Welfare at slaughter

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:35:26 GMT

Religion is veryvoften taught by parents as is atheism!

Wynne

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:31:30 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Many scientific processes take place in our minds before we know it. That's how I see it at least, and sometimes the answers (not necessarily the scientific process) has been taught to us by our parents. That doesn't make it any less scientific.[/quote]

Sounds rather like finding scientific justification for what your mind has already decided.......

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 12:59:52 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

not all atheists are kind to animals, so Francisco is also making an unsubstantiated claim.

[/quote]

If it looked as I was making that claim, I apologise, it wasn't my intention. I only meant that it is not necessary to follow a religion to be kind to animals and that an atheist can find, scientifically, a reason why animal cruelty isn't necessary, or even counter-productive.

I wanted to end my bit there, but I wish to clarify. When I say:

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]what is convenient or not for our community (being the human community, our family, the living, or our world)[/quote]

In the living or the planet, I refer to animals too.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

if there were published this year some respectable, indisputable, impeccable scientific papers, which demonstrated that there would be substantial benefit to the species Homo sapiens if animals were not stunned but instead given a good kicking before having their throats cut with a rusty bow-saw, would you change your mind about humane slaughter?

[/quote]

I guess depends of our priorities, and I would guess that even for that, there is a scientific explanation of how they are ordered.

In my country, there is scientific evidence that bullfighting bulls have a different taste that some people prefer, and that if there weren't bulls doing this, that would disappear. That is an example of Homo Sapiens only benefit - but it clashes with my paragraph above, which in my mind, completely destroys this last argument.

[quote] you weren't already pretty sure that it was wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. [/quote]

Many scientific processes take place in our minds before we know it. That's how I see it at least, and sometimes the answers (not necessarily the scientific process) has been taught to us by our parents. That doesn't make it any less scientific.

[quote]

Don't knock the Baghavad Gita until you've read it.

[/quote]

Nothing further from my intentions, I'm only giving an angle. I've read bits of it, btw.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 08:28:15 GMT

You're both partly wrong. Not all religions advocate kindness to animals, although some are much better than others. The average Buddhist would have a far higher regard for animals than the average of the general population. However, not all atheists are kind to animals, so Francisco is also making an unsubstantiated claim.

Some Christians are kind to animals..........despite the atrocities committed in the name of religion at Spanish fiestas, the Catholic church also made a saint of Francis os Assissi. John Wesley was a vegetarian, but since he was also a teetotaller, I'm not sure whether this was primarily due to a regard for animals, or a dislike of indulgence of any sort.

Some atheists are kind to animals, but in both cases, their attitude to animals is totally unrelated to their religious belief (or lack of) The only religion which actively promotes animal welfare is Buddhism

I'm a Christian, but I'm fully aware that the established Christian churches deny that animals have souls, and therefore fail to actively promote animal welfare................. in that respect, I believe they are wrong.

Wynne

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 01:42:59 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]When your religious leader uses the scriptures to suppress any reason and fight all 'infidel' that don't follow his/her interpretation, that is imposing caveman instinct in my view.[/quote]

OK. Whahhabi and some other sects of Islam impose a caveman attitude, if you insist. (Obviously you can't impose an instinct)

I might mention that on the other hand more than one major religion directs (very carefully chosen word) its followers to follow a path that, in your own words, "helped to form communities, help your neighbour despite of not knowing them."

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Isn't right and wrong just a binary exercise for what is convenient or not for our community (being the human community, our family, the living, or our world)[/quote]

Largely, yes. That's really what I've said already, explaining about the evolution of altruism. We've also evolved huge brains and, in a way, we have "evolved" science.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"] And therefore the reason why we are inclined to choose 'right' (instead of wrong), because it makes us at peace with ourselves.[/quote]

Yes, I quite agree, though those would not be my choice of words.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]And isn't that peace just an emotion, a feeling, something so tangible, that wouldn't exist if it weren't for our own functioning, scientific brain?[/quote]

Yes, mostly, though other species also exhibit altruism. BUT we don't get that "peace" because we have scientifically analysed what's going to provide it and why. Don't tell me that, until you took time out to read the scientific literature and analyse the scientific evidence and draw the conclusion that, in your own words "cruelty leads to despair and more cruelty. Empathy leads to progress", that you weren't already pretty sure that it was wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Wow - Glad to see your opinion of all atheists, who hadn't sat down and reasoned out their moral code and yet many expect them to believe in the prophet Muhammad, Siddhartha, or what is even less plausible, the Trinity.[/quote]

Quite so. You are making my point for me. The atheists, who follow their moral and ethical code that is established in their minds, a combination of true instinct (i.e. congenitally present in the brain), learned instinct (equally unconscious, but a product of nurture, culture, parental attitude and encouragement and similar factors), and actual conscious education; have – is it by astonishing coincidence? – the same moral code as those who have been brought up in, or adopted later, one of many (but not all) religions. Those atheists have not arrived at their moral code by strict scientific reasoning.

Francisco, if there were published this year some respectable, indisputable, impeccable scientific papers, which demonstrated that there would be substantial benefit to the species Homo sapiens if animals were not stunned but instead given a good kicking before having their throats cut with a rusty bow-saw, would you change your mind about humane slaughter?

Don't knock the Baghavad Gita until you've read it.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 22:24:16 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I dispute nothing of what you say (except the daft crack about religion teaching caveman instincts )

[/quote]

When your religious leader uses the scriptures to suppress any reason and fight all 'infidel' that don't follow his/her interpretation, that is imposing caveman instinct in my view.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

there is no scientific reason why it is wrong.

[/quote]

Isn't right and wrong just a binary exercise for what is convenient or not for our community (being the human community, our family, the living, or our world)? And therefore the reason why we are inclined to choose 'right' (instead of wrong), because it makes us at peace with ourselves. And isn't that peace just an emotion, a feeling, something so tangible, that wouldn't exist if it weren't for our own functioning, scientific brain?

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[/quote]

... and the rest.

Wow - Glad to see your opinion of all atheists, who hadn't sat down and reasoned out their moral code and yet many expect them to believe in the prophet Muhammad, Siddhartha, or what is even less plausible, the Trinity. Fran out!

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 20:01:33 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"] Might be that I'm not explaining myself very well.[/quote]

This seems to be the case. I dispute nothing of what you say (except the daft crack about religion teaching caveman instincts ) but none of it answers the simple question you posed.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Can you not find a scientific reason to explain why isn't right to make an animal suffer unnecessarily?[/quote]

Can you not find a reason to explain why atheists think it isn't right to make an animal suffer unnecessarily?

[/quote]

Certainly I can. It's because it's against their moral and ethical code. Which they have not sat down and reasoned out, clause by clause, studying the scientific literature as they go. And they would not arrive at a moral and ethical code that they could use, even if they attempted this immense exercise. (Well, I suppose some berk with a private income might devote years to it and come up with something – I think he'd be a very hard person to live with. He might be happier dwelling alone on a remote island). Because science cannot dictate it. The science of biology does of course explain why humans have a moral and ethical code, as I have already outlined. But no, I cannot find a scientific reason to explain why it "isn't right" to make an animal suffer unnecessarily. This doesn't mean my reasons have to be given me by a religion (although they might be.... keep guessing).

Let me put it this way. Sure, there are straightforward scientific reasons why you and I have a moral code that, among other things, considers it wrong to make an animal suffer unnecessarily (or, to be more scientific about it, to do something to an animal that would give that animal an experience that in a human would be deemed suffering). But there is no scientific reason why it is wrong.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 12:02:28 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Interesting. Please explain further, with examples. But remember that what the ruling Christian Church got up to was not necessarily very Christian.

[/quote]

I won't explain with examples. Because each example I give you (as Hannah Wynne Richards has very well pointed out), will be teared/split in two: that the action was by men, not Christianity, and that the scriptures are still right. I've heard this enough times. Yet it fails to address that, had the scripture been a clear scientific theory (not hypothesis), the interpretation and therefore the action that we condemn would have been less likely.

A scripture is what it is. You can't change it. A scientific theory you can challenge, and with time and an open enough mind, you can adapt it to new times. I.e modern physics don't believe space and time are absolutes any more (even tho we still treat them as such for every day calculations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space ).

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Can you not find a scientific reason to explain why isn't right to make an animal suffer unnecessarily?[/quote]

No. Can you? If so, please discourse.

[/quote]

If you want me to spell it, I will.

Simpathy, Empathy, Condolence are emotions. Only those animals with a level of evolution are capable of these feelings. But this feelings are not coming from the heart or the soul. They come from the brain - there is a chemical reaction taking place for these to happen, there has to be a change of what's going on up there.

We are the most evolved species, and in my mind, we are so because we don't necessary follow the instinct of reaction and violence when facing something foreign or estrange. We are happy to take a moment and try to reason it, to explain it. There are certain individuals who are either incapable of these or they've been taught to suppress it and follow caveman instincts (very often taught by religion by the way), but for most of us, this had helped to form communities, help your neighbour despite of not knowing them. We are, slowly but surely, applying this to animals. Because cruelty leads to despair and more cruelty. Empathy leads to progress.

That is my hypothesis (not a theory, as I don't know if this had been yet proven). And that's why it is possible, with some medications, to suppress/enhance/alter these feelings: Alcohol being a an example, but I'm sure there are better ones involving prescription medicines. Might be that I'm not explaining myself very well. But let's turn my question around.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Can you not find a scientific reason to explain why isn't right to make an animal suffer unnecessarily?[/quote]

Can you not find a reason to explain why atheists think it isn't right to make an animal suffer unnecessarily?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill, I'm sure by now you know that I'm not trying to change your mind - I don't think that is possible, at least in this context. I'm only offering an alternative idea to the statements in your post, for the benefit of our fellow forum readers and contributors.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 08:30:43 GMT

Evelyn I agree with 90% of what you've written, but Francisco has a point about Christianity. In his native country the Catholic church still considers it acceptable to "celebrate" religious festivals by throwing live goats from church towers, or beating a donkey (ridden by the heaviest man they can find) round and round town until it collapses...........when it's beaten to its feet again, and the toture recommencesand

Nhombokisheni - as usual spot on. I think the lack of protest is either because these shops are in areas which are so Muslim dominated that people are afraid to protest, or because the politically correct WON'T condemn any aspect of Islam. however vile.

Wynne

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 22:51:30 GMT

[quote user="Nhombokisheni"]This is what the Quran says regarding food, "
قُلْ لاَ أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَى طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنْ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلاَ عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
Say, “I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.” Al-Anam 6:145"[/quote]

Very interesting post, Nhombokisheni.

[quote user="Nhombokisheni"]Pre-stunning does not violate the Quran in my view........it violates tradition.[/quote]

Yes, this point is often made. As with the wearing of the hijab or the burka – it's not a requirement of the mainstream religion, it's traditional, cultural. (Not a point that's admitted by the Wahhabi, though! ).

[quote user="Nhombokisheni"]And I have actually seen adverts in some butchers that they sell only meat from UN-stunned animals......so this practice is rife in the U.K.....and I have never seen welfare campaigners anywhere around these premises.[/quote]

Interesting observation. I wasn't aware of such shops. Maybe the "campaigners'" don't know about these places? Maybe they are in areas where campaigners would be scared of being attacked or even murdered? Or maybe it's because "welfare campaigners" tend to be bleeding-heart liberals who are afraid of being "Islamophobic" or something?

Back in the days (a very long time ago) when my wife and I subscribed to Spare Rib I remember them publishing an article drawing attention to the filthy way some branches of Islam treat women. It was accompanied by a grovelling piece from the editorial team explaining that they had delayed publication for several months while they debated whether to publish such an article was racist.........

[quote user="Nhombokisheni"]The question that must be asked is what's so special that the world capitulated to the demand of Islam.[/quote]

I don't think the whole world has capitulated, yet. In the UK we are trying to be nice to them...

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 22:28:46 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]I don't know if my own original country fits in your definition of 'Western World'. I guess it does not. There, that moral and ethical code was, for a very long time, dictated by Christianity, and those values that you refer to, were largely shaped despite Christianity.[/quote]

Interesting. Please explain further, with examples. But remember that what the ruling Christian Church got up to was not necessarily very Christian.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

It's the moral wrong. Why is it wrong? Well, it's just wrong.

[/quote]

Is that sufficient nowadays? That's the problem with the religious tales.

[/quote]

It will have to be sufficient, won't it? Why is it not sufficient? Did you not read my post carefully? This is how it is with any moral and ethical code, whether it's one with religious foreground, religious background or no apparent religion at all.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Can you not find a scientific reason to explain why isn't right to make an animal suffer unnecessarily?[/quote]

No. Can you? If so, please discourse.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Nhombokisheni — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 22:01:12 GMT

This is what the Quran says regarding food, "
قُلْ لاَ أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَى طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنْ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلاَ عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
Say, “I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.” Al-Anam 6:145"

You can interpret it your own way. The question that must be asked is what's so special that the world capitulated to the demand of Islam. The requirement is clearly that they should not eat meat of dead animals.......and yes, we do not slaughter "dead" animals. All dead on arrivals and dead in lairage animals do not enter the food chain.

The method of slaughter called halal is really about dedicating the animal to Allah.....a sacrificial offering of sorts. Pre-stunning does not violate the Quran in my view........it violates tradition.

And I have actually seen adverts in some butchers that they sell only meat from UN-stunned animals......so this practice is rife in the U.K.....and I have never seen welfare campaigners anywhere around these premises.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Francisco Gomez — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:56:15 GMT

I won't comment on those bits where I agree with you, that would be a waste of time wouldn't it? Or those bits that don't interest me that much either but...

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Incidentally, it's an interesting thought that the general ethical and moral code (people differ over detail, but rarely on the broad principles) prevalent in "the Western World"; of liberty, justice, fairness, equality, truthfulness, kindness, assisting those less fortunate and so on, has been not dictated but largely established and shaped by Christianity.......

[/quote]

I don't know if my own original country fits in your definition of 'Western World'. I guess it does not. There, that moral and ethical code was, for a very long time, dictated by Christianity, and those values that you refer to, were largely shaped despite Christianity.

[quote]

Science cannot dictate what is "acceptable". Science can show that cutting an animal's throat, however sharp your knife, does not render it instantaneously, or even quickly, unconscious. Science can show that cutting an animal's throat is bloody painful. Science can show that there are such similarities between the nervous systems of Homo sapiens and other animals, in both structure and function.

It is not science, however, that decides our moral code (both yours and mine) that it is wrong that animals should undergo pain and other suffering at the time of slaughter.... that they should be handled gently and kindly in the abattoir and rendered instantaneously insensible before being killed. "Wrong" in this context is not the scientific "wrong" (as in: it is wrong to believe that a hole in a sheet of steel will get smaller when the steel is heated). It's the moral wrong. Why is it wrong? Well, it's just wrong.

[/quote]

Disagree.

Science in now the very thing that can show us the path to progress. We no longer need to rely on religious tales to ensure those values, morals and ethics in the next generations.

We have gone this far thanks to religion yes, but our (human) understanding of the Universe is now beyond this. Religion, that was once a necessary evil, represents today the obstacles that is constantly slowing us down, forcing us to stop in our road to the future.

I hope my comment doesn't fill any religious mind with upset, because then, those minds will react not by accepting my words, but by filling themselves with a stronger attachment to their doctrine - that's why religion take so much time to let us go, because that is what religion does, it was designed with that particular purpose, to become stronger every time it gets challenged.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

It's the moral wrong. Why is it wrong? Well, it's just wrong.

[/quote]

Is that sufficient nowadays? That's the problem with the religious tales. We have gotten so accustomed to them that we have to refer to them to explain our own behaviour. Can you not find a scientific reason to explain why isn't right to make an animal suffer unnecessarily? The clue is in the question

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 17:19:15 GMT

[quote user="Robert Falconer-Taylor"]

I did say my comment was a tangent, but a valid one I think. Should religion play any role at all in dictating what is acceptable or not when there are clear contradictions between science based on best evidence and beliefs based on, well beliefs in variant ancient scriptures that all claim to be The True?

To answer you question, my opinion is that animal welfare and the upholding of the 5-freedoms enshrined in law should always supersede all belief systems.

[/quote]

Robert, you haven't answered the question I asked. OK, leave it.

So, should religion play any part at all in dictating what is acceptable or not, in this context? Hmm, it depends on what you mean by religion; one might well feel that the ethical and moral system (to which both you and I subscribe), which holds that animals should not be caused any avoidable suffering (and let us avoid for now the knotty questions of the definition of suffering and whether we are sure that it can be applied to non-human animals), amounts to a religion of sorts. Is there an absolute moral code.... are morals and ethics absolute? I maintain that they are not, except as dictated by biology and evolution; and that evolution has given us altruism, while the steady easing of life that has come for Homo sapiens has left scope for altruism to spill over, first to people to whom we are not at all related and then to other species. Curiously, it is the classic religions that have held morals and ethics to be absolute. Beyond a biological imperative, morals and ethics are not absolute but are part of the culture of the group to which we belong. That doesn't mean I am indulging in illiberal liberal handwringing that we should not enforce our culture upon those who inhabit our country, or suggest and encourage it amongst other peoples. On the contrary.

[quote user="Robert Falconer-Taylor"]Should religion play any role at all in dictating what is acceptable or not when there are clear contradictions between science based on best evidence and beliefs based on, well beliefs in variant ancient scriptures that all claim to be The True?[/quote]

When the humane slaughter legislation was framed in the UK, the exemption for religious slaughter under fairly tightly controlled conditions was largely made with the substantial Jewish minority in mind, although Muslim slaughter was also mentioned. I doubt if anyone could have foreseen the huge rise in the number of Muslims in the country or the restructuring of the meat industry which led to halal meat just going for general consumption. I'd guess that most legislators assumed that abattoir management and practice would steadily improve and did not foresee the foul malpractices that are reported now.

I'm pretty sure that nobody foresaw the rise of Wahhabi Islam, which is, to put it without bias, the real problem for everybody else. In my opinion, of course.

[quote user="Robert Falconer-Taylor"] In the UK, the christian doctrine I cited gives endorsment to jewish and muslim people living here that their beliefs override our own strict laws on animal welfare.[/quote]

Well, no, I don't think so.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Robert FalconerTaylor — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 22:12:39 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Robert Falconer-Taylor"]belief that non-human animals did not possess souls, and therefore by implication neither thoughts nor feelings[/quote]

Non sequitur.

Robert, I am not clear whether it is your opinion that the one implies the other or whether you are referring to explicit statements by Christian authorities that the one implies the other.

[/quote]

To answer you question, my opinion is that animal welfare and the upholding of the 5-freedoms enshrined in law should always supersede all belief systems. Belief systems don't change in the light of new knowledge, rather they twist it to fit their particular world views. In the UK, the christian doctrine I cited gives endorsment to jewish and muslim people living here that their beliefs override our own strict laws on animal welfare.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 21:18:39 GMT

[quote user="Robert Falconer-Taylor"]belief that non-human animals did not possess souls, and therefore by implication neither thoughts nor feelings[/quote]

Non sequitur.

Robert, I am not clear whether it is your opinion that the one implies the other or whether you are referring to explicit statements by Christian authorities that the one implies the other.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Robert FalconerTaylor — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:07:34 GMT

[quote user="Lucy Fleming"]

I do believe that welfare should be held above any religious requirement.

[/quote]

Quite! Cristianity is hardly sqeaky-clean. Here's an exerpt from an article I wrote about animal welfare, a little on a tangent from halal, but relevant nontheless, especially in how children are brought up to respect animal welfare - or not.

"The deep-routed belief that non-human animals did not possess souls, and therefore by implication neither thoughts nor feelings, make it hardly surprising that attitudes toward the welfare of animals were so slow to change! Lest we believe that these hard-line Christian attitudes belong to the past, as recently as 1994 the Catholic Church reaffirmed its official doctrine, that animals are put on earth by God solely for the common good of humanity, no clarification added with regard to ‘animal souls’ or the potential of experiencing, pain or suffering, although there was a concession this time round – that man owes them ‘kindness’."

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Robert FalconerTaylor — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:52:44 GMT

There are several studies that show that some animals do suffer for some seconds through aspiration of blood, knife not quite the right angle etc. This is completely unacceptable and how religious non-stun is excempted is completely beyond me!

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Lucy Fleming — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:45:15 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]RSPCA figures suggest 84% of Halal meat is pre-stunned but the Telegraph suggests the number of non-stunned animals is on the rise.[/quote]

Very frustration when there is no justification for non-stunned!

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Bob Russell — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:32:15 GMT

Independence and support for my decisions as long as they follow the law and common sense.

Anything else to be dealt with away from the abattoir management.

Believe it or not this is how the MHS started! Very supportive and not a little combative! Then the powers that be decided to reduce the bill!

RSPCA figures suggest 84% of Halal meat is pre-stunned but the Telegraph suggests the number of non-stunned animals is on the rise.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Nhombokisheni — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:04:03 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

I did work in an abattoir for a number of years. First week I made it clear that there were welfare issues I would not live with and unless changes were made, they would be looking for a new OVS!

Thankfully the abattoir owner was receptive and things did change leading to a real improvement in welfare. Actually one of the best things I have done in my career!

We got out when the MHS introduced aggressive tendering which led to a certain large employer taking over much of the job! More interested in cutting costs than ensuring a good level of experience and robustness when dealing with abattoir owners.

It can be a satisfying job if done well, a real nightmare without back up and 'teeth'.

(Yes, I would do it again under the right circumstances)

[/quote]

You have hit the nail on the head......tendering out the service was a huge risk. It's quite an act to pull to ask total impartiality when there are huge commercial stakes at play. Invariably, by crook or design, the OVs have an interest to not ruffle the feathers.......there is no support as you would get as part of the civil service....the MHS has created too big a contractor that cannot be allowed to fail.....And the abattoir owners know it, and boy do they play the system.

The MHS is fully accountable for the state of affairs.

Just out of my own curiosity....what do you consider the right circumstances?

RE: Welfare at slaughter

David Mills — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:38:49 GMT

This issue comes round and around again.

Most sane people believe non-stun religious slaughter should be banned. It's very unlikely it will. Labelling would help, but there has been resistance to this largely because of the flow of meat - quite a bit is slaughtered by non-stun halal methods but supply exceeds demand - so it is diverted into 'normal' packaging.

This is something our august bodies should be agitating about. But they concentrate on TB, PET passports....

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Bob Russell — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:53:53 GMT

If an abattoir cannot control access to its CCTV then they need lessons on security. In the event of a leak there is a clear welfare defence.

The videos released by PETA and the like are generally filed using hidden cameras. Good welfare standards are likely to reduce the impact of this type of filming.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Lucy Fleming — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:44:46 GMT

True but I wonder if there is a fear of them being leaked.

RE: Welfare at slaughter

Bob Russell — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:41:44 GMT

There is absolutely no need for routine CCTV images to be made public. This should limit the misunderstandings associated with slaughter.