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 Wikipedia entry for Halal states that Halal food "must come from a supplier that uses halal practises. Specifically, the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim (a true believer) who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ( "In the name of God") and then three times " Allahu akbar " ( God is the greatest). Then the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck, Causing the animal's death without cutting the spinal cord. Lastly, the blood from the veins must be drained"

So, if only "true believers" can do the deed...isn't this discrimination against any abattoir workers who are not Muslim?

Is this acceptable?

Melonade I work in the industry so know perfectly well the system, and if you RTFT you would see I advocate a blanket ban on non stun meat, I am also married to a muslim but feel free to consider that I have some form of agenda rather than actual knowledge of the process

My response was a factual answer to the video that you saw and the fact the 98% of lamb and beef both halal and non halal is stunned before slaughter through major slaughter houses therefore your reasoning of giving up because of alive lambs being hung on a conveyor belt is factually incorrect. The Head Vet of the country should stop being so idiotic and quote STUN NON STUN not halal because they are wrong and supporting anti islamic feeling for no purpose.

SueDNim then we actually agree, either we blanket ban stunning OR we mark packs stun / non stun (not halal which doesn't indicate if that is stunned or non stunned halal). Which is factual and which would in fact reduce non stun slaughter by default to some very specialist halal / kosher butchers as the big players would want no part in it. The flipside of that is more muslims would start to think about if they agree with stun or not and therefore non-stun slaughter rates would increase as currently they just don't generally consider it at all allowing most "halal" to be stunned. pros and cons. To me too many cons and a blanket ban would be better

Susy yes 98% of meat is killed in precisely the same way RTFT. Halal is a red herring. the majority of halal meat is stunned, slit and hung. 98% of all meat halal and non halal is stunned, slit and hung. So the statement "Halal slaughter has no place in our society" is only true if you believe ALL slaughter should be banned.

To be factually correct you need to say "Un Stunned slaughter" has no place in our society. Not all halal is unstun, in fact very little and very specialist.

Kinky so what would you be making your decision based on? Why would you not buy halal meat? If its animal welfare then you need to advocate for "Stun / non-Stun" labelling. Halal has nothing to do with that.

Waltons Muslims generally buy meat from shops known as halal or from packs marked as halal. Some mutliple retailers now have halal delis in larger populated areas. So to mark it so it can be actively chosen makes sense. To be honest they are also being bamboozled as the only thing that makes it halal is a prayer said or played on a CD player near it especially in larger multiples.

However there is a premium on halal meat as it will need to be kept and packed separately so to roll that out to all retail packs would mean a degree of separation and a huge amount of wastage as you can't match slaughter rates to purely halal purchase. Also the steaks and mince you buy aren't all from the same cow, in fact they might not all even be from the same country! They are all bits jumbled up so some might be halal some not. The only way to know where your meat comes from is a butcher close to the food chain. And that isn't every butcher as loads now just buy boxes or cuts and lay them out.

But thats a whole other issue!

I mean, is it ok that supermarkets and restaurants within the UK should be complicit in the growth of an industry that is actively discriminating against workers who are not Muslim?

Oneday Wikpedia for a start is written by teenage boys in their bedrooms

Major slaughter houses just play the prayer on a CD player and the usual slaughter man does the deed. Some will bring in a particular "believer" to do the cut. But the rest of the line would be ordinary Joes. the stunner, hide stripper, gut room staff etc. So no discrimination.

HomeHelpMeGawd - yes, it is about cruelty. I get your point about failed stuns. I take the postion that at least you have tried to stun, so a greater proportion of the animals will be stunned. It isn't perfect, but it is better than nothing.

CrimeaRiver

Sikhs are discouraged from eating halal meat is because back in the day the slitting of the beast's throat to let the blood/impurities/sins flow out before human consumption was considered by the relevant Sikh guru (I forget which one) to be cruel

Was not also Pork consumption considered one of the most dangerous meats to eat ..back in the day most given to infection and parasites...No one eats rare pork do they....

We're talking about 500-odd years ago

Most religious rubbish was created then is any of it actually relevant now?

Softly...yes I am aware that information found on Wikipedia information can be suspect...which was why I looked for other sources of information...

halalfoodauthority.com

their definition of halal also states that the slaughter be performed by a Muslim.

Fair enough...as you say...maybe other ancillary jobs at the 'halal' abbatoir would be open to non-believers. But is that good enough...you may just think what does it matter...but it would flippin' well matter to anyone whose livelihood depended upon.

The wiki comment was a joke, i'm aware of the text

The majority of meat runs through mainstream abattoirs not "halal" abattoirs, so the same employees chosen on a non religious basis will run halal and non halal lines. This is seriously a non-issue. Even those who would have a "believer" for the cut will actually be creating an additional job for halal runs rather than replacing a "non believer" for all runs.

The very very few "halal" only abattoirs may hire muslim staff but again only necessary for the cut.

A much larger issue is places like the salvation army who would hire Christian staff, or women's aid I assume employ mainly women or the myriad of other organisations who use the legal rights that allow for a person of a particular sex, religion or ethnicity to be employed.

Bastards

so in non-halal slaughter, do they not slit the throat?

Can I ask a question. Please excuse my ignorance. I drove past a halal fishmonger today. How does that work.

Yes Vampyre they slit the throat of all slaughtered animals.

The difference is not halal its stun or non stun which is why halal is a bit of a pointless argument.

Padithea brilliant

It doesn't there is no such thing.

Mmmmm Rayners lane. Big sign over fishmongers HAlal Fishmonger. Thought it was odd.

SoftlySoflty The Head Vet of the country should stop being so idiotic and quote STUN NON STUN not halal because they are wrong and supporting anti islamic feeling for no purpose

Err, right. A total ban on killing animals without stunning them first might not be far off if religious groups cannot agree a more humane way of slaughter soon, a top vet has said.

The president-elect of the British Veterinary Association (BVA) John Blackwell said he wanted to discuss the issue with Jewish and Muslim groups in order to find a compromise that puts more emphasis on the welfare of the animal.

"I don't think an outright ban is a long way off, there is enough of a view that this practice is inhumane and causes suffering at the time of death," said Blackwell.

His comments are likely to cause anger among religious groups whose teachings recommend or require the slaughter of animals without stunning them first – including Jews and Muslims.

Blackwell said the BVA had not strayed into religious discussions while campaigning for the changes in the past, but that he was happy to talk to religious groups.

"We have tried to keep it out of the religious sphere. It is not an attack on religious faith, it is a view that we have taken on animal welfare," Blackwell said.

He said that there was currently an exemption for religious groups that allowed them to slaughter animals that makes their meat halal or kosher in accordance with their religious beliefs."

John Blackwell wants a move towards a complete ban on non-stunned slaughter, as Denmark has done.

The trouble is, I don't think everyone believes that all supposedly pre-stunned slaughter actually happens. The figure certainly isn't 98%.

But you are the one who says a flight or fight herd animal willingly sticks its head through an interesting looking hole in the mayhem of a slaughterhouse, to happily be bled out. I'm beginning to wonder if the role in the relevant industry you do is of pr for halal forms of slaughter. If so, you aren't doing a very good job.

I'd only be put off if I knew an animal had suffered while being slaughtered (fgs, I can see why people opt for vegetarianism!) so if nearly all are stunned, I don't see what the huge issue is.

What really has confused me though, is Subway removing pork from their menu. Surely if you believe it is 'unclean' you just don't eat it? Or am I being extremely dense?

Jewish and Muslim groups in order to find a compromise that puts more emphasis on the welfare of the animal.

So stunning animals prior to the prayer and throat slitting, that kind of compromise you mean? The sort of compromise that already exists for halal meat?

But to be honest if you think the 98% figure is made up and in fact there is a large conspiracy going on to secretly not stun animals despite the fact that its messier, most slaughtermen hate it and it would cock the smooth running of the line up. And you choose to ignore the fact that I advocate a total ban on non stunning then I'm wasting my breath on you. I shall leave you to your research into alien abductions and go back to my day job as PR manager for the cohesive group of muslim religious leaders a less likely group than fighting cats in a sack

softly we were talking about kosher in that particular instance. But labelling stating stunned or non-stunned would be more useful (to me).

But if it were a choice of stunned halal and stunned non-halal I would still choose the non-halal. Why? Because I do not subscribe to any religion and that is my choice as a consumer.

Just had a thought this morning, ritual slaughter as far as I am aware is only carried out by men. how does that all work then? does this mean that religious freedom trumps equal opps/discrimination against women? What if a slaughter woman wants to work in an halal slaughter house? I agree with Kinky. I would be happy to see meat labelled stun or not stunned rather than ascribed to any particular religious practice. I could then have a proper choice. I honestly think that the BVA are right. we should stop tiptoeing about and just ban slaughter without stunning first. sorry if that offends peoples religion but animal welfare/suffering trumps your concerns in my book anyway.

Pasithea halal means permissible. So you can have halal fish without anykind of slaughter involved.

Also some Muslims don't eat shellfish or things like sharks or eels. So if I drive past the halal fishmongers I wouldn't expect them to seek scallops for example which I expect is the selling point.

I just wanted to comment on the interesting looking hole debacle.

Animals kept indoors, usually when young and over winter, always put their heads through interesting looking holes, it is how they are fed.

The abattoir replicates this to some degree, so the animals are not panicked and screaming, they put their head through a collar looking for feed and are killed. No panic, no fuss.

And yes, I have been inside abattoirs, know people who work in them and have current, regular access to our local one. With very few exceptions the animals are calm on entering. Even they have stun fails, which is extremely traumatic for everyone.

Also, much of the footage and pictures of poor practice are very old. I wouldn't suspect the RSPCA of this but I know PETA etc do as I have caught them handing out leaflets with terrible (doctored for blood) pictures of a lab I know closed down 20 years ago. They were claiming it was from last year. I was threatened with a smack in the gob by a very nice man, when I pointed it out, loudly!

Had a quick skim through, but apologies if repeating, in answer to a PP, it is not a problem for a Christian to eat meat sacrificed to an idol. The apostle Paul in a letter to the Christians in Corinth, when asked if they can eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols, tells them they are free from the shackles of the law. However, if they were served the meat and it was pointed out to them, and the person pointing it out would get upset if they then went ahead and still ate it, they shouldn't eat the meat as they shouldn't be upsetting others, not because it is a problem that they ate the meat.

Thank you nomama far more eloquent than I!