Horror at halal slaughterhouse: Shocking undercover film shows the 'needless suffering' of livestock that are butchered without being stunned first

by eddie Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:37 pm

Twelve slaughterhouses found not to be stunning animals first. Sad

Horror at halal slaughterhouse: Shocking undercover film shows the 'needless suffering' of livestock that are butchered without being stunned first

Knife poised at the throat of a helpless sheep, this is the moment a slaughterman cuts the throat of a fully conscious animal.
Our exclusive pictures reveal for the first time the full horror of a religious practice that Britain’s top vet wants outlawed.
Undercover Mail on Sunday investigators secretly filmed inside a halal abattoir as more than 100 sheep appeared to writhe in agony

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603360/Horror-halal-slaughterhouse-Shocking-undercover-film-shows-needless-suffering-livestock-butchered-without-stunned-first.htmlr

by eddie Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:40 pm

I'm not normally fussed tbh, and am nit so hypocritical to care where and how my meat is killed etc but I do draw the line here. I wouldn't eat meat from here if I had the choice.

by David Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:45 pm

eddie wrote:I'm not normally fussed tbh, and am nit so hypocritical to care where and how my meat is killed etc but I do draw the line here. I wouldn't eat meat from here if I had the choice.

No matter what the religious authorities say I have never trusted the fact they said they stunned the animal before slitting the throat. I don't buy halal.

by eddie Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:49 pm

David wrote:
eddie wrote:I'm not normally fussed tbh, and am nit so hypocritical to care where and how my meat is killed etc but I do draw the line here. I wouldn't eat meat from here if I had the choice.

No matter what the religious authorities say I have never trusted the fact they said they stunned the animal before slitting the throat. I don't buy halal.

I don't knowingly buy it, but may inadvertently eat it?
Isn't it against the law in Britain to kill an animal without stunning it first???

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:52 pm

eddie wrote:I'm not normally fussed tbh, and am nit so hypocritical to care where and how my meat is killed etc but I do draw the line here. I wouldn't eat meat from here if I had the choice.

I agree its ghastly Eddie, but again you do not normally think about it because if we truly did about any animal slaughter, none of us would eat meat. The reality is I am all for humane methods and this here shows it was not being done humane, where others I know it does happen, but again the reality is how can we show shock here when even slaughter houses with the stun, have also been exposed for mistreating animals? The reality is again though how can we express shock when we have no issue with animals being slaughtered to gratify our appetites?

I am not knocking that this story shows where the slaughter is inhumane, but these stories are used for one factor, not the treatment of the animals, but by what faith those who carry this out belong to. That matters more when you are a newspaper and are able to play on a fear people have slowly grown believe since 9/11. Anything that someone can publish that shows anything to do with the followers of Islam in a bad light, is a gold mine to some of the media and that is the real reality of this story, not the animals being killed badly, but who was doing it.

by eddie Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:57 pm

I don't care if this was a bunch of Jews, Muslims or the krankees Didge.
It's against the law and inhumane and these people should be prosecuted.

by David Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:57 pm

eddie wrote:
David wrote:

No matter what the religious authorities say I have never trusted the fact they said they stunned the animal before slitting the throat. I don't buy halal.

I don't knowingly buy it, but may inadvertently eat it?
Isn't it against the law in Britain to kill an animal without stunning it first???

Same here edds. I try to avoid halal. It is illegal except for religious reasons as for halal or kosher meat!

by eddie Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:59 pm

David wrote:
eddie wrote:

I don't knowingly buy it, but may inadvertently eat it?
Isn't it against the law in Britain to kill an animal without stunning it first???

Same here edds. I try to avoid halal. It is illegal except for religious reasons as for halal or kosher meat!

I sure even Jews and Muslims have to stun the animals first??
Or am I wrong David?

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:01 pm

eddie wrote:I don't care if this was a bunch of Jews, Muslims or the krankees Didge.
It's against the law and inhumane and these people should be prosecuted.

You still don't get it Eddie, I know you don't care who would do this, you would castigate them all and rightly so, but the Mail and other newspapers do as it is more about again to them who has done this, with again a story that thy can whip up animosity against.

Sorry but you fail to see this every time and again people who eat meat in regards to stories like this are hypocritical because if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong. Thus any shock claimed is moot by the fact we ignore the animals are being killed in the first place because we eat meat. We thus show fake anger over a method but not the means to an end.
That is hypocrisy, sorry Eddie

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:05 pm

Eddie, no some Muslims and Jews do, but most do not stun the animal, which is in reality an electric shock, which is not humane either, unless you think having high voltage zapped into your brain is fun?
Also the animal can come around are being electrocuted of which does happen still being conscious having their throats slit
It is not a full proof method or even humane itself

by eddie Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:06 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:I don't care if this was a bunch of Jews, Muslims or the krankees Didge.
It's against the law and inhumane and these people should be prosecuted.

You still don't get it Eddie, I know you don't care who would do this, you would castigate them all and rightly so, but the Mail and other newspapers do as it is more about again to them who has done this, with again a story that thy can whip up animosity against.

Sorry but you fail to see this every time and again people who eat meat in regards to stories like this are hypocritical because if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong. Thus any shock claimed is moot by the fact we ignore the animals are being killed in the first place because we eat meat. We thus show fake anger over a method but not the means to an end.
That is hypocrisy, sorry Eddie

I agree with you to an extent didge, I did say that in my original post (or the second one?) it is rather hypocritical tbh.

But if I had a choice didge, I'd rather not eat that without being told how it was killed.

For instance, if it became law that all animals were killed this way, I may re-think my position on eating meat. I'm not a massive meat fan anyway; I eat fish and chicken but I'm not keen on chicken much.

by David Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:06 pm

eddie wrote:
David wrote:

Same here edds. I try to avoid halal. It is illegal except for religious reasons as for halal or kosher meat!

I sure even Jews and Muslims have to stun the animals first??
Or am I wrong David?

No they have an exemption: Jews and Muslims can slaughter animal without being stunned. Have a look at the RSPCA website.

by eddie Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:07 pm

Didge wrote:Eddie, no some Muslims and Jews do, but most do not stun the animal, which is in reality an electric shock, which is not humane either, unless you think having high voltage zapped into your brain is fun?
Also the animal can come around are being electrocuted of which does happen still being conscious having their throats slit
It is not a full proof method or even humane itself

Thanks for clarifying that. Was just googling lol

by David Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:10 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:Eddie, no some Muslims and Jews do, but most do not stun the animal, which is in reality an electric shock, which is not humane either, unless you think having high voltage zapped into your brain is fun?
Also the animal can come around are being electrocuted of which does happen still being conscious having their throats slit
It is not a full proof method or even humane itself

Thanks for clarifying that. Was just googling lol

RSPCA Link showing that Kosher and Halal slaughterhouses have an exemption:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter

by eddie Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:13 pm

David wrote:
eddie wrote:

Thanks for clarifying that. Was just googling lol

RSPCA Link showing that Kosher and Halal slaughterhouses have an exemption:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter

Thanks twin. For some reason I was under the impression that they still had to stun first! I thought the only difference was this they prayed over it.

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:17 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

You still don't get it Eddie, I know you don't care who would do this, you would castigate them all and rightly so, but the Mail and other newspapers do as it is more about again to them who has done this, with again a story that thy can whip up animosity against.

Sorry but you fail to see this every time and again people who eat meat in regards to stories like this are hypocritical because if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong. Thus any shock claimed is moot by the fact we ignore the animals are being killed in the first place because we eat meat. We thus show fake anger over a method but not the means to an end.
That is hypocrisy, sorry Eddie

I agree with you to an extent didge, I did say that in my original post (or the second one?) it is rather hypocritical tbh.

But if I had a choice didge, I'd rather not eat that without being told how it was killed.

For instance, if it became law that all animals were killed this way, I may re-think my position on eating meat. I'm not a massive meat fan anyway; I eat fish and chicken but I'm not keen on chicken much.

I agree with you Eddie in regards to choice, but again we never choose to be able to spare the animals life either, or the millions of others we seek to ignore.

There is no real way of knowing how animals feel when killed, as we cannot communicate with them, thus claims to the best method are based upon views and opinions. We know how we should treat animals, but animals being fed to slaughter is inhumane in itself like we agree making vies point on what is more humane to me a tad absurd, a contradiction if you like.

Though again I agree all should have a choice.

by David Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:17 pm

eddie wrote:
David wrote:

RSPCA Link showing that Kosher and Halal slaughterhouses have an exemption:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter

Thanks twin. For some reason I was under the impression that they still had to stun first! I thought the only difference was this they prayed over it.

I can truly say I was misled before by people until I was reminded that these communities had an exemption.

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:20 pm

88% of halal meat in this country is prestunned.

Number of animals slaughtered by
religious methods
In 2012 the Food Standards Agency (FSA)
published an Animal Welfare Survey
undertaken in abattoirs across Great Britain in
a one week period in September 2011. The
survey provided numbers of animals slaughtered/killed by the Shechita and Halal
methods and indicated that a low percentage of
animals killed by all methods during this time who
were not stunned before slaughter; with 3% of
cattle, 10% of sheep and goats, and 4% of
poultry slaughtered in Great Britain not receiving
a pre-slaughter stun¹. The survey showed that
around 88% of animals slaughtered by the Halal
method were stunned before slaughter.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232719611043&mode=prd

Have you ever seen the videos of the abusive use of the electric prods and stunning in the other abattoirs?

Sorry, but you either eat meat or you don't, there is no way that is pleasant for the animal,

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:15 pm

eddie wrote:Twelve slaughterhouses found not to be stunning animals first.

Horror at halal slaughterhouse: Shocking undercover film shows the 'needless suffering' of livestock that are butchered without being stunned first

Knife poised at the throat of a helpless sheep, this is the moment a slaughterman cuts the throat of a fully conscious animal.
Our exclusive pictures reveal for the first time the full horror of a religious practice that Britain’s top vet wants outlawed.
Undercover Mail on Sunday investigators secretly filmed inside a halal abattoir as more than 100 sheep appeared to writhe in agony

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603360/Horror-halal-slaughterhouse-Shocking-undercover-film-shows-needless-suffering-livestock-butchered-without-stunned-first.htmlr

That is bloody terribe, I just can't go people being evil and mindless towards animals like this, cruel bastards....

It's bad enough they go for slaughter in the first place , but not to be stunned first is horrendous, and I hate seeing cattle rammed in the back of a lorry, destined for death.

by Ben Reilly Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:17 pm

I'll say it again -- it would make for a really good thread if our British members could reach out to their representatives in government asking why there's no labeling, and post whatever answers they might get back.

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:18 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:I don't care if this was a bunch of Jews, Muslims or the krankees Didge.
It's against the law and inhumane and these people should be prosecuted.

You still don't get it Eddie, I know you don't care who would do this, you would castigate them all and rightly so, but the Mail and other newspapers do as it is more about again to them who has done this, with again a story that thy can whip up animosity against.

Sorry but you fail to see this every time and again people who eat meat in regards to stories like this are hypocritical because if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong. Thus any shock claimed is moot by the fact we ignore the animals are being killed in the first place because we eat meat. We thus show fake anger over a method but not the means to an end.
That is hypocrisy, sorry Eddie

I refer you to this post in reply to yours on that thread....
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3786p200-eat-pork-or-go-hungry#73446

Let us set some boundaries here, or we will end up all over the place

what is meant by rights???
there are no "immutable" rights anyway
ALL rights are granted (whether to other humans or animals) by US...

Do animals indeed have ANY rights?
YES...those granted by US

US means the vast majority of the world (in this case)

What rights do animals have?

Very Limited rights...

They have a right (as far as reasonably possible) to be treated humanely.

NOW is killing "Inhumane" per se......NO, preceeding from the reasonable and observable fact that MOST, (though not all) animals ARE NOT "SELF AWARE" therefor they do not "think" as we do "I think therefore I am" they are not concerned about their existance or non existance

That said , the MEANS of killing can be either humane or not, I happen to agree with didge that electrical stunning, unless done expertly and correctly is not humane...
(thousands of volts to the brain will stun effectively, causing instant, total loss of conciousness..IF DONE CORRECTLY however if its NOT done correctly its bad) The old captive bolt method was far better and far more certain...

What IS certain however, is that a rabbit for instance, does not have the right to the expectation that it will NOT end up as pie for my tea. (being purely facetious here....its its own fault as a species for tasting so damn good) It Does however have the right (granted partly in law and partly by ME) to a swift clean death with no or minimal suffering

Now didge criticises me for hunting, fair enough, its not for everyone, However it seems hypocritical of a meat eater to do so, given the fact that what I kill is granted exactly that right i mentioned. Clearly,If didge has indeed EVER been hunting, he has gone with the wrong people...

When I am shooting....I take great care...to make sure my quarry is within the effective range of whatever I am using
that I use an appropriate calibre
that I am CERTAIN (as far as is humanly possible) that the shot I take is going to be instantly fatal
that I am ready, should that shot even appear to be non fatal, to loose a second shot to make sure.

Would I use snares to catch rabbits ...NO
would I use gin traps (not withstanding the fact that they, thank god, are illegal) NO

why...because they are by their nature inhumane and they are "left behind" traps...the animal can suffer for hours before a user returns ..

there is no disparity between hunting and "respect for quarry",. That exists soley in the minds of those unable to cope with reality. Those who think like one "anti" I was trying to have a civil debate with, who stated quite seriously and totaly convinced......"why dont you get your meat from a supermarket...where they make it without harming animals" DOH!!!!

Much as I fall out with didge, i have to say that a lot of the resistance to Halal is based on religious dislike (perhaps even outright bigotry) However, as I have always said...all it needs is to be labeled, so everyone can have their choice....There is an extension of THAT that also says however that where it is used in school meals, there should be the option of non halal (and NOT A VEGGIE OPTION EITHER), that it should be properly identified AND THOSE WHO INSIST ON THAT OPTION SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED. (which many fear they MAY be)

If It was labelled, would I avoid it...YES....why? because I STILL wouldnt know if it had been stunned or not(granted there are occasions where the stunning is not done properly....but at least I try....)

Finally, at least if I have shot my own sunday dinner....i know I have adhered to the standards I set....

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:20 pm

As people we are selfish expecting animals to die for us to eat...of course, some will say..' That is what they are for and what the God bloke made them for'...

I do not.

We can live without killing animals.

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:23 pm

Joy Division wrote:As people we are selfish expecting animals to die for us to eat...of course, some will say..' That is what they are for and what the God bloke made them for'...

I do not.

We can live without killing animals.

Bull shit, of the greatest order...unlless you are prepared to advocate killing about 4-5 billion people in a mass cull

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:25 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Joy Division wrote:As people we are selfish expecting animals to die for us to eat...of course, some will say..' That is what they are for and what the God bloke made them for'...

I do not.

We can live without killing animals.

Bull shit, of the greatest order...unlless you are prepared to advocate killing about 4-5 billion people in a mass cull

Choke on yer pork chops ya bass !! Laughing

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:31 pm

no sensible comment then?
cant refute the logic so abuse, eh?

why is it the antis are almost invariably lefties too...

is it a brain disorder?

I cant remember the EXACT figures but for each meat eater X amount of land is required for agriculture..
for the veggie something like 8 times as much land is required....

go figure how many animals the veggies would kill
go figure how many animals WOULD HAVE to be killed as pest control

GET REAL....

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:28 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:no sensible comment then?
cant refute the logic so abuse, eh?

why is it the antis are almost invariably lefties too...

is it a brain disorder?

I cant remember the EXACT figures but for each meat eater X amount of land is required for agriculture..
for the veggie something like 8 times as much land is required....

go figure how many animals the veggies would kill
go figure how many animals WOULD HAVE to be killed as pest control

GET REAL....

Hey Victor, you really should calm down,I'm not abusing you, I was just having a wee bit fun...
You really have got this thing about what ' lefties and righties' are like in your head all you are doing is categorizing to make yourself feel better.

And as for logic, your implying that veggies should eat meat so to free up more land is anything but logical, that is what YOU think people should do, but not what others want.

People will think for themselves Victor.

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:52 pm

Joy Division wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:no sensible comment then?
cant refute the logic so abuse, eh?

why is it the antis are almost invariably lefties too...

is it a brain disorder?

I cant remember the EXACT figures but for each meat eater X amount of land is required for agriculture..
for the veggie something like 8 times as much land is required....

go figure how many animals the veggies would kill
go figure how many animals WOULD HAVE to be killed as pest control

GET REAL....

Hey Victor, you really should calm down,I'm not abusing you, I was just having a wee bit fun...
You really have got this thing about what ' lefties and righties' are like in your head all you are doing is categorizing to make yourself feel better.

ok so i'll classify them as either free thinkers or fookin eejits???

And as for logic, your implying that veggies should eat meat so to free up more land is anything but logical, that is what YOU think people should do, but not what others want.

I'm implying nothing of the sort....if veggies want to live on letteuce then fine....but THEY are the shrill noisy ones who tell ME i shouldnt eat meat and come up with any number to contrived illogical and ill conceived "theories" morals and other assorted nonsense to support their "tiny minority nutcase/religious/moralist ideals...

The ONLY implication in that statement is that being a veggie is "uneconomic" in terms of land use...(and unsustainable/unworkable)

People will think for themselves Victor.

I doubt much thought goes into most veggie propaganda.....

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:05 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Hey Victor, you really should calm down,I'm not abusing you, I was just having a wee bit fun...
You really have got this thing about what ' lefties and righties' are like in your head all you are doing is categorizing to make yourself feel better.

ok so i'll classify them as either free thinkers or fookin eejits???

And as for logic, your implying that veggies should eat meat so to free up more land is anything but logical, that is what YOU think people should do, but not what others want.

I'm implying nothing of the sort....if veggies want to live on letteuce then fine....but THEY are the shrill noisy ones who tell ME i shouldnt eat meat and come up with any number to contrived illogical and ill conceived "theories" morals and other assorted nonsense to support their "tiny minority nutcase/religious/moralist ideals...

The ONLY implication in that statement is that being a veggie is "uneconomic" in terms of land use...(and unsustainable/unworkable)

People will think for themselves Victor.

I doubt much thought goes into most veggie propaganda.....

Nobody can force you not to eat meat though, regardless of what they might say...and people have their own reasons to be veggies , religion or being a nutcase doesn't come into that with manny people, Victor..

I don't eat beef , but it's not because of any daft religion or that I'm a nutcase.

One of the main reason people don't eat meat is that they do not see why animas should die just to satisfy humans.

by Guest Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:09 pm

Joy Division wrote:

Nobody can force you not to eat meat though, regardless of what they might say...

No, true , but it doesnt stop a sizeable noisy minority of that minority, being abusive, emotive downright childiah and plain nasty at times...would they held the same views a I do about veggies.... hey whatever floats yer boat, BUT I AINT interested in your reasons and dont (unless you are medically needful), expect to be invited to my barbies....

and people have their own reasons to be veggies , religion or being a nutcase doesn't come into that with manny people, Victor..

No? the number of medical necessity veggies is minute

I don't eat beef , but it's not because of any daft religion or that I'm a nutcase.

cos it gives you indigestion?...like me...strewth I love the stuff but suffer for it....recon they have recently crossed cows with kangaroos the way it kicks back at me....

One of the main reason people don't eat meat is that they do not see why animas should die just to satisfy humans.

so thats not a religious/moralistic (the difference is debateable) view point???

by veya_victaous Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:03 am

the Shark will have no problem eating me Suspect

and I have no problem eating the cow.

Life Feeds on Life.

@JD or anyone defending veggos
What Moral Right to Veggos have get all their sustenance for the only life form that doesn't not need to consume another life form to survive? you say Oh I don't like the taking of another life to sustain my own, well your eating a life form that achieved that Suspect

why do you focus on consuming the very life forms that have achieved your 'end goal' ?

so it is only moral to eat life forms capable of sustaining themselves on light and water alone? confused

Eat the Rabbit and save the carrot, but eat the carrot and you save nothing. Laughing

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:14 am

Nah, eat the rabbit and the carrot goes in the pot with it! ::D:: (plus the onions etc)

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:03 am

veya_victaous wrote:the Shark will have no problem eating me    and I have no problem eating the cow.

Life Feeds on Life.

@JD or anyone defending veggos
What Moral Right to Veggos have get all their sustenance for the only life form that doesn't not need to consume another life form to survive? you say Oh I don't like the taking of another life to sustain my own, well your eating a life form that achieved that    why do you focus on consuming the very life forms that have achieved your 'end goal' ?

so it is only moral to eat life forms capable of sustaining themselves on light and water alone?

Eat the Rabbit and save the carrot, but eat the carrot and you save nothing.

Veya I was only pointing put my own views really, and I'm a bit hypocritical on this I guess for I do eat chicken and pork, but if I had the chance to stop the animals being killed then I would and I personally would do without meat entirely then...

Of course I get what your saying, there is a food chain, but Victor's earlier post came across as everyone should eat meat so as to use up less ground for which to grow veg and other crops...

As well as I'm
As well as him implying veggies are some kind of religious nuts!!

When I think Victor is the one who believes in and kind of God more than me!!

Aye , the shark would indeed eat you Veya!

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:23 pm

There is nothing shocking about it - we all know it goes on and we always have done.

Those who back it know it is wrong but they are backing it because they see those who are against it as right wingers who hate Muslims - they believe it is all about Muslim-bashing and they will do anything which opposes that group of people.

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:38 pm

Actually Andy, it is the Jewish people who have more of a problem with this than Muslims, 88% of halal meat is prestunned, no kosher meat is prestunned.

How do Jews and Muslims slaughter animals?

UK law currently makes it compulsory for animals to be stunned with gas, an electric shock or a metal bolt fired against the forehead. But Muslims and Jews are exempt from the regulations in deference to their strong beliefs on food preparation.

Both religious groups demand that an animal’s throat be cut quickly by hand with a very sharp knife to minimise its suffering. Each religion has many other minor rules and complexities surrounding the act of slaughter.

Cutting the major arteries means the blood supply to the animal’s brain is cut, which should render it unconscious within seconds and incapable of feeling pain.

But the extent to which the animal suffers at the moment of death and how long the ordeal lasts is hotly disputed.

The basic act of cutting the throat and letting the animal bleed to death isn’t much different to non-religious slaughter.

The main difference is that the kosher and halal traditions dislike the practice of stunning animals before they are cut, believing that the animal should be free from any injury at the moment of death.

Some Muslim scholars have said that stunning can be compliant with Islamic law, and it would appear that Muslims are in practice less strict on the point than Jews, as evidenced by this survey of slaughterhouses by the Food Standards Authority.

06 fsa kosher slaughter FactCheck Q&A: should we ban kosher and halal slaughter?

The 2011 research found that more than 80 per cent of cattle, poultry, sheep and goats are in fact stunned before they are slaughtered in halal abbatoirs.

By contrast, Jewish law absolutely forbids stunning animals before their throats are cut, and the practice appears to be unknown, according to the same survey.

What about stunning afterwards?

Interestingly, the Food Standards Authority survey found that 10 per cent of cows slaughtered according to the Jewish Shechita protocol were stunned after being cut.

The BVA calls post-cut stunning “a valid means of reducing the suffering of animals at slaughter” and says it “presents a highly desirable refinement if government policy does not change”.

Could this be a good compromise, and one which satisfies Jewish doctrine, since the animal is not being damaged before the moment of death?

A spokesman for Shechita UK, which campaigns for Jews to continue to be allowed to carry out religious slaughter, said rabbinical authorities do not accept post-cut stunning, as it undermines the whole argument that the traditional method is as humane as any other.

Other Jewish sources suggest that religious opinion is not quite unanimous on the point. The Conference of European Rabbis has called post-cut stunning “religiously controversial”, saying “many” rabbis reject it.

Whatever the religious debate, it would appear that a small number of animals are being stunned after the fatal cut in kosher abbatoirs.

Is religious slaughter cruel?

Both sides cite scientific evidence to prove their case. This is a good overview of the evidence base in favour of Shechita.

The BVA refers to research using EEG scans of electrical activity in the animal’s brain. A lack of brain response would appear to indicate that the animal is insensible to pain.

A former government advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), said in 2003 that sheep can no longer feel pain after 5 to 7 seconds, but cows showed brain activity for up to 60 seconds, and it could take as long as two minutes for a calf to become insensible.

On the argument that a very sharp knife produces a painless cut, the FAWC also says “we are persuaded that such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes”.

FAWC recommended the UK government end the exemption for kosher and halal slaughter, but their advice was rejected by ministers.

The EU-wide DialRel study looked at the evidence from brain scans and came to a similar conclusion, saying: “It can be stated with the utmost probability that animals feel pain during the throat cut without prior stunning.”

Much of the original research used to support both sides of the argument is decades old.

Recently the Labour peer and scientist Lord Winston, while speaking in the House of Lords against a proposal to ban kosher slaughter, said EEG readings were “unsound” as a method of measuring pain.

He added: “The only way that you could detect pain would be by positron emission scanning of the brain, which clearly does not show any activity at all within two seconds once the blood supply has been cut.”

We can’t find the research referred to by Lord Winston but we will update if come across anything that fits the description.

As well as the BVA, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, the Humane Slaughter Association and the RSPCA say all animals should be stunned before slaughter.

What do other countries do?

Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden and Poland have all banned slaughter without stunning. Last month Denmark joined them, with agriculture minister Dan Jørgensen saying: “Animal rights come before religion.”

Israel’s deputy minister of religious services Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan reacted by saying: “European anti-Semitism is showing its true colours across Europe.”

In other countries including Estonia, Slovakia and Austria, animals that are not stunned before the cut must be stunned after.

What about labelling?

The BVA is also calling for meat to be labelled “stunned” or “non-stunned” rather than described as halal or kosher.

They point out that since most halal meat is in fact stunned, contrary to popular belief people might be avoiding it unnecessarily.

On the other hand, there is evidence that a high proportion of meat slaughtered using halal and kosher methods enters the general food chain without being labelled as such.

Jewish groups say labelling kosher meat “non-stunned” would be discriminatory, because it implies that the traditional method is less humane.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-ban-kosher-halal-slaughter/17877

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:49 pm

Hi Sassy.

I don't care who is doing it - it should be banned.

The English, I'm quite sure, killed animals in a barbaric way hundreds of years ago. As time went on we realised it wasn't a nice thing to do, like making kids work in the mills, so we changed things. To now allow these barbaric things to go on again in the name of political correctness is wrong. We are clearly going backwards.

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:01 pm

Sorry Andy, I've said many times I disagree from personal experience. A doctor put a canula in my daughter's carotid artery, which in itself was stupid thing to do, but getting blood from her veins was very difficult. She then fiddled with it, walked away with it open and blood began shooting out of it. Within seconds Jackie was unconscious and when it was all over, could not remember a thing about it. Now, that wasn't the equivalent of the carotid artery being completely severed. It certainly wasn't the equivalent of both and the jugular. Yes, the animals move about from nerves reaction, but I absolutely know in my heart of hearts that they feel nothing. It has been shown that there is still brain currents going on after stunning and electric shocks. There is none as soon as the blood leaves the brain.

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:07 pm

Oh I know all about animals still reacting - I've ripped the heads off quite a few chickens and watched as they run around.

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:17 pm

I don't doubt it! I remember when I was a child and chicken was the thing for Christmas, my Dad bless him was trying to do the best for us as Mum was in hospital with TB, so he had a fresh one delivered from a farm. The man came with the chicken live and proceeded to chop it's head off on the kitchen table. It then twitched all over the table, blood going everywhere. My brother was non too keen on christmas lunch. I, on the other hand, thought 'what the hell, what's dead is dead, I'm not wasting it'.

by David Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:52 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:Hi Sassy.

I don't care who is doing it - it should be banned.

The English, I'm quite sure, killed animals in a barbaric way hundreds of years ago. As time went on we realised it wasn't a nice thing to do, like making kids work in the mills, so we changed things. To now allow these barbaric things to go on again in the name of political correctness is wrong. We are clearly going backwards.

Of course the animals suffer it has been proven and that is why the RSPCA is working closely with the Religious Exempts so that the animals are stunned beforehand!

by eddie Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:11 pm

David wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:Hi Sassy.

I don't care who is doing it - it should be banned.

The English, I'm quite sure, killed animals in a barbaric way hundreds of years ago. As time went on we realised it wasn't a nice thing to do, like making kids work in the mills, so we changed things. To now allow these barbaric things to go on again in the name of political correctness is wrong. We are clearly going backwards.

Of course the animals suffer it has been proven and that is why the RSPCA is working closely with the Religious Exempts so that the animals are stunned beforehand!

And rightly so.
I would,like to have my meat labelled too.
Kosher meat is labelled as far as I know.

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:54 pm

eddie wrote:
David wrote:

Of course the animals suffer it has been proven and that is why the RSPCA is working closely with the Religious Exempts so that the animals are stunned beforehand!

And rightly so.
I would,like to have my meat labelled too.
Kosher meat is labelled as far as I know.

Actually, that isn't true Eddie:

'Scandal' in the U.K.: Unwitting customers buying kosher meat
Mail Online scoop: Meat from unstunned, kosher-slaughtered cows goes into ordinary meat sold over the counter.
By Haaretz | Mar. 16, 2014

The belief that kosher slaughter (shechita) is cruel, barbaric and unacceptable in civilized society is clearly going mainstream, at least in Britain. Mail Online, the country's most popular news site by far with nearly 12 million visitors daily, ran a "scoop" Sunday headlined: "Meat from cattle slaughtered in 'cruel' kosher ceremony is in your high street burger."

The story is nominally objective in that it quotes both pro- and anti-shechita sources, and puts pejoratives about the practice in quotation marks. Still, it portrays its revelation – that kosher-slaughtered meat goes into the non-kosher meat sold across U.K. and Ireland – as a scandal. It also plays up the gory details of shechita, the third and fourth paragraphs reading:

"The Jewish ‘shechita’ method of slaughter – the practice of slitting an animal’s throat and allowing it to bleed to death – has been slammed as ‘inhumane’ by vets and animal rights groups because the creature is conscious when it happens.

"Jewish law governing shechita strictly forbids pre-stunning, as do some Islamic groups for the production of halal meat. However, recent research suggests that unstunned animals can feel pain for up to two minutes."

The story tells that U.K. and Irish abattoirs which slaughter some of their cows for the kosher market are including the non-kosher rump and hindquarters of these cows in the meat they sell for general consumption.

"As a result, many consumers are buying their meat unaware of how it was produced," reads the story.

It notes that earlier in the month, the head of the British Veterinary Association, John Blackwell, was accused of inciting anti-Semitism and Islamophobia by calling for a ban against religious butchering on the grounds of cruelty to animals.

However, the story also quotes Shimon Cohen, spokesman for Shechita U.K., which regulates kosher slaughter in the kingdom, answering the demand by animal rights activists that meat be labeled by its method of production. "We too advocate better labeling," said Cohen, "but a more comprehensive one. Rather than saying just 'stunned,' it should say 'electrocuted,' 'gassed' or 'shot with a bolt gun.' Then consumers will be fully informed."

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.580074

by eddie Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:03 pm

Then I have a problem with that then.
This isn't about picking on mulisms, much as people want to think it is.

I was pissed off when I found horse meat was in food.
I didn't eat any of the cheap stuff that it contained but I wasn't happy.

I not a horse-ist lol

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:05 pm

But the thing is Eddie, 88% of halal meat is prestunned, (see post above) but NO kosher is, so why the fuss about halal but not kosher? What reason would you put for it?

by eddie Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:13 pm

Sassy wrote:But the thing is Eddie, 88% of halal meat is prestunned, (see post above) but NO kosher is, so why the fuss about halal but not kosher? What reason would you put for it?

I think I just said I have a problem with kosher meat not being labelled too?

It isn't about Muslims sassy. If people could see past that then we'd be able to move forward.

I wouldn't choose kosher meat for the same reasons as I've stated I wouldn't choose halal.

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:24 pm

eddie wrote:
Sassy wrote:But the thing is Eddie, 88% of halal meat is prestunned, (see post above) but NO kosher is, so why the fuss about halal but not kosher? What reason would you put for it?

I think I just said I have a problem with kosher meat not being labelled too?

It isn't about Muslims sassy. If people could see past that then we'd be able to move forward.

I wouldn't choose kosher meat for the same reasons as I've stated I wouldn't choose halal.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't word it very well, I didn't mean your post. What I meant was, in papers etc (especially the Mail), over and over again it's all about halal meat, but kosher meat is very rarely mentioned. But that doesn't tie in with the fact that 88% of halal is stunned and no kosher is stunned. If it was just about stunning, they would be making more of a fuss about kosher than halal. But they don't do they, therefore there must be another reason.

by eddie Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:29 pm

Sassy wrote:
eddie wrote:

I think I just said I have a problem with kosher meat not being labelled too?

It isn't about Muslims sassy. If people could see past that then we'd be able to move forward.

I wouldn't choose kosher meat for the same reasons as I've stated I wouldn't choose halal.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't word it very well, I didn't mean your post. What I meant was, in papers etc (especially the Mail), over and over again it's all about halal meat, but kosher meat is very rarely mentioned. But that doesn't tie in with the fact that 88% of halal is stunned and no kosher is stunned. If it was just about stunning, they would be making more of a fuss about kosher than halal. But they don't do they, therefore there must be another reason.

I take your point on this as I know papers report what they like.
But my point still stands sass, it's wrong and should be labelled and/or outlawed for this reason !

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:34 pm

I think it should be labelled most definitely, but, see post further up the thread, I had positive evidence that satisfied me that it is not as cruel as stunning. When animals are stunned, (the bolt doesn't go into the brain, just gives a very hard bang), experiments have shown that the brain is still registering pain. (I'll try and find the study). However, once the brain is drained of blood, which takes seconds severing the three main blood supplies, it can't register anything.

by Guest Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:39 pm

A Viva! report on the slaughter of farmed animals in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Almost 900 million farmed animals are slaughtered for the dinner plate each year in the UK. The shift towards huge commercial enterprises means that less than 600 abattoirs are responsible for this vast killing operation. Every day, over two million living animals are unloaded from transporters, often after enduring lengthy journeys in cramped conditions. They are shunted through industrial buildings - often with electric goads - before meeting the slaughterman's knife.

In order to eat meat with a clear conscience, many consumers imagine the killing process to be a sanitized affair. Indeed, most meat-eaters agree that no animal deserves to suffer at the time of death. This concept of humane slaughter is supposed to be at the core of UK slaughter legislation. Welfare minister Ben Bradshaw, says that killing must be humane and that animals must be stunned so that they are unconscious and unable to feel pain during slaughter by bleeding (1).

Sentenced to Death proves beyond doubt that the Ministry of Agriculture's soothing words are meaningless. We have reviewed the latest scientific literature and obtained opinions from experts across the board. As a result, we have built up an extremely disturbing picture of the reality behind Britain's killing factories. Tens of millions of animals are being ineffectively stunned and are regaining consciousness while they bleed to death.

Estimated numbers of animals regaining consciousness

Each year, 1.8 million electrically stunned pigs regain consciousness before they die from loss of blood. 244,800 pigs a year are not stunned at all. Four million pigs a year are stunned with carbon dioxide gas. It takes pigs up to 30 seconds to lose consciousness and during that time they will squeal, hyperventilate and try to escape.
Each year, five million electrically stunned sheep regain consciousness before they die from loss of blood. Scientific research shows that electrical stunning may not cause unconsciousness at all.
Each year, up to up to 230,000 cattle each year are not correctly stunned with the captive bolt pistol. They will have to endure the pain of being shot in the head and will then have to be shot again or knifed whilst conscious.
Each year, 62 million chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese regain consciousness before they die from loss of blood. 8.4 million are conscious when they enter the scalding tank.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Video footage: Viva!'s video footage shows sheep and pigs only being stunned for two seconds and clearly regaining consciousness before they die.
Lack of inspection: Official veterinary surgeons are only obliged to observe slaughter once a day. Meat Hygiene Inspectors often spend the majority of their time observing carcass 'dressing procedures' and very little time observing animals while they are in the lairage or being stunned and killed.
Pressure on official veterinary surgeons: The EC Food and Veterinary Office say there is a risk that official veterinary surgeons are put under pressure by MHS and abattoir management to give higher Hygiene Assessment Scores than they deserve. Viva! fears that the same thing happens when OVSs complete their check lists for the Meat Hygiene Service's bi-annual Animal Welfare Review.
Greater openness needed: Members of the public, media and animal welfare charities are rarely allowed access to slaughterhouses. Even representatives from the government's own advisory body, The Farm Animal Welfare Council, have been refused access to some of the larger plants. Viva! calls for greater openness within the industry.
Lack of training: 30% of red meat slaughterhouses are recorded as having little or no formal staff training in animal welfare. 50% of poultry slaughterhouses have no staff who have undttoirs.
Pregnant cows slaughtered: 150,000 pregnant cows are killed each year - 25% of them in the third trimester of their nine month pregnancy.
Sheep regain consciousness: The interval between stunning and knifing is as high as 70 seconds for sheep and it takes them 14 seconds to lose brain responsiveness if both carotid arteries are cut. UK law only requires one carotid artery to be cut and in this case sheep take an average of 70 seconds to lose brain responsiveness. Yet an electric head-only stun only lasts between 20 and 40 seconds. Viva! estimates that each year, 5 million sheep regain consciousness before they die from loss of blood.
Does electric stunning work? Scientific research has not been able to prove that electric head-only stunning causes unconsciousness. Researchers at Bristol University found that after an electric stun, sheep are not able to feel pain but they have periods of being fully aware of their surroundings i.e. they can still feel fear and they are aware that they are hanging upside down on the killing rail, bleeding to death. In addition, no one has been able to prove whether the loss of consciousness is immediate and Dr Harold Hillman believes that when animals are stunned, they suffer extreme pain which he describes as 'torture'. They are unable to cry out or move because the massive electric current paralyses them.
Inaccurate tong placement on pigs: Inaccurate placement of the electric tongs is a problem within the pig industry. Research has shown that 36% of tong placements do not span the brain as required by law. 13.3% of pigs are stunned on the snout and jaws - a position which is not recommended as 15% of pigs stunned in this way fail to lose consciousness. Viva! estimates that in the UK, 244,800 pigs a year are not stunned at all because of this.
Pigs regain consciousness: Pigs stay unconscious for an average of 42 seconds after they are electrically stunned but not all pigs stay unconscious for this long. They take up to 23 seconds to lose brain responsiveness after they are knifed, meaning that the interval between stunning and knifing should not be longer than 19 seconds. But 53 abattoirs - 15% of the total - have stun-to-knifing intervals which are longer than this. Viva! estimates that each year, 1.8 million pigs regain consciousness before they die from loss of blood.
CO2 gas used for pigs: 25% of pigs - or four million a year - are stunned with CO2 gas. It takes pigs up to 30 seconds to lose consciousness and during that time they will squeal, hyperventilate and try to escape.
Captive bolt used for pigs: 20% of plants slaughtering pigs use captive bolt pistols although this method is not recommended for pigs because the brain lies deep down in the head and it is difficult to cause unconsciousness.
Dead on arrival: Each year, 1.7 million chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese die before they reach the slaughterhouse. Birds die from heart failure, dislocation of the hip joint and having their skull crushed when the plastic drawers on the transporter are closed.
Painful shackling: UK legislation states that turkeys can be shackled by their legs for up to six minutes and other birds for up to three minutes before they are killed - despite evidence showing that the procedure is extremely painful. Chickens and turkeys are bred to grow so fast that most suffer from painful leg deformities.
Painful electric shocks: Each year 2.1 million turkeys suffer from painful electric shocks when they are dipped into the electric waterbath because their wings hang lower than their heads.
Birds inhale faeces: Some birds defecate during stunning meaning that other birds inhale faeces when they are dipped into the electric waterbath.
Decapitated whilst conscious: Birds can swan-neck - raising their heads when entering the electric waterbath and so avoiding full immersion. This is a particular problem with ducks and geese. Any birds who are not stunned are meant to be decapitated by a back-up killer whilst conscious.
Birds regain consciousness: Birds routinely regain consciousness before they lose brain responsiveness if they do not have a cardiac arrest when they are stunned. The electric waterbath causes unconsciousness for at least 52 seconds. Yet it takes chickens nearly three minutes to lose brain responsiveness if both carotid arteries are severed and around five minutes if one jugular artery and one carotid artery is severed. Viva! estimates that each year, 62 million birds regain consciousness before they die from loss of blood. 8.4 million are still alive when they enter the scalding tank.

http://www.viva.org.uk/sentenced-death

There's a hell of a lot more about it on there.

by David Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:40 pm

eddie wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Sorry, perhaps I didn't word it very well, I didn't mean your post. What I meant was, in papers etc (especially the Mail), over and over again it's all about halal meat, but kosher meat is very rarely mentioned. But that doesn't tie in with the fact that 88% of halal is stunned and no kosher is stunned. If it was just about stunning, they would be making more of a fuss about kosher than halal. But they don't do they, therefore there must be another reason.

I take your point on this as I know papers report what they like.
But my point still stands sass, it's wrong and should be labelled and/or outlawed for this reason !

Indeed it should be labelled and outlawed. That is why the RSPCA are making sure that they working with those slaughterhouses.

by Guest Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:48 pm

David wrote:
eddie wrote:

I take your point on this as I know papers report what they like.
But my point still stands sass, it's wrong and should be labelled and/or outlawed for this reason !

Indeed it should be labelled and outlawed. That is why the RSPCA are making sure that they working with those slaughterhouses.

So, I presume you referring to that 10% of halal that is not prestunned and the 100% kosher than is not prestunned?

by Sponsored content