Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17966327

A leading vet has criticised the "unacceptable" rise in the number of animals killed in ritual slaughter.

Ritual slaughter is lawful in the UK and the EU to satisfy the dietary requirements of Jews and Muslims.

Prof Bill Reilly, former president of the British Veterinary Association, said estimates suggested more animals were slaughtered than was necessary.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) said its own figures showed most animals were stunned before being killed.

The FSA conducted a survey into animal welfare in slaughterhouses in September.

A spokesman said: "The results indicate that the number of animals not stunned prior to slaughter is relatively low, accounting for 3% of cattle, 10% of sheep and goats, and 4% of poultry.

"They also show that the majority of animals destined for the halal trade in both the red and white meat sectors are stunned before slaughter."

The FSA said full details of the survey would be published ahead of a discussion at a board meeting on 22 May.

Having little time for Religion en-masse, I have always looked at this issue without faith colouring my perception, it simply boils down to this, if we are going to kill other animals for food, then we should use as painless a method as possible. I agree with eating meat, but surely nobody who is not simply sticking up for their faith would ever disagree with such a statement?

If we can kill anything at all, causing said creature as little pain as possible is desirable, surely this should be the case yes?

It seems an issue that any impartial observer in the middle ground would agree with, and even both the extreme left (hippies, green peace activists and eco-terrorists for example!) and the right (agree merely to spite Muslims and Jews!) would agree on, so, do you think there is any chance of a ban coming in to place?

I look forward to seeing the results of the survey, but what are your opinions?

Can anyone give me a good reason why we shouldn't make it illegal to cause any more pain to animals than is absolutely necessary? Do any non Religious people agree with the practice of not stunning an animal before death?

And do you think any further legislation regarding this issue will ever come to pass?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14895534

I'm all for not causing any undue suffering to animals (even though they are still going to be dead and, later, cooked to a lovely golden brown for my dinner) but it seems that no-one is sure about what is the best method for stunning animals prior to slaughter. Using an electric shock could be the most humane but could also just prevent the animal displaying and outward signs of pain. The Islamic/Judaic methods may appear to be a little outdated but there does seem to be some scientific evidence in their favour; to whit they are about as fast as the stunning +gassing/bolting methods.

I couldn't care less about anyones faith but I have a lot of respect for scientific processess and would hope that any decision on future laws would be based wholly on evidence rather than someones personal beliefs.

They're just animals and since I don't believe on souls or an afterlife, it's not like the horrific experience is going to remain on their minds for long.

The more irritating case is if we get religious nuts whining about it. The 'ideal' situation is probably if every animal is killed ritualistically, just to shut Imams and the like up.

Furthermore, this is an issue on which it seems very difficult to get genuinely impartial information; I've seen Islamic sites that have claimed that the throat-slitting is more humane than stun guns, etc. And of course, the polar opposite of the religious nutjobs are those pinko animal rights types who'll dig up a gran to save guinea pigs... so sanity is rather lacking on both sides tbh.

There are tons of folks who complain about use of animals to train combat medics too. Knowing a few that have gone through the 'wounded goat' or 'wounded pig' training and hearing their opinions and descriptions of how the critters are treated from start of the training to when they are euthanized I find myself of the opinion that the training is a Good Thing.

Somehow I feel it would be hypocritical of me to think that if someone wants to slaughter their meat animals in a certain way I should get upset. Yeah, it is probably better to stun the critters first, and it appears from the part of the article posted in the OP that most are. I submit that even the ones that are not stunned first are not actually being tortured and enduring any prolonged suffering though. They are just aware as their throats are being slit. They bleed out pretty quickly. Admittedly not nice, but it isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

So all the actual data shows that most animals are stunned, the agency in charge of overseeing slaughterhouses agrees with the actual data.

Some guy who is not even in charge of anything anymore, but has a fancy former title, "feels" like something is worse than it should be.

Sounds like a classic case of "people who are different than me are doing something differently and I don't like it", but of course I am a liberal socialist, so carry on.

As someone that has preformed a "ritual" slaughter I think I can lend a little insight.


First I killed animals for my Muslim friends that keep Halal, this entails slitting the animals throat (severing all cords) while it is still alive and speaking the name of god in its ear. The jewish tradition is close, the difference is that it has to be preformed by, or under the supervision of a Rabbi and the animals windpipe is pulled from its throat after slitting.

Nothing says the animal can't be stunned, even so, the moment this happens the animal goes into shock and doesn't feel thing. This is different from someone just slitting the animals jugular.



Now after all of that, what do you think about bow hunting, or trapping your meal? I also do both, and I can tell you the animal suffers more than any slaughtering I have witnessed. The last deer I shot with an arrow moved when she heard the arrow release and got hit in the back bone, I had to follow it up with a second shot at point blank range, but it took me 15 minutes to get down from my stand, cross the river, and find were she was laying.

I'm not sure I understand what the point of contention is.

If stunning the animal is what we're after, and the data shows that the vast majority of the animals are stunned, what's the problem exactly?

I'm not for causing undue suffering either, but really, 97% is a pretty good percentage.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not sure I understand what the point of contention is.

If stunning the animal is what we're after, and the data shows that the vast majority of the animals are stunned, what's the problem exactly?

I'm not for causing undue suffering either, but really, 97% is a pretty good percentage.

The problem is that people who are different are doing something different. At least that is my feeling with stories such as these.

Deputy general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain said halal meat may be stunned before slaughter and still labelled halal. "Over 90% of halal meat is stunned before slaughter".

(From the Independent.)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
End of topic.