Ritual slaughter for Halal and Kosher meat
ALL you need to know
INTRODUCTION:
Dhabīḥah (or Zabiha, Arabic: ذَبِيْحَة ḏabīḥah IPA: [ðæˈbiːħɐ], "slaughter(noun)") is, in Islamic law, the prescribed method of ritual slaughter of all animals excluding camels, locusts, fish and most sea-life. This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact. It must be done with respect and compassion; avoiding as much as possible any animal pain or discomfort.
Thus, the slaughter itself is preceded by the words "In the name of Allah (Bismillah)". It is not regarded appropriate to use the phrase "Bismillah al Raḥmān Al Raḥīm" (In the name of God the Beneficent the Merciful) in this situation, because slaughtering is an act of subdual rather than mercy.
According to Islamic tradition, the animal is brought to the place of slaughter and laid down gently so as to not injure it. The blade must be kept hidden until the very last moment while the jugular of the animal is felt. The conventional method used to slaughter the animal involves cutting the large arteries in the neck along with the esophagus and vertebrate trachea with one swipe of an non-serrated blade. Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause the animal to die before exsanguination has taken place. While blood is draining, the animal is not handled until it has died. If any other method is used its meat will not be halal.
Source: Wikipedia
|
|
Two types of slaughter exist:
what are the differences?
There are two types of slaughter: slaughter with conventional stun, and ritual slaughter without stunning.
In conventional slaughter, the animal is stunned before being bled, causing loss of consciousness and insensitivity to pain.
In ritual slaughter, the animal is slaughtered in full consciousness, without numbness; their agony can last several minutes.
European regulation provides minimum protection of animals at slaughter:
The European Union directive, "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter", generally requires stunning before slaughter, but allows member states to allow exemptions for religious slaughter: "Each Contracting Party may authorize derogations from the provisions concerning prior stunning in the following cases: – slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals ...".
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for a right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion which includes the freedom to manifest a religion or belief in, inter alia, practice and observance, subject only to such restrictions as are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society."
In May 2009 the European Parliament voted in favour of allowing ritual slaughter in member states.
What is the difference for the animals?
Non-stunned animals are slaughtered in vivid mindfulness, they experience unacceptable suffering. Their agony can last several minutes.
In the context of slaughter with stunning, the animal does not suffer at the time of slaughter, since there is loss of consciousness. Scientists have clearly stated: "Because of the serious animal welfare associated with slaughter without stunning, stunning should always be carried out before the slaughter."
The following video demonstrates the difference between slaughter with prior stunning,
vs slaughter without stunning (ritual or religious slaughter)
While the animal in the first method is rendered unconscious immediately, the animals slaughtered without prior stunning experience their agony in full consciousness. You don't need to be an expert to see that this causes immense, unnecessary suffering to the animals.
FRANCE
Abattoir Charal in Metz
Upon entering, cattle have a direct view on the animals who are already suspended and where some are still struggling. In addition to seeing and smelling the blood, the animals see the suffering of their suspended congeners. All this is source of extreme stress and fear for the animals.
BELGIUM
Halal cattle slaughter line for up to 60 cattle per hour
ALL about ritual slaughter
Dr Peter Bowen-Walker - a biological scientist, lecturer and part-time law student with an interest in animal welfare, habitat protection and environmental law - has written two very comprehensive articles on ritual slaughter and which should answer ALL your questions about ritual slaughter.
Dr Bowen-Walker's articles "Ritual slaughter: what's the beef?" (Part 1 and 2) had originally been published on the website of the Lawyers' Secular Society, of which Dr Bowen-Walker is a member. These articles have been reproduced here with the kind permission of both the author, Dr Peter Bowen-Walker, and the 'Lawyers' Secular Society' and for which we are very grateful.
Image credit: National Secular Society via Lawyers' Secular Society
Ritual slaughter: what’s the beef?
By LSS member Dr. Peter Bowen-Walker
What is ritual slaughter?
Ritual slaughter is the killing of animals for food in a way which is informed and guided by religious or cultural requirements.
It is not strictly the same as an animal sacrifice, because after ritual slaughter the animal is used as food and not simply as an offering. However in the past these two practices have often been interlinked.
How did it start and for what purpose?
Ritual slaughter is a very ancient practice and there are images of such practices on Egyptian tombs and temple walls from three millennia ago. It has been suggested that the practice arose even earlier than this, corresponding to a time when humanity was moving from hunting and gathering to farming and husbandry. It is suggested that at this pivotal point rituals associated with increasing the chance of a successful hunt were not abandoned, but were adapted and modified to suit the new mode of appropriating food – namely the slaughter of domestic livestock following what was a novel and lengthy association with the animals. Humans began farming sometime around ten thousand years ago and ritual slaughter could plausibly extend back to that transitional time.
The origins are therefore pagan and certainly predate the monotheistic Abrahamic religions. Notwithstanding this, it’s probably fair to hypothesise that the practice was almost certainly carried out from a sense of genuine respect for the animal (either as an “opponent” originally, or a well regarded bounty latterly) and possibly with reverence for the animistic powers or forces which may have been perceived to be instrumental in the provision of nutrition and resources and which are still seen today in some indigenous tribal belief systems. I would suggest such gracious sentiments remain in place today and are visible in the simple prayers said by many religious people before they eat.
What happens today?
Presently, ritual slaughter is practised most visibly by Jewish and Muslim religio-cultural groups and is called Shechitah and Zabiha (or Dhabiha) respectively, although in the past Greek Orthodox Christians have also observed the practice. Some strains of Judaism and Islam today have very strict customs relating to what food is permissible, how it should be killed and how it should be prepared.
In the interests of good taste (no pun intended) I will refrain from going into detail concerning the actual method of killing the animal or bird in question other than to point out that the animal must be both healthy and viable when it is killed by incising the major blood vessels in the neck. Clearly this requirement is a sensible precaution against parasite and disease transmission, and since ritual slaughter extends back thousands of years this practice may have spared a great many people from debilitating illness and an early death.
Are there alternative religious views on ritual slaughter?
Yes.
Interestingly, the Hindu religion recognises two forms of ritually processed meat. Jhatkameat is meat from an animal which has been killed by a single strike of a sword or axe to sever the head and is permitted for consumption, whilst Kutha meat is the slow slaughter of animals (akin to the Shechitah and Zabiha method) and is forbidden.
Similarly, many Sikhs are advised that only Jhatka meat is acceptable; the slow killing process being forbidden in their Khalsa Code of Conduct; the reason being it is held thatKhalsa meat is believed to be oppressive and inhumane.
(Many Hindus and Sikhs accept the captive-bolt method of killing as being the same as a single blow to the head, so much of the meat produced in UK abattoirs is acceptable to them).
Why does ritual slaughter attract so much criticism and opposition today?
I hope what I have conveyed so far is a fair picture of this religio-cultural practice. Failing that, I hope I have erred on the positive and generous side in order to be permitted the leeway to paint the other side of the picture now.
Many practitioners of religious slaughter today opine that animals which are rendered insensitive by prior stunning before the ritual killing are unsuitable and can therefore not be consumed as Kosher or Halal food (meaning “approved”).
It is this last point which rightly causes most concern and indeed outright lack of approval by many outside the communities concerned.
The rationale adopted by the religious authorities that are opposed to prior-stunning is that prior-stunning causes damage to the nervous system of the animal (or may even kill it) before it can be ritually killed. Since prior-stunning damages the otherwise healthy animal it is perceived as no longer viable and healthy at the time of actual slaughter. Indeed, if it dies before being ritually slaughtered, the animal is technically viewed as carrion which is expressly forbidden as a source of food for many Muslims.
The preceding paragraph is a generalisation and some meat which is ritually slaughtered is stunned prior to being killed – but not all animals are – please refer to the data later in this article.
In fairness to both Jewish and Muslim approaches to ritual slaughter, it is reported from their scholars that the originators of the ritual practice were very concerned about animal welfare and minimising animal suffering. Indeed, it was only trained approved practitioners over a certain age (which correlates with strength presumably) and with approved sharpened instruments employing a particular methodology who were permitted to carry out the task.
Without this one very significant difference (no prior stunning before slaughter) it would be difficult to draw any distinction between modern methods of slaughter and the more ancient ritual methodologies – particularly in relation to the all important point of avoiding unnecessary animal suffering.
How many animals are ritually slaughtered in the UK without prior stunning?
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) published figures in 2012 based on a survey of slaughterhouses in September 2011:
A total of 43,772 cattle / calves were slaughtered at 194 establishments, of which:
1,314 (3%) were slaughtered by the Shechitah method at four establishments, with 10% of these stunned immediately after bleeding.
1,727 (4%) were slaughtered by the Halal method at 16 establishments. 84% of these were stunned before slaughter, and less than 1% stunned after bleeding.
(Additional data is also available for sheep, goats and poultry.)
Do animals suffer pain and distress if they are not stunned prior to being ritually slaughtered?
In order to answer this question I would need an entire blog and not a few paragraphs!
The claim made by many who support ritual slaughter (without prior stunning) is that animals lose consciousness almost immediately at the time they are slaughtered.
Making a determination of the time taken before loss of consciousness is of course only one approach to measuring the aversive sensations and feelings associated with handling before slaughter, and during the act which leads to unavoidable tissue damage. Pain, stress, distress, fear and suffering are all ways in which the bodies and minds of animals respond to life-threatening stimuli. Unfortunately, some or all these phenomena are difficult to measure objectively so I will limit my comments to indicators which can be more objectively studied.
Unfortunately (for the animals) the scientific and veterinary studies do not support the conclusion that animals lose consciousness almost immediately at the time they are slaughtered.
One literature review stated it assumed that in mammals such as men, monkeys, dogs and rats consciousness is lost if 30-40% of the total blood volume is lost or if blood pressure drops to below values between 35 and 50 mmHg. These values are slightly more generous than some of the modern medical estimations which indicate a 50% loss of blood is required for a human to enter an irreversible comatose state.
Even working on the more easily achieved lower benchmark data, studies have shown that it can take cattle anything up to three minutes to lose consciousness – the average figure being somewhere between 60-90 seconds from the time of the first cut. Other studies have indicated the time frame for sheep and poultry is shorter.
What is certain however is that blood pressure and blood volume loss cannot be taken as immediate and rapid, and significant variations exist both within the same species and different species.
So in answer to the original question – animals do experience the slaughter process for somewhere between 5-90 seconds but times of up to 5 minutes have been recorded on rare occasions in cattle.
Disturbingly, blood is found in the voice boxes of all animals when they are slaughtered, and in 30-60% (I have simplified the figures) blood was found deeper in the respiratory tracts of animals which had been ritually slaughtered. This would potentially cause the animals to suffer irritation and discomfort in their respiratory tracts which only non-stunned animals would of course experience.
The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council concluded in their Report on the welfare of livestock when slaughtered by religious methods (1995) that “up to date scientific evidence available and our own observations leave no doubt in our minds that religious methods of slaughter, even when carried out under ideal conditions, must result in a degree of pain, suffering and distress which does not occur in the properly stunned animal”.
Their 2003 report went further at paragraph 201, stating, “Council considers that slaughter without pre-stunning is unacceptable and that the Government should repeal the current exemption.”
The Report on good and adverse practices – Animal welfare concerns in relation to slaughter practices from the viewpoint of veterinary sciences DIALREL 2010 says: “It can be stated with high probability that animals feel pain during and after the throat cut without prior stunning. This applies even to a good cut performed by a skilled operator, because substantial tissue damage is inflicted to areas well supplied with nociceptors [pain receptors] and subsequent perception of pain is not exclusively related to the quality of the cut.”
The same report points out that “Electrical stunning is a humane method of rendering an animal instantaneously unconscious and with timely and effective bleeding unconsciousness and insensibility will last until death supervenes by bleeding.”
The Humane Slaughter Association (of which I confess I am a member) state that “all animals should be effectively stunned prior to being bled, because this precludes the possibility of suffering.”
The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe states that it “is of the opinion that from an animal welfare point of view, and out of respect for an animal as a sentient being, the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is unacceptable under any circumstances…”
So why is ritual slaughter without prior stunning carried out today in the UK despite it causing unnecessary suffering to animals?
It is a requirement in both UK and EU law that animals must be rendered insensitive before slaughter (Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, SI 1995/731, reg. 9(c)). Notwithstanding this, exemptions are granted for the Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter by regulation 21, regulation 22, Schedule 12, and by Directive 93/119/EC (now repealed and replaced by Council Regulation 1099/2009).
In response to public pressure the government later amended the 1995 regulations in 1999 and imposed further requirements on religious slaughter, providing that it can only be carried out at a licensed slaughterhouse with access to a veterinary surgeon and stunning equipment if problems should arise.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing states at regulation 18:
Since Community provisions applicable to religious slaughter have been transposed differently depending on national contexts and considering that national rules take into account dimensions that go beyond the purpose of this Regulation, it is important that derogation from stunning animals prior to slaughter should be maintained, leaving, however, a certain level of subsidiarity to each Member State. As a consequence, this Regulation respects the freedom of religion and the right to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Title II of TFEU lists some key principles the Union should respect. Article 13 introduced with the Lisbon Treaty states:
In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
According to the European Commission website, “This puts animal welfare on equal footing with other key principles mentioned in the same title i.e. promote gender equality, guarantee social protection, protect human health, combat discrimination, promote sustainable development, ensure consumer protection, protect personal data.”
So there it is: despite animals being sentient and despite all the evidence suggesting that slaughter without prior stunning leads to unnecessary pain and suffering – and even though animal welfare is meant to be treated as seriously as gender equality and non-discrimination – it is clearly not the case in practice.
Do all EU countries permit ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning?
No. Several EU and western European countries (Sweden, Latvia, Finland) have banned slaughter without prior stunning and some are currently in the process of doing so. A few have introduced a compromise position in which the animals must be stunned immediately after the cut is made to minimise pain and suffering (e.g. Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Slovakia).
A personal perspective on the subject.
The second world war exacted a terrible toll on the conscience of western Europe. Conduct of unimaginable brutality was unleashed on all manner of people, in particular the Jewish people. It is no wonder the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contained Article 18 stating:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
And later at Article 27:
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
As an atheist and secularist, it is my opinion that religion should adapt and evolve in the face of scientific and societal advancement. Where it does not, the state should be entitled to interfere in a proportionate way to ensure that no unnecessary suffering is caused to any “sentient being” irrespective of how humble it is.
I do not agree with the exemption provided by the EU which facilitates the continuation of pain and unnecessary distress to animals at the time of slaughter. Exempting prior-stunning of ritually slaughtered animals flies in the face of the scientific and veterinary evidence and contradicts the EU’s own key principles.
The issue is how to fully enable and permit people from certain religious traditions to go about their lawful business and to lead full, healthy and happy lives with minimal state interference – but at the same time, to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals.
At the same time it is important for governments and legislators – and religious communities – to realise that ritual slaughter of animals without prior-stunning is opposed by large numbers of people (I would even suggest the majority) and even other religious communities. Simply to provide an exemption for one community, particularly in the absence of the requirement for clearly labelled food – creates as much concern and offence (and much more actual harm) as would a repeal of the exemptions.
What I would like to see
1. Legislation repealed so that exemptions to the requirement that animals should be stunned prior to slaughtering are ended. This would be in line with the scientific and veterinary evidence on animal welfare. I respectfully suggest it would also be in accordance with the prevailing opinion of the EU and UK populations.
2. Until such time as legal exemptions are removed, it is critical that food produced without prior stunning of the animal is clearly labelled as such. The power of the free market and the additional awareness-raising effect may advance the argument – but if nothing else it will increase the transparency of the EU and go some way to address the current accusation of there being an EU democratic deficiency! Sweden recently called for such a measure after they expressed concerns the exemption to prior stunning was being over-used in some member states.
3. Finally (and perhaps naively) I believe that ritual slaughter was originally intended (at least within the Abrahamic traditions) to provide a humane and hygienic way of producing meat. Consequently a move to require prior-stunning may not in fact be a betrayal of these original aims and values.
As Jeremy Bentham stated in his seminal work in 1789 An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, the wellbeing of animals is no less important than that of human beings, and must be taken into account because as he so eloquently put it: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
Turkey - After being flipped upside down in a ‘full inversion box’ Lithuanian cattle had their throats cut
and were dropped onto the bodies of other slaughtered animals, some of whom were still conscious.
Please click on the picture to take action on the website of 'Compassion in World Farming'
Ritual slaughter, Part 2: What’s (in) the beef?
By LSS member Dr. Peter Bowen-Walker
Many people find the idea of unnecessary animal cruelty unacceptable and as a consequence they don’t mind paying a little extra for food they know has been produced in accordance with the highest standards of animal welfare.
Since ritual slaughter of animals often involves reliance on the EU exemption from the requirement that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, it is fair to conclude this sort of meat was not produced in line with the highest standards relating to animal welfare at the time of slaughter (see previous post).
So as a consumer how can you be sure that the meat you purchase comes from an animal stunned prior to slaughtering?
Unfortunately it doesn’t appear that any relevant UK government agency (DEFRA, Food Standards Agency, UK Accreditation Service, or the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency) holds a list of bodies that provide accreditation which certifies that any given item of meat has come from an animal which was stunned at the time of slaughter. This is despite the fact that the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council:
“… considers that slaughter without pre-stunning is unacceptable and that the Government should repeal the current exemption.”
And it is despite a clear call from the British Veterinary Association:
“that all animals should be stunned before slaughter, and if slaughter without stunning is still to be permitted then any meat or fish from this source must be clearly labelled. This will enable consumers to fully understand the choice they are making when purchasing such products.”
Even the British Retail Consortium, who do certify that food is safe in relation to its “packaging, storage and distribution” do not provide an assurance regarding the food they certify that the highest levels of animal welfare were applicable at all stages of the animal’s life including at the point of slaughter.
The EU are aware of the growing concern of consumers, scientists and veterinarians concerning the lack of information required on food labels and at Paragraph 50 of Regulation No 1169/2011 have stated:
“Union consumers show an increasing interest in the implementation of the Union animal welfare rules at the time of slaughter, including whether the animal was stunned before slaughter. In this respect, a study on the opportunity to provide consumers with the relevant information on the stunning of animals should be considered in the context of a future Union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals.”
So why are both the UK and the EU reluctant to impose a requirement that meat is labelled as prior-stunned or not?
Justin Cohen wrote a surprisingly candid article in March 2011 called Kosher meat labelling a 21st century ‘Yellow Star’. He discussed proposals by MEPs that all meat produced without prior stunning of the animal should be labelled with the wording:
“This product comes from an animal slaughtered by the Shechita/Halal method”
This recommendation was later changed to:
“Meat and meat products derived from animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter, i.e. have been ritually slaughtered” (Amendments 205, 353, 354, 359 of the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers)
He explained that Jewish groups were opposed to any such labelling because:
“It is feared that such a measure would lead to a massive hike in kosher prices as the vast majority of Shechita meat goes to non-kosher consumers who may decide to opt for products without labels. The practise could then eventually become untenable.”
The article went on to quote Shimon Cohen of Shechita UK, which opposed the labelling of food as “the 21st century equivalent of the yellow star, but on our food.”
So are the EU and member state governments colluding to permit non-stunned meat to clandestinely enter the general food market, knowing it will be purchased by unwitting and unwilling consumers – simply so that this cruel practice can be made financially viable for religious groups? Even if this is not explicitly the case, given that this possibility is being raised in the press and repeated in official government literature this troubling question must not be dismissed – because of the welfare consequences for the animals at the receiving end.
For example in a document written by Christopher Barclay entitled Religious Slaughter(Standard Note: SN/SC/1314 – House of Commons Library) in the section Labelling the following statement can be found:
“Many people believe that if such meat had to be labelled as coming from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning, they would not buy it. That might undermine the economics of Kosher meat.”
So much for the establishment of a true “internal market” as provided for by Article 28 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
For readers who want to know more about the labelling debate, there is a website sponsored by the RSPCA, Soil Association, Compassion in World Farming and others called Labelling Matters. It’s an excellent resource.
So how can you ensure the meat you purchase is derived from animals prior-stunned at the point of slaughter?
Thankfully, some forward-thinking organisations require that the meat produced under their accreditation system must come from prior-stunned animals. So look out for the following food certification schemes:
- Red Tractor
- RSPCA – Freedom Food
- Soil Association Scheme
- Humane Slaughter Association
- Co-op
- Sainsbury’s
- Morrison’s
- M&S
- Waitrose / Ocado
“[We] would like to reassure you that we require all slaughter processes in our supply chain, including Halal, to meet our stringent animal welfare requirements. In every case, the animal is stunned before slaughter so that it is insensible and feels no pain.”
Unfortunately, these guarantees do not extend to processed or pre-prepared meals and ingredients. The meat in these products may very well derive from animals which suffered unnecessarily. It is in relation to this category of foods (also recently embroiled in the “contaminated with horse-meat” scandal) that the failure of EU and UK labelling requirements renders consumers powerless to make informed choices over the food they eat and the personal ethical standards they can therefore live by.
So much for Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: freedom of “thought, conscience and religion”. This thorny subject is a two-sided coin in which the needs/conscience of the pro-animal welfare consumer is treated as inferior and subject to an EU/member state disregard.
It is on the basis of this analysis that religion appears to have an utterly disproportionate effect and influence in the EU. It distorts the internal market of the Union, it dismisses the true exercise of freedom of conscience of those with alternative “thoughts and conscience” and renders animal welfare a distinctly second-class EU principle.
Perhaps consumers should therefore be encouraged to avoid purchasing meat products produced in EU countries such as the UK, where prior-stunning is given an exemption, and should instead only purchase meat products from those countries that forbid this practice such as Sweden, Latvia and the province of Åland in Finland? This is of course impractical and no doubt disproportionate, but writing to your MP and MEP to lobby for honest labelling may be a small gesture of solidarity you may wish to take to reduce the suffering of your fellow “sentient beings”.
Concluding remarks
Animal welfare, freedom of thought and conscience, and a free internal market are all core principles of the EU. Yet, in response to unnecessary (and even contradictory) religious demands these core principles are compromised to a greater or lesser extent in relation to the ritual slaughter issue.
As the EU so readily capitulates to religious demands, I find myself musing on some further issues which arise naturally from this unsatisfactory situation:
1) How important will the question of animal welfare be in the 2014 MEP elections? And how important will it be in any future UK referendum on our continued membership of the EU?
Issues such as live animal transport, fur-farming, animal-testing, poor implementation of welfare standards in member-state farms and abattoirs, the non-stunning exemption and more recently the influence of EU export restrictions on cattle vaccinated against TB (possibly resulting in the need for a badger cull) all regularly feature in the UK press to the detriment of our view of the EU. Animal welfare is also now in the sights of organisations such as the Eurogroup for Animals who have recently launched a campaign to specifically raise public opinion on matters of animal welfare before the 2014 EU Parliamentary elections.
2) How will the EU reconcile its apparent commitment to animals as “sentient beings” and the already notable tension within the Union? Might this question become amplified if a country such as Turkey were to join in the future?
As a Muslim-majority country, almost all animal slaughter in Turkey is carried out without prior-stunning. One can only see things getting even worse if Turkey’s well-documented slide away from secularism towards Islamism continues.
Whilst this may not be an issue in itself, and the Union may simply provide a blanket power to derogate from Council Regulation 1099/2009, what if under consumer pressure in, say, the UK or Sweden the government did decide to insist on labelling of food as non-stunned or to prevent its production altogether within that member state?
Could this amount to an indistinctly applicable “Measure Equivalent to a Quantitative Restriction”? I propose that clear labelling might well influence the conduct of consumers (as it did after egg labelling), but could this be reconciled with Article 34 TFEU (prohibition of quantative restrictions)? Would any government be willing to hold its ground and argue it was justified under Article 36 treaty exceptions, namely the “protection of health and life of…animals…”? This argument has already failed once when the UK tried to prevent live transport of animals to the EU on the basis that animal welfare standards of some EU countries were too low – see paragraph 9 of the judgment in R v MAFF ex p Hedley Lomas(case C-5/94).
Would the EU expect a new member state to change its culture?
Or will the EU simply ditch completely its rhetoric of concern for “sentient beings” and their welfare?
Dr Peter Bowen-Walker is a biological scientist, lecturer and a part-time law student with an interest in animal welfare, habitat protection and environmental law.
Dr Bowen-Walker's articles "Ritual slaughter: what's the beef?" (Part 1 and 2) had originally been published on the website of the Lawyers' Secular Society, of which Dr Bowen-Walker is a member. These articles have been reproduced here with the kind permission of both the author, Dr Peter Bowen-Walker, and the 'Lawyers' Secular Society' and for which we are very grateful.
Please respect the author and do not reproduce without prior authorization. Thank you.
Dr Bowen-Walker's articles "Ritual slaughter: what's the beef?" (Part 1 and 2) had originally been published on the website of the Lawyers' Secular Society, of which Dr Bowen-Walker is a member. These articles have been reproduced here with the kind permission of both the author, Dr Peter Bowen-Walker, and the 'Lawyers' Secular Society' and for which we are very grateful.
Please respect the author and do not reproduce without prior authorization. Thank you.
The studies
Scientists confirm: ritual slaughter hurts
Animals suffer pain when they are slaughtered without sedation, claims slaughter expert Bert Lambooij. Not true, say a few Jewish organizations, who even went so far as to take out an injunction against Wageningen UR over the issue. Dutch research organization TNO has come out against the finding too. But the Wageningen scientist is in good company: a European study supports his findings.
Lambooij produced a report in 2008, at the request of the then ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food, after questions about this issue were asked in parliament by the animal rights party. The main conclusion was: 'Ritual slaughter without sedation is detrimental to the animal's wellbeing compared to slaughter with sedation.' He also suggested a number of measures aiming to improve animal wellbeing during the ritual slaughter process.
The gist of the current criticism is that Lambooij has not adequately supported his conclusion with scientific research. Is Lambooij a mediocre researcher with an axe to grind? Or do other researchers agree with him? Since Lambooij is the slaughter expert in the Netherlands, we have to look beyond the borders to answer this question.
Jewish and Islamic researchers
The biggest research group in the field of ritual slaughter is DIALREL, a group of European researchers who want to contribute to the discussion on religious slaughter with knowledge and facts. The main partners in this network come from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands (Bert Lambooij), Turkey and Israel. The latter two members make the project particularly interesting, as it means that Jewish and Islamic researchers are involved as well.
In a DIALREL report of last year, nine researchers (among them Lambooij) concluded that throat cutting without anaesthetic carried the highest risks of animals suffering: 'Pain, suffering and distress during the cut and during bleeding are highly likely.' Sedation methods are admittedly not without risks for animal wellbeing, but they are considerable smaller, claim the researchers. They cite from about 300 scientific articles and base their views on observations by veterinary researchers in slaughterhouses in Germany, Spain, England, France, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel and Australia.
Simple language
The researchers do not conclude that slaughter without sedation should be forbidden. They contribute their knowledge to the discussion. Their aim is good religious slaughter practice, which affects animal wellbeing as little as possible. This is not just a matter of sedation or the lack of it. Animals can suffer needlessly on account of faulty equipment or a lack of knowledge and skills among staff. DIALREL therefore argues for carefully formulated standardized procedures. Lambooij made the same suggestion in his literature study for the ministry two years earlier.
So what was wrong with Lambooij's report to the ministry? TNO is bothered by the unscientific, imprecise language Lambooij uses in it. The organization does approve of DIALREL's report, however, because it is expressed in academic language. But this difference is explicable. The aim of Lambooij's report was to explain to policymakers in simple language what the many studies on ritual slaughter and animal wellbeing had to say. --- You can read both reports below --
Source: http://resource.wur.nl/en/wetenschap/detail/scientists_confirm_ritual_slaughter_hurts/
Other related documents...
A dispensation to cause pain
The anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed
by Adam Rutherford - The Guardian - October 15, 2009
The ritual slaughter of animals decreed by Jewish and Muslim dietary laws require that the animals are conscious when they have their throats slit. In the European secular food industry, regulations strive to minimise "the risk of causing pain, fear or distress to the animals" in their being slaughtered for food. Crucially, these rules require the stunning of animals before being killed, either with a bolt to the brain, or with electricity. However, the law kowtows before the Jewish kashrut and Islamic halal guidelines in permitting avoidance of stunning.
This week New Zealand veterinarian scientist Craig Johnson was given an award from the Humane Slaughter Association , for his body of work that demonstrates that animals suffer more without stunning. In one crucial experiment, Johnson et al administered mild anaesthetics to calves so that they could not feel the pain of the incision, but the pain response was still measurable. It remained present in the animals without stunning, but was immediately erased by stunning.
"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful", Johnson told New Scientist. While this may appear to come from the oft-referenced University of the Bleeding Obvious, in fact defenders of Jewish shechita and Muslim dhabiha slaughter cite scientific evidence that the practice is not painful to the animal. In 2003, the Muslim Council of Great Britain claimed that "the brain is instantaneously starved of blood and there is no time to start feeling any pain." Johnson's work says otherwise.
If we, as the dominant species on Earth, are to use and consume animals, it is our duty to minimise their suffering in doing so. In scientific and medical research, animal work is extremely tightly regulated according to very specific rules designed to minimise suffering. Animal research is expensive, time consuming, and unpleasant: I have never met a scientist who relishes it. This is an important point in arguing with those who oppose the use of animals in scientific research. Some organisations campaign for the use of alternatives, such as cell cultures. In my experience, almost all scientists involved in research which requires animals will tell you that where alternatives are available that can provide as good data, they will use them. But more often than not, the use of animals produces more informative data. However distasteful the experiments may be, the benefits outweigh the costs.
I eat meat. I find this position much harder to justify than my continued support for animal research. I recognise that there are many who oppose both meat eating and scientific research on animals, and for the less fanatical, these arguments can be sophisticated and nuanced. Even so, opponents should surely recognise the ethics of our civilised society go some way to minimise suffering in both of these endeavours.
And yet, at the very same time, we still offer special dispensation to the religious so that ancient and arbitrary customs can be upheld. Neither shechita or dhabiha are described in religious texts, the Torah and the Qur'an, respectively: they derive from oral histories and traditional practices. Some Jewish or Muslim butchers do indeed perform the stun before the cut. It's time to recognise that without the stun these practices cannot be justified scientifically. They are acts of avoidable cruelty predicated on anachronistic beliefs. While they may be part of a "way of life", our ethics insist that they need to be modified.
Johnson received his gong from the HSA for work which, according to New Scientist strengthens "the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane". More precisely, I would think that to a reasonable person it suggests that the anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed. This special indulgence to religious practices should be replaced with the evidence-based approaches to which the rest of us are subject.
Our petition to the European Commission
Recently, the voices of protest against slaughter of conscious (non-stunned) animals for religious reasons (the so-called ritual slaughter) have been raised in many Member States by local animal protection organizations.
Unfortunately, neither the governments nor the EU authorities seem to take these local actions and petitions into account.
Unfortunately, neither the governments nor the EU authorities seem to take these local actions and petitions into account.
Please help us to have religious slaughter banned in the European Union
by taking the following actions:
- Sign our petition directly at change.org. The message below will then be sent instantly to the European Parliament. Occupy for Animals has requested the European Parliament to register this petition. By signing the petition now, we will be able to notify you once the European Parliament has confirmed the registration of our petition.
- Copy and send the petition letter below to your MEPs (Member of the European Parliament). You can find their names and email addresses easily in the following portal.
- Share this page with your friends and family and ask them to sign the petition, too.
Thank you very much, in advance, for your support.
The Petition Letter
I hereby request that the European Parliament prompts the Council to delete from Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing the derogation whereby animals can be killed without prior stunning where such methods of slaughter are prescribed by religious rites (Art. 4.4).
Such derogation is in contradiction to the overall objective of the Regulation, i.e. the protection of animals from pain, anxiety and suffering during the slaughter process. Despite the statement in the Recitals, whereby it is emphasized that “animal welfare is a Community value that is enshrined in the Protocol (No. 33) on protection and welfare of animals, annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (Protocol No. 33)”, the Regulation allows for the methods of slaughter which, according to the contemporary standards, must be viewed as unquestionably cruel and causing unnecessary pain and anxiety, in terms of both physical and mental distress, and making animals die in extreme suffering.
This fundamental inconsistency in the Regulation was articulated already by the European Economic and Social Committee, in their opinion on the proposal for Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 (see EESC opinion of 25 February 2009). The EESC also indicated that with innovative stunning systems it is possible to comply with religious rules while ensuring that animals are properly stunned but still alive prior to slaughter. Serious objections to the derogation on ritual slaughter have been also expressed by numerous organizations of scholars, animal welfare experts, food safety consultants and veterinarians (e.g. FAWC, HAS, EFSA, FVE), as well as by the experts involved in the DIALREL project funded by the European Commission. Unfortunately, none of these opinions has been taken into account in the said Regulation.
The underlying reason for the derogation on ritual slaughter was the Commission’s concern about the needs of some of the EU citizens, stemming from the special dietary requirements of certain Muslim or Jewish communities. However, the experience of the past few years shows that the current derogation for non-stunned slaughter is abused to a large extent in some Member States, with the result that the meat and meat products from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning enters the mainstream food chain without being labelled, depriving European consumers of their right to make an informed choice on whether they wish to eat such products. This issue was addressed by the European Parliament in the Resolution of 4 July 2012 on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 (Art. 49). The extreme example of such abuse is Poland, where – despite the fact that non-stunned slaughter is not allowed under the Polish Animal Protection Act and the Muslim and Jewish communities are a minute percentage of the country population (less than 0.05%) – ritual slaughter according to Halal and Shechitah methods is done on an enormous scale in dozens of slaughterhouses throughout the country (according to the official 2011 statistics – over 150,000 tons of beef and over 50 million of chickens!). Almost 100% of the meat and meat products from non-stunned slaughter is exported from Poland, mainly to the Muslim countries and Israel. Thus, the non-stunned slaughter in the Polish slaughterhouses does not serve the purpose which the European legislator had in mind when adopting the derogation, i.e. respecting the religious rites of certain European citizens, but is done merely for commercial reasons – to maximize the profits of Polish entrepreneurs, who are becoming the leading meat suppliers to the Muslim and Jewish markets worldwide.
Furthermore, the alleged need to maintain the derogation on ritual slaughter in the European legislation is not supported by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Although the Court admits that eating the meat from ritual slaughter is an element of the freedom of conscience and religion, yet it is explicitly stated “there would be interference with the freedom to manifest one’s religion only if the illegality of performing ritual slaughter made it impossible for ultra-orthodox Jews to eat meat from animals slaughtered with the religious prescriptions they considered applicable” (case of Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek vs France, judgment of 27 June 2000). In the said case, the Court concluded that religious freedom was not restricted as long as the special kind of meat could be imported from another country.
In view of all the above described circumstances, I believe that it is only right that the European Parliament prompts the Council to delete from Regulation No. 1099/2009 the derogation on ritual slaughter and adopts uniform European legislation under which non-stunned slaughter is totally banned in all the Member States.
[date]
[full name]
[address]
