Pre-stunning of animals

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Chris Geddes — Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:53:49 GMT

"Halal" does not permit anything....individual halal authorities permit different things, depending on the authority.

If slaughter without stunning is banned in the UK, surely imports of meat from animals not pre-stunned can also be banned, in which case (illegal imports aside) we're not going to see a rise. I can't see that muslims who are currently happy with stunning are suddenly going demand it because of a ban...but even if they did, counteract this with the number of non-muslims who would no longer eat meat currently not labelled as halal but not pre-stunned, and you'd definitely get a decrease!

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Iain Richards — Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:32:49 GMT

I'd agree Chris. There is an "except" here, which I've alluded to earlier. There is the feeling that if the non-stun is pushed too hard, then some in the Muslim community who are happy to have stunned will, because they feel the change is a threat to their way of life, seek out non-stunned and the total number of animals killed without stunning will rise. The contrary position to this argument is that plenty of countries have banned it without a significant problem. The current UK government will not have a total ban.
I feel I have to point out that it is important to be aware that Halal does permit head-only electrical stunning whereas Shechita insists on a fully concious slaughter process.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Chris Geddes — Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:53:38 GMT

Without wishing to flog a dead horse (pre-stunned or otherwise), I'm not sure about the most recent letter but the BVA policy includes (but is not limited to) that all animals should be pre-stunned, but says that when they're not, the meat should be labelled as such as well as limited to demand etc. Not labelling is inexucasble. We ought to move towards banning non-stun. Other countries have done it, but I don't think we have the balls to do it sadly.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Iain Richards — Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:45:26 GMT

We might be at cross purposes here! I was using NZ as an example of a country that has stunned Halal for it's Muslim residents and succesfully exports to many Muslim countries. There are authorities in the UK that won't accept stunning, but I suspect they are UK sourcing. The good letter form BVA nad RSPCA discusses limiting slughter to that of the demand of the communities and no more.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Chris Geddes — Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:49:46 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

[quote user="Chris Geddes"]Some halal authorities, but not others. [/quote]

All in NZ and all of the countries to which NZ exports.

[/quote]

NZ exports to the UK, and there are halal regulatory authorities in the UK which do not approve meat from stunned animals.

https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2016/10/04/Stun-free-halal-certification-scheme-launched

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Iain Richards — Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:39:49 GMT

[quote user="Chris Geddes"]Some halal authorities, but not others. [/quote]

All in NZ and all of the countries to which NZ exports.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Chris Geddes — Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:36:20 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

In NZ all meat is stunned. This is accepted by the Halal authorities (and be several countries NZ exports to) but not the Jewish ones.

[/quote]

Some halal authorities, but not others. Some Muslims will only eat meat if it has been certified by the authorities who insist on a lack of stunning.

I avoid halal food as I don't know whether it's been stunned or not, which when you think about it is crazy, as it's also possible that meat not labelled halal hasn't been stunned. I'm not even sure if it's more or less likely that meat labelled as halal has come from a stunned animal. Labelling of whether stunned or not is surely the way forward. Can't see any argument against it.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Stephen Pointing — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 19:10:58 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]In NZ all meat is stunned. This is accepted by the Halal authorities (and be several countries NZ exports to) but not the Jewish ones[/quote] We stun all our sheep down here (and cattle too but we don't export any beef). Quick, easy and effective and really doesn't seem to cause any problems with our Chilean Muslim slaughter man.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Iain Richards — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 17:50:41 GMT

An issue with the non-stun debate is that too much pressure to ban non-stun could lead to a stricter interpretation that is regarded as "more Jewish or more Muslim" Banning such that the product has to be imported might also be questionable if the slaughter standards are not as good. So more animal suffering might occur, just not seen by us. In NZ all meat is stunned. This is accepted by the Halal authorities (and be several countries NZ exports to) but not the Jewish ones.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 16:23:55 GMT

[quote user="Julie Innes"]I feel that the general consensus of vets in the UK believe that non-stunning is cruel. That being the case, it is cruel regardless of your religion. If other countries produce halal meat without stunning, couldn't those wanting to eat halal meat import it, rather than leaving the rest of us wondering if the meat on our plates complies with our beliefs[/quote]

Sorry Julie, that's far too much like common sense to ever be acceptable.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Iain Richards — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:28:49 GMT

[quote user="Lucy Fleming"]Of course, as an atheist, it's very easy for me to say that without any conflict with deeply held spiritual beliefs.[/quote]

ALthough in law, your beliefs should be the same as a religious persons

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

ebedford — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 14:55:20 GMT

[quote user="Julie Innes"]

I get a bit upset at the thought of non-stunning, and especially at the thought that I could be unknowingly eating non-stunned meat. In the last few years my children's school have announced that all meat served at dinners is halal- we have about 3 Asian children in the school!

[/quote]

Have they said if it is stunned or non-stunned halal? It could be either if they haven't specified, so worth finding out - most halal meat is stunned.

An easy way to tell when buying meat is to make sure you eat red tractor meat as a minimum, which is always prestunned meat. Other higher standards like rspca assured are as well.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Neil Wheadon — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 13:37:37 GMT

The problem is when you try to enforce European standards of animal welfare on the world in general. It's not a racial slur, but different countries have different values, so we react when things are done differently.

The trick in my opinion is that these are our values, so adhere to them. The halal meat is a classic, schools find it easier to simply add this to the menu rather than saying 'you know what, it's unacceptable, bring a sandwich, we're not serving that'

As an example here is live pig transport in Cambodia (roped down)

Neil

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Julie Innes — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 08:43:59 GMT

I feel that the general consensus of vets in the UK believe that non-stunning is cruel. That being the case, it is cruel regardless of your religion. If other countries produce halal meat without stunning, couldn't those wanting to eat halal meat import it, rather than leaving the rest of us wondering if the meat on our plates complies with our beliefs

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Lucy Fleming — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 08:30:43 GMT

My first year welfare lectures were fairly clear on this one, probably because they were taught by David Mellor, who has carried out extensive research on the subject. A quick google of his name and "slaughter welfare" brings up several papers, I managed to find this open access one.

The conclusion is pretty clearly laid out:
The following conclusions can be drawn from these studies:

• Ventral-neck incision elicits a cerebrocortical response that would be experienced as pain for the duration of consciousness;

• Severing only the exposed vasculature did not elicit a response indicating this is not responsible for the cerebrocortical response;

• Transecting the neck tissues elicited a response indicating that this is primarily responsible for the cerebrocortical response;

• Stunning causes an immediate cessation of all cerebrocortical activity associated with continued awareness;

• Stunning can abolish any cerebrocortical effects due to ventral-neck transection.

I personally don't agree at all with the assertion by Shechita.org that stunning is in any way a more noxious and painful experience to the animal than having its throat cut while conscious. There is an argument that in some species, cattle notably excepted, the time to unconsciousness from exsangunation is "acceptably rapid". I'm not sure that is acceptable given the time to unconsciousness from stunning is "immediate". Of course, as an atheist, it's very easy for me to say that without any conflict with deeply held spiritual beliefs.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Iain Richards — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 18:02:39 GMT

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. ²⁵And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him (King James Version)

Varied Jewish websites mention the socket or the sinew, but not, directly the nerve.

The aspect of bleeding and how much blood is left in a carcass is moot. It's a bit like Shylock's pound of flesh or Loki's head.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:28:38 GMT

I know you wanted serious comments and informed opinion, but how about this

I've just visited the Killing Fields in Cambodia for the second time. It's pretty grim, not only because of the human remains that rise up after rain but because the Khmer Rouge didn't use bullets, they used axe handles, sharp palm stems to slit throats and anything else they could lay their hands on.

Naturally there was a feeling of absolute sickness and revulsion at this, but my thoughts were drawn to how the world slaughter their fellow animals in much the same way.

Do it properly, it's a disgrace to use any excuse.

Neil

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Liz Barton — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:44:00 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]The Shechita production of kosher meat will not accept any form of stunning as they regard it as a harm to the animal.[/quote]

And cutting it's throat isn't? Sorry - shouldn't apply simple logic! Thanks for the reference Iain Richards. Some pretty grim facts and figures in there. Now I'm off to find me a Biblical reference as to why the sciatic nerve is particularly offensive. And to figure out if 'blood vessels' have to be removed for meat to be Kosher, what size of vessel is acceptable. Presumably capillaries are okay, otherwise you'd be pretty much chewing on enamel, hair and nail.

RE: Pre-stunning of animals

Iain Richards — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 12:05:38 GMT

The studies that the proponents of non-stun slaughter use are mostly questionable as proper rigorous evidence. The debate is not helped with comments such as that from Robert Winston in the Lords to the effect that there are no pain receptors below the skin. He's evidently never had a cough (although plenty of trapped wind).

There are certifying bodies that will accept that reversible (ie head only) electrical stunning is Halal. They will not accept penetrative or concussive stunning. There are some certifying bodies that will not accept reversible stun as Halal. Approx 80% Halal is stunned
The Shechita production of kosher meat will not accept any form of stunning as they regard it as a harm to the animal. As the Kosher process also involves removing the sciatic nerve, a significant proportion of non-stunned mea enters the normal food-chain.

This is a good resource:https://vprf.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/non-stun-slaughter-vprf-fact-file-feb-2018.pdf