Since I haven't posted about any animal health news in a long while I thought I'd start again by covering a highly controversial topic - ritual slaughter and its implications on the welfare of livestock at the abattoir. As a vet student I feel strongly about this issue, but I should point out that every person is entitled to their own opinions and views and this post is just my understanding, interpretation and thoughts. Hopefully this post will prove useful in giving some background information on why this topic is so hotly debated and clear up some of the common points of confusion.
So what is ritual slaughter?
Ritual slaughter is when an animal is slaughtered in specific manner dictated by the religious requirements of a faith. The main faiths that practice this are the Jewish community where the meat slaughtered in this manner is known as Kosher and the Muslim faith where the meat is known as Halal.
Why is ritual slaughter so controversial?
In abattoirs where ritual slaughter is not practiced, by law all animals are stunned before they are slaughtered to ensure that they will not be conscious when the throat is cut a few moments laterr and thus no suffering or pain can occur, this is done using either a strong electric shock to the head or a captive bolt to the brain.
However the law does allow an exception in the case of ritual slaughter - this is the part in which it seems the media focuses upon. In reality over 80% of meat classed as Halal is stunned before slaughter, making the process no less humane than normal slaughter, therefore I feel it is unfair to label all meat from ritual slaughter as necessarily bad for animal welfare. The debate should focus more on non-stun slaughter as oppose to Halal and Kosher meat itself.
On the other hand, there is still just below 20% of animals according to reports destined for religious slaughter which will not be stunned. The practice of no stunning in ritual slaughter has already been banned in several EU countries including Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Switzerland. The main concern for animal welfare with non-stun slaughter is the issue of a delay in time between slitting the throat and bleeding to death in which the animal may be conscious and aware of what it happening to it. In my own opinion non-stun slaughter shouldn't be acceptable, with welfare laws protecting the animal throughout its life on the farm it seems unfair that the animal is not protected from suffering in its last few moments.
Nevertheless I feel it is also as important not to make the issue of ritual slaughter into a personal attack on those of religious faiths that practice it, because as discussed before the majority of the meat they consume is actually stunned and ensures a high standard of animal welfare. Instead I feel there needs to be a greater push for stunning to be compulsory in all sectors to ensure that any animal going to the abattoir is protected from pain, panic and suffering.
Could there perhaps be other consequences of banning non-stun slaughter to consider?
Some worry that if non-stun slaughter was to be banned those desiring meat from this practice could simply look to importation of meat from countries where the practice is still allowed. This could cause a reduction of demand for British meat which some farmers are concerned about.
Some may argue that implementation of this would go against their right to practice their religion freely therefore adding into the mix another layer of debate that would need to be considered if such a change in the law was being debated.
Issues of meat labelling
To add to the debate further, it had also been revealed that some Halal/Kosher meat may be found in other food produce without the knowledge of the consumer. Unaware consumers may be buying products which contain meat from a non-stun slaughter origin of which if they knew about they may oppose as there is no requirement for halal or kosher meat to be specifically labelled.
As a result it has been suggested that better labelling of meat products is required to indicate the source of the meat they are buying. In my view this labelling needs to go further than simply labelling whether the meat may have been produced by a ritual slaughter method or not. To allow for the consumer to have a choice, meat should be labelled as either stunned or non-stunned, because as discussed before not all animals in ritual slaughter are killed unstunned. By being more informative on the origin of meat produce, consumers would then have the power to choose whether to accept the practice or not and hence may be able to further illustrate the public opinion of non-stun slaughter.
Where can I find out more on the non-stun slaughter debate?
Farmers Guardian
BVA
BBC News
RSPCA
No comments:
Post a Comment