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

[thisismetryingijustwantedyoutoknow]

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-02-24/debates/8FDB8A16-AE50-4246-ADC9-70191907499B/FoodLabelling(HalalAndKosherMeat)

personally I’m not bothered that meat is killed in certain ways, I think if you eat meat you need to make peace with the entire process being pretty horrible for the animals.

But if you’re going to have issues with halal slaughter, you also need to have an issue with kosher slaughter. It’s the exact same process, just with different prayers said. The slaughter process is the same in both methods - the animal has its throat slit and they are left to have the blood drain out.

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.

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.

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EU legislation to protect animals at the time of killing already existed (Directive 93/119/EC) but was outdated in many respects.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.

Increased operator responsibility:

• 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.

Training and research on animal welfare:

• 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 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!).

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

And no, I don't think we should repeal the animal cruelty laws because they cover things like access to medical treatment, food and water. I think they should be much, much tighter actually.

What annoys me is this argument about halal meat (which actually isn't about halal meat, it's about non stun slaughter) is being hailed as improving animal cruelty when it won't, it'll just change labeling.

But religious slaughter DOESN'T mean poor treatment of animals. Our industrial slaughter processes do.

I’ve just looked it up and you can get a halal certificate for £500 or there are monthly fees.

I’m sure they would gain noticeable cost savings by quicker throughput and less use of stunning, if they use it at all.

Irrelevant to my post, I didn’t call
for no labelling.

If animal welfare laws mandate stunning as a more humane method then killing an animal without stunning has been deemed poor treatment. Presumably by animal welfare experts.

But if your position is that any slaughter is cruel and stunning makes little difference, why don’t we repeal those laws and allow ALL slaughterhouses to do non stun slaughter?

What’s the point of these laws at all if a declaration of religion makes you exempt?

But it would be ok to repeal the laws around stunning animals for slaughter?

Surely if stunning for slaughter has been deemed necessary to reduce suffering, it should apply to all? If you deem it to make no difference, then we can allow ALL slaughter to be non stun - surely?

The argument frequently mentions halal because it is halal meat that is being widely distributed to the public without clear labelling for *reasons.

I have been clear in my posts that I am referring to ALL non stun slaughter.

How do you rear, transport and kill an animal in a way that doesn't cause suffering?

You behave like a normal human being (which most farmers are) and treat your animals with respect. This constant lying about and demonising farmers for the behaviour of a minority is shocking.

No one has even mentioned farmers? Poultry farming though as an industry is very inhumane, I think there is very little respect given to the animals and welfare guidelines are low. We are however mostly talking about the slaughter process here, which always involves suffering as the animal dies for the purpose of human consumption of meat. And halal is very likely to come from the same farmers as non halal. No one is trying to demonise any farmers, but you sound a tad islamophobic.

You're conflating halal with non-stun. They are separate.

A halal AND non -stun slaughter house is the most expensive type of slaughtering because they have a slower through put and reduced numbers of animals going through them. It's why when you get non stun halal meat from an islamic butcher it's super expensive.

Stunning animals actually makes the process easier and quicker as there's reduced risk of struggling. If false to say lack of stunning is due to cost.

Rearing and killing animals without suffering is actually really easy. The transport and industrialised slaughter methods is much harder to make free from suffering.

I personally buy my beef from a farm that does on prem slaughter , which I definitely feel is the least cruel method but it's not viable at the scale at which we now consume meat, and is also much more expensive.

No one has even mentioned farmers?

Eh? You said this:

How do you rear, transport and kill an animal in a way that doesn't cause suffering?

Who do you think rears the animals?

Clue: it’s farmers.

but you sound a tad islamophobic.

Can you explain how calling for clear labelling of all non stun slaughter is ‘Islamophobic’? I’m really not following your thinking here…. you’re not just throwing around spurious accusations by any chance?