Ritual meat slaughter.
So – it turns out that “kosher” or “halal” meat is from animals that have been more humanely slaughtered than any method used in other abattoirs. This is because the immediate interruption of the blood supply to the brain as it is throat-cut with a VERY sharp blade, results in immediate unconsciousness in the animal.
Other methods are subject to mistakes and inaccuracies that often result in a comparatively lengthy and painful death, but these are the methods currently being legislated for.
Also, it has been noted that the Danish, who are leading the charge on this, stand accused of some of the worst farm animal welfare standards available, especially in their treatment of breeding and slaughtering pigs.
It all looks like an attack on religion, rather than on a bad practice, in much the same way that the law against fox hunting with dogs is all about class prejudice, rather than the welfare of foxes.Posted 4 years agobigGMember
OK, so that’s all very interesting. But there’s nothing new in what you say, what’s your opinion on it?
IMHO killing animals is never going to be particularly humane, or pleasant. But I eat meat and accept that it’s part of the process and never going to be a fluffy or happy experience.Posted 4 years agoloddrikMember
Kill religion, not animals.
And the ‘muslim expert’ who was on radio 5 trying to justify halal slaughter on the grounds that he had studied the issue at length and that animals probably didn’t experience pain and suffering was both laughable and disgusting.
Religion will die out eventually and it’s a shame I won’t be here to point and laugh when it does.Posted 4 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
There’s a lot of dispute about it- there’s also dispute within judaiism and islam as to whether stunning is acceptable beforehand. I for one welcome our new grey area overlord.
TBH I think a lot of the distaste comes from people who believe that normal slaughter is completely humane and painless, which is cobblers.
binners – Member
The whole thing has been orchestrated by the bolt-gun marketing board
They are persuasive.
Posted 4 years ago
I buy Halal all the time. It’s loads cheaper.
Thats me too. Tesco’s Halal is waaaay cheaper.
At the end of the day if you object to the way an animal is killed DONT eat any meat as all animals for food aren’t kept on pristine meadows and pampered. I’ve said this many a time, when I see ickle lambs/sheep on a ride I always have Lamb for tea..Posted 4 years agoninfanMember
Other methods are subject to mistakes and inaccuracies
Its a bit of a Straw man really, isn’t it?
‘Halal or Kosher slaughter done properly is more humane than Stunned slaughter done badly’
Well, no shit Sherlock 🙁
I don’t see any sky fairy based justification for anyone being allowed to slit animals throats when its ordinarily prohibited, especially given the fact that there is an internal debate within islam over whether stunning immediately prior to slaughter actually makes an animal Haram!Posted 4 years ago
I’m not really concerned about all the religious flimflam – my interest is in what is the most instantaneous and pain-free method of slaughter. All the praying and whatnot is neither here nor there.
Also, if the ritual method IS actually the most efficient (in these terms), then it appears to me that this is an attack on the religion, and the “concern” for the animals is just a bit of cover for anti-islamic or anti-semitic attack-dog behaviour.
Here’s an interesting response from the “PETA” website:
“The video shows some un-Islamic practices indeed but the spasms of the animal and gushing of blood are reflex actions. The animal in unconscious. Is Islamic slaughter cruel? The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the animal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels. The scientific facts A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout. The Halal method With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages. The Western method Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move. Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.”
My italics – linking, again, to my reference to the actual reason for banning hunting foxes with hounds…Posted 4 years agoSpeederSubscriber
None of the animals we eat die in their sleep from old age. Is there a most preferable way to die? Mine is to go as quickly and painlessly as possible. I’m not sure having my throat cut would be my first choice but I’m not going to to volunteer to try each method and give feedback.Posted 4 years ago
Ah we both replied at the same time.
The Times. Although it WAS an “opinion” piece
I think you need to be careful what you read, where you read it and how much if it you take in…. today its the Times, tomorrow its the Metro, next week it’s the Mail or the Star…
Here is something written by a friend containing references to actual science, for your interestPosted 4 years agodashedMember
my interest is in what is the most instantaneous and pain-free method of slaughter.
On that basis halal isn’t for you – it might be many things, but instantaneous it isn’t. Not exactly the same, but I suppose it is fairly firsthand unlike most people who write for the Mail / Times / Sun… I’ve dispatched a fair few deer by cutting their throats. I’ll be first to admit that these weren’t in “ideal” conditions of a slaughterhouse, nor am I anywhere near as proficient as people who do it for a living, but it takes time for an animal to bleed out and fade into unconsciousness. I can’t comment on what level of pain is felt during this time but I’d take a shot to the back of the head any day.Posted 4 years agokonabunnyMember
It all looks like an attack on religion
I think the BVA is a legitimate organization putting forward a legitimate point. Their 99 other press releases on other topics this year will be largely ignored, unfortunately.
The media and popular reaction is not an attack on religion. It’s to some extent xenophobic criticism of Muslims and Jews but imvho it’s also a form of “cheap compassion” – cheap because it doesn’t involve the person doing the criticism actually having to get off their arse and do something or sacrifice anything. It’s a lot easier to ban kosher/halal meat if you never eat the stuff – it’s a lot easier to tell Japanese people to stop eating whale meat than it is to change aspects of your own life that have a damaging effect on the environment (like cheap flights)!Posted 4 years ago
Interesting. The results from the “foam breath” study seem to stand against the German EEG and ECG results.
It would seem that, on balance, there is either little to choose between the two methods or even that the ritual methods are actually more humane to some degree.
So it seems to me that it IS the religions that are being attacked, rather than the effectivity of the methodologies…Posted 4 years agoJunkyardMember
by continuing this practice we’re putting animal welfare after fairy stories.
They have about three seconds to live before you kill them to consume their body. I am sure they are touched by your “welfare”
Do you want me to
1. kick you in the balls then slit your throat
2. slit your throat and then kick you in the balls
Its an important welfare issue for me 😉
TBH i have never understood why meat eaters who accept factory farming, artificial insemination, battery chickens, foi grass, veal eating lobsters cooked alive in boiling water [ surely worse in anyones book??] suddenly get a moral outrage at a religious method of slaughter and become all humanitarian
You kill stuff to eat. Its your choice but you will never make it nice
my reference to the actual reason for banning hunting foxes with hounds
If you try a third time someone might bite.Posted 4 years agouser-removedMember
If you really want to see how humane Halal slaughtering is, I strongly recommend you sit and watch ‘Earthlings’ tonight. It’s a feature length documentary and genuinely eye opening. Free to watch on YouTube.
Please don’t be put off by the name or the fact that it’s narrated by Jouaquin Pheonix.Posted 4 years agoclantonMember
I have obersved, first hand, both normal slaughter with stunning, and Jewish Kosher slaughter. It is not just the slitting of the throat that is of concern to me but the restraint required beforehand, which in the one I observed involved a “tilt table” in which the cow is essentially crushed and then swivelled upside down before the neck was cut. In contrast the cattel being stunned walkd into a crush and were dropped instantly with a single shot.
Based on personal experience I support a complete ban on religous slaughter techniques.Posted 4 years agocraigxxlMember
I’ve witnessing both bolt gun and slit throat methods of slaughtering an animal I wouldn’t say the later is any more human. What you see in the Halal videos promoting it as a more human method where a prayer is said for the animal before it is turned calmly upside down it throat cut and allowed to bleed out is far from the reality of what happens in a slaughter house. The animals are herded through a narrow pen before been led into a cage. The animal is stunned to prevent it kicking about as the cage is turned up side down and the throat slit. Sometimes the first cut works bit more often the animal wasn’t stunned sufficiently the first time so is still kicking about and more than one cut is required or the throat is ripped out to kill it. Not halal as your not supposed to touch the animal again until it has bleed out and dead. Regardless of the animal been dead or still clinging to life it is dumped from the cage, hung, gutted and skinned.
A bolt to the head isn’t much better as they are herded down a similar pen before getting diverted into pop up cages where there head emerges to receive a bolt in the head killing it out right or stunning it enough that it is hung, skinned and gutted before it has chance to know what is happening.
Both are pretty nasty ways for an animal to have it’s life ended but whilst one pretends to be more humane but reality is far from it the other is a more efficient industrial method of achieving the same end.
Enjoy your lunch.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Ritual meat slaughter.’ is closed to new replies.