/different training does not reduce them to satisfactory levels, then what?

As it is we just do not know! There is so much more to the problem, it is not black and white!

m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27324224

Someone posted this link on another site I use I thought it was quite interesting.

kinkytoes, accepting an argument from authority is a useful rule of thumb. But it's not infallible, and the BVA seems especially fallible in this area:

• it doesn't acknowledge the need to test separately for an animal being insensate and being paralysed
• it hasn't conducted a meta-analysis of the evidence base
• it doesn't talk about mis-stun rates or issues

In my view, these are sufficiently serious shortcomings that they make the BVA's evidence unreliable.

I also want to do the best by these animals. I'm not convinced that insisting that the 0.5% or whatever it is that are currently stunned without slaughter are in future pre-stunned is doing the best by these animals. I'd far rather see the BVA:

1. do research into reducing mis-stun rates for the 99%
2. test for insensibility as distinct from paralysis for each stun method and (I hope but sadly doubt) confirm that insensibility is being caused immediately
3. research methods for monitoring and reducing abbatoir cruelty, which is linked to the intensity of the work, and the inherent attraction it holds for some vile people who like hurting animals

those actions would make the end of life better for many millions of animals.

And it's not just a simple "both-and". The relative proportion of energy, time and money spent on unstunned animals by the BVA is almost the inverse of the proportion of animals affected.

How many posters on this thread have actually worked in a slaughter house then? I am a qualified EHO and as part of that course worked as a meat inspector in a slaughter house for 14 weeks. so, I have actually seen this all at first hand. I saw very, very few instances of unstunned animals. stress in an animal affects the quality of the meat so it is in the interests of the slaughterhouse and butcher (if applicable) to ensure the animal is not stressed by being bled out unstunned. secondly killing an animal and leaving it to bleed out unstunned is cruel. I have seen it, it made me feel ill. the reasons for it are to do with ancient texts which talk about "not eating any animal that cannot be roused when poked with a sharp stick" a good thing 2000 years ago when we knew little about disease, not really necessary now. you could argue that either way they end up dead. personally, though I prefer my meat not to have suffered first. I have a right to know this surely as a consumer.

There's 2 arguments against halal as far as I see it.

The risk of an animal not being stunned first. I think the RSPCA Have it as about 82% but that includes kosher which isn't stunned.

Then there's the religious aspect. I know a couple of people on the thread who would buy meat that's been blessed. I'm a humanist, I don't see the problem as it's no different to me as people quoting One Direction lyrics at it!

Far more dangerous is the ill informed animal welfare warriors who seem to believe that on halal has bleed to death and not understanding that UK slaughter standards mean animals die in exact the same way but have to have been stunned first and don't get blessed.

They're the dangerous ones as they simply believe what they read in the Daily Mail. I too was one of the dangerous ones as I rejoiced when Denmark banned Halal. I didn't realise myself what the differences and similarities were.

There's a diff innate case for stunning by law to be introduced. A case of clear labelling to be mandatory too for the miniority who object to the blessing and to ensure those who demand halal have a better chance of getting it.

That's a big 'if' though nomama there might be a lot or conversely there might be hardly any. Clearly more research needs to be done there.

mummymeister, what ancient texts say anything of the sort? It is very disingenuous to argue that you have authoritative insight into what happens in a slaughterhouse, while at the same time providing a statement in a quote as though it was a real reference to an actual text, when you appear to have just made it up.

The reasons for unstunned slaughter have nothing whatsoever to do with being able to rouse an animal, at least in Judaism. They have to do with a desire to prevent harm and cruelty. It is absolutely fine for you to argue that the evidence is that stunned slaughter is less painful, but it is not ok to misattribute the intention, which is clear from Jewish religious texts.

Did a shochet work in the abbatoir you visited? If not, how did you see any unstunned slaughter? It wouldn't have produced kosher meat. Was it for the halal market?

well said Joysmum I think the figures are between 88 and 96% of Halal is stunned

I am not sure what the failure rate is for stunning in non Halal slaughter but it could equate to the same

kinkytoes, yes more research needs to be done, but there's no reason to ignore the research that has been done to date.

For example, this from an EU study into the stunning of poultry: "EFSA (2012) presents EEG evidence on the effectiveness of stun using different parameters. Two-thirds (67%) of broilers stunned with an AC current between 1-100mA and 200-400hz are considered to be effectively stunned. These parameters are broadly in line with our conclusion on present industry practice above, which in turn is based on HSA (2011) and our survey evidence. According to EFSA (2012), 95% of broilers are effectively stunned when using an AC current between 101-150mA and 50-200hz; while these parameters are not directly in line with those outlined under Regulation (EC) No 1099/99, they provide a reasonable proxy for the Regulation. The findings of EFSA therefore imply that approximately 28% more broilers stunned in waterbath systems will be stunned effectively from January, 2013 (assuming full compliance). This translates to an additional 1.31 billion broilers receiving an effective stun, i.e. 23% of all broilers slaughtered annually in the EU."

If I've understood this correctly, this is an explicit acknowledgement that well over a billion broilers a year received an ineffective stun prior to January 2013. Who knows what the number is now. But we are talking millions of animals, clearly.

Beef and lamb 98% of slaughter last year was stunned.

And yes mummy I'm in the industry so have done abattoir time didn't bother me

I agree however we should blanket ban non stun which would whip the rug out from under the EDL. Although if I'm honest both methods are pretty instant death so perhaps we should all focus on buying meat with good welfare standards from the UK rather than imported. Would be better for the animals to live their months well than debating their 10 second method of death.

I've heard, from someone who used to work in the industry, the worst part about consumer meat happens after the animal is killed!(Multiple freezings/thawing of poultry, false labelling, unclean conditions and bully-boy tactics employed by the management) No studies into that however!

Homehelp. I did not visit an abbatoir. I worked in several as a meat inspector. I trained in London and we went to the one by the Bow flyover called Zifs (might not be there now I trained over 30 years ago) and I assume you have worked in one? I also worked in a slaughterhouse with halal, one that only did poultry and one that was all stunned. I therefore feel I have a very broad experience. stunning chickens is notoriously difficult. most of my experience was in red meat slaughter. poultry slaughterhouses where I spent 2 weeks made me gag because of the smell. the waterbath and knife method is nowhere near perfect in my opinion. agree with softly that we also need to have much greater regard to welfare. I now only eat meat produced and slaughtered locally. I know the fields it grazes in, where it has been slaughtered and my butcher. not open to everyone I know so feel that the provenance of food should again be in the spotlight and the priority.

sorry homehelp. forgot to ask. are you are meat eater?

mummy on a totally different topic is it just me that out of the entire abattoir process is most long term horrified by seeing liver fluke

Makes me want to bleach my insides and keep DCs away from all grass.

mummymeister:

1. you've commented on my (mis)use of the word "visit" in my reply to your post, but have ignored entirely the actual content. Why? To remind you, I said it was not OK to fake-quote a statement of your own as thought it were a religious text saying something that Judaism doesn't say (and so far as I know Islam doesn't say either). Should I take your silence on your part as an admission that you have no source for this quote that is not a quote? Or it is a real quote from an actual text and I'm going to have to eat humble pie instead?
2. I haven't worked in an abbatoir, nor have I claimed to
3. Where did you see unstunned slaughter? In the halal abbatoir?
4. I think you are acknowledging that stunned poultry slaughter is awful. I'm not sure if you are acknowledging that stunned poultry slaughter may actually be worse than unstunned slaughter, for some types of stunning (and I think c90% of UK poultry stunning is waterbath)
5. I do eat meat, yes. Not sure how this is relevant, though.

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.

Genuinely interested - why? I think it is quite ludicrous that the meat people eat should be determined by whether the animal did or did not hear a jumble of words that it would never understand in the minutes before it died. However, the fact that it has in fact heard those words doesn't bother me in the least.

Just going to chuck my 2p in.

I am a meat eater and as such think it would be hypocritical of me to object to the method of slaughter as long as it is legal. That said, I do think if any meat is going to be singled out as particularly cruel, it should be kosher meat. Halal meat is usually stunned, kosher meat is never stunned.

As for subsidising mosques, that is ridiculous. A tithe or zakat will be paid on any profit made by a Muslim: if I wanted to avoid this I would have to stop seeing my gp, shopping at my local shops, getting my car washed and give up takeaways just for starters. Then work on abolishing the parliamentary system as there are undoubtedly Muslim MPs who pay it as well.

I find the faux outrage over this quite revealing.

Something that hasn't been explored in the debate in he media is that generally only certain parts of animals are sold as Kosher as preparing the hindquarters of animals as Kosher is really difficult (I'm no expert). I'd like to know where the other parts of these animals are sold as they won't be stunned. I appreciate that this won't apply to a huge amount of meat in the UK, but there will be some.

I agree however we should blanket ban non stun which would whip the rug out from under the EDL

Totally agree, and before anyone claims discrimination, it's great to see that nobody on here has suggested halal eaters shouldn't be able to enjoy their choice. All I've seen is the insistence that others should also have a choice, whatever their reasons for making it, and I personally add eating within the law to that

Since non-stunned slaughter is illegal in the UK (though often ignored for "religious purposes") I realise this would make difficulties for non-stunned halal and kosher meat eaters. To me, the answer would then be for them to campaign to have the law changed, so that the whole issue could be properly revisited and a democratic ruling made which would be applied right across the board

In the meantime, even the strictest observer certainly won't starve, given the countless other food choices available - many of them even more delicious (and sometimes healthier) than meat itself

There was a really good episode dealing with this on countryfike in March. I just checked and it doesn't seem to be on Iplayer anymore.

They went into a halal slaughter house and showed where the sheep would be killed and explained the difference between halal and not and stunned and not.

Basically half of every kosher animal goes into the non kosher market as the legs are worth lots of money there but are not wanted in the kosher market.

Maybe somebody who is better at searching will find it on YouTube or something.

Sorry that's kosher sheep not 'animal' as I don't think it applies to poultry etc.

In the case of Judaism, if anyone's interested, there is no passage in Torah which describes the method of slaughter.

The only reference is 'kill the animal as I taught you'. The method is ascribed to oral tradition.

The Talmund (the explanatory notes to Torah, if you like) contains the how's and why's of legal rulings. Oral tradition written down and explained.

Oh, and the back half of the animal meat is Kosher. It's just a very skilled (expensive) job to separate the flesh from veins/arteries/cawl/anus area etc... Which is why it ends up in the gentile market.

Can anyone clarify this for me? I have seen videos of lambs being hung upside down and their throats slit, next to each other and moving along a sort of conveyor belt. Still hung up, knowing what was going on and aware of it. The screams that they made will horrify me to the end of my days. Then, once they moved to the appropriate space on the conveyer belt, their throats were slit and they slowly bled to death. God they were terrified.

My objection was the sustained stress and pain they were in for an unnecessarily long period of time, and also the fact that they were conscious of what was happening to each other.

I can no longer eat lamb. Now I realise this may not be exclusive to halal slaughter, but I do know that at least 10% of halal slaughter in this country at least does not have stunning done first. I think we need far stricter practices in slaughter and also stricter regulations on travelling animals long distance to slaughter.

Melonade: that want how it was done in the countryfile slaughterhouse, which followed UK v welfare rules. The animal was separated from the others in a pen thing standing up. All very calm.

I have searched on YouTube but it is not there. I might email the bbc and see if they would put it on Iplayer as there is now tended interest in this.