Should animals be stunned before slaughter?

[LemonAndLime]

The slaughter of conscious animals was widely abandoned in the 20th Century and is now practised mainly in the Jewish and Muslim communities. Consumers increasingly expect animals to be stunned before death - but would banning other slaughter methods be an unacceptable violation of religious rights?..

“Killing animals is never friendly,” says Paul Meeuwissen, director of the Vitelco abattoir in the central town of s’-Hertogenbosch, “but what we do is done in the most animal-friendly way possible.”

The plant - the second-biggest veal abattoir in Europe - has used stunning on all its calves - some 300,000 a year - since 2008. Before then it performed some religious slaughter without stunning for the Jewish and Muslim communities, but changing public attitudes towards animal welfare forced a rethink.

The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe took the position in 2002 that “the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is unacceptable under any circumstances”, and the issue has gradually become more central for animal welfare campaigners, and for politicians.

“We decided to stop ‘ritual’ killing because the idea didn’t fit us,” says Mr Meeuwissen. “My customers are very critical on how we produce our meat, and the large supermarket chains no longer want any meat which is produced ritually.”

In the Netherlands and elsewhere, most of the remains of an animal slaughtered by the Jewish method (shechita) end up on supermarket shelves as regular meat products, because parts of the carcass are forbidden to Jews under their dietary laws.

[After the … is a rather graphic description of slaughter, which I omitted, the full article can be read at the link below]

bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14779271

So what do we think?

 

[Neildown]

I don’t see the problem - an animal dying in agony and for a long period of time is one thing. A fairly quick and easy cut is another.

I think the difference between an ok slaughtering method and animal cruelty lies in the fact that slaughter is inevitably going to lead to the animal’s death, and provided it isn’t prolonged for an unnecessary amount of time [and the Jewish and/or Muslim methods, since they are of religious importance, do not take an unnecessary amount of time. It really doesn’t take that long for the animal to die via those methods either.] it should be allowed. Animal cruelty is willingly causing an animal pain for no good reason. Slaughter is for the purpose of feeding people.

I know people who slaughter their chickens in the Jewish method - it’s gruesome from what I’ve heard - but the way in which they are killed “kills” them but keeps the heart going longer so the blood drains.

 

[DCNBILL]

I had to go harvest a fresh bovine heart at a slaughterhouse for research purposes and I was amazed how they killed the animals. That bolt gun that they use is very efficient and quick. The animals go right down, it was a bit disturbing but I do not think that the animals suffered.

 

[meltzerboy]

To my understanding, the ritual methods of animal slaughter according to kosher laws, which forbid stunning, have been improved in many slaughterhouses. There is still some abuse concerning the treatment and preparation of the animals before killing them. My own feeling about this is we should not kill animals at all for food and instead become vegetarians or vegans. I realize I won’t make many friends on the Forum with such a bold statement (and certainly not among employers/employees in the meat industry or hunters), but that is my view. Incidentally, there is a case for vegetarianism that has been made according to Torah teaching. For the purpose of full disclosure, I do eat chicken and fish (but not beef or pork) although rarely these days. However, I certainly do not condemn anyone who eats meat. I am not an animal activist, nor a member of PETA, just an animal lover.

 

[severus68]

The slaughter of conscious animals was widely abandoned in the 20th Century and is now practised mainly in the Jewish and Muslim communities. Consumers increasingly expect animals to be stunned before death - but would banning other slaughter methods be an unacceptable violation of religious rights?..

“Killing animals is never friendly,” says Paul Meeuwissen, director of the Vitelco abattoir in the central town of s’-Hertogenbosch, “but what we do is done in the most animal-friendly way possible.”

The plant - the second-biggest veal abattoir in Europe - has used stunning on all its calves - some 300,000 a year - since 2008. Before then it performed some religious slaughter without stunning for the Jewish and Muslim communities, but changing public attitudes towards animal welfare forced a rethink.

The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe took the position in 2002 that “the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is unacceptable under any circumstances”, and the issue has gradually become more central for animal welfare campaigners, and for politicians.

“We decided to stop ‘ritual’ killing because the idea didn’t fit us,” says Mr Meeuwissen. “My customers are very critical on how we produce our meat, and the large supermarket chains no longer want any meat which is produced ritually.”

In the Netherlands and elsewhere, most of the remains of an animal slaughtered by the Jewish method (shechita) end up on supermarket shelves as regular meat products, because parts of the carcass are forbidden to Jews under their dietary laws.

[After the … is a rather graphic description of slaughter, which I omitted, the full article can be read at the link below]

bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14779271

So what do we think?

There was some Islamic cleric who gave a talk in the UK abou how humane Islamic slaughter is. Based on what he said, it would appear the most humane - no animal killed in the presence of another, the animal is talked too and calmed, the initial cut sort of paralyses and there is no pain therafter. I have not known Islamic slaughter to be practised in such manner.

To the point, there is someone from the well known Egyptian university who goes around the world showing that stunning the animal is permitted under Islam.

I do not eat meat but to those who do, the least is to ensure the animals are not in distress and the most humane method is used. So yes to stunning.

 

[meltzerboy]

There was some Islamic cleric who gave a talk in the UK abou how humane Islamic slaughter is. Based on what he said, it would appear the most humane - no animal killed in the presence of another, the animal is talked too and calmed, the initial cut sort of paralyses and there is no pain therafter. I have not known Islamic slaughter to be practised in such manner.

To the point, there is someone from the well known Egyptian university who goes around the world showing that stunning the animal is permitted under Islam.

I do not eat meat but to those who do, the least is to ensure the animals are not in distress and the most humane method is used. So yes to stunning.

No animal killed in the presence of another is also part of Jewish law, as well as insuring no pain by means of the initial cut and the extremely sharp knife with no nicks. In addition, “parent” and “child” may not be killed the same day. There are in fact a multitude of requirements regarding kashrut (kosher) in the preparation of animals for slaughter, and then the cleaning of the internal organs; I’m constantly learning new things about it. That’s why it is surprising to me that such slaughter would contain any non-humane treatment, although the lack of stunning has to do with the koshering process.

 

[Houguy82]

Since I’m not a Jew, I cannot refer to the specifics of Kashrut law.

But should animals be somehow incapacitated prior to slaughter ? Absolutely ! The end of their lives is a fact of life, people eat animals, I like cow … a cow’s gotta die !

I can’t imagine a reasonable person would want to watch another one of God’s creatures suffer a slow death such as exanguination. I can assure you based on my professional work that I have seen people who were concious, but due to medicines that effect the nervous system have lost all ability for them to breath on their own ( it’s ok folks I practice medecine, I’m not just some sicko haha) and I can tell you to see another creature with that amount of fear in their eyes is a bothersome sight to see; and I cannot imagine that a concious / semi-concious animal that has been hung upside down from a hook and had its trachea / external jugular(s) lacerated has any lesser amount of fear.

But if it makes the more Kosher minded amongst us feel better, if you wanna kill them in accordance with Kashrut law, by all means do so… Honestly I probably will never know; just make sure my steak is still hot when you bring it to my table hehe

 

[severus68]

No animal killed in the presence of another is also part of Jewish law, as well as insuring no pain by means of the initial cut and the extremely sharp knife with no nicks. In addition, “parent” and “child” may not be killed the same day. There are in fact a multitude of requirements regarding kashrut (kosher) in the preparation of animals for slaughter, and then the cleaning of the internal organs; I’m constantly learning new things about it. That’s why it is surprising to me that such slaughter would contain any non-humane treatment, although the lack of stunning has to do with the koshering process.

I believe Islamic dietary rules come from the OT rules/rules in Judaism. Thus a Muslim who cannot find halal food is allowed to eat kosher. There are more similarities between orthodox Judaism and Islam than Muslims would like to admit.

 

[Houguy82]

Severus you are correct (as I have always understood at least). In the absence of Halal, a muslim may consume some foods that are CERTIFIED Kosher ( as opposed to the more common “Kosher Style” or “Pareve” which is not in accordance with Dietary law. )

 

[severus68]

Severus you are correct (as I have always understood at least). In the absence of Halal, a muslim may consume some foods that are CERTIFIED Kosher ( as opposed to the more common “Kosher Style” or “Pareve” which is not in accordance with Dietary law. )

In Islam there is one more category (I forget the term) which is food that is not encouraged or recommended to be eaten but not prohibited like duck.

 

[Houguy82]

Ah most interesting, thanks for that bit. Now its research time

:coffeeread:

 

[severus68]

Ah most interesting, thanks for that bit. Now its research time

:coffeeread:

You are welcome.

 

[LilyM]

Forgive me on my almost complete ignorance of kosher and halal law, but I have wondered in the past why kosher or halal slaughter cannot be done with the animals being stunned or otherwise rendered unconscious beforehand.

Do stunning and other methods of producing unconsciousness somehow hamper the exsanguination process or something?

 

[Houguy82]

Hi Lily,

I’m sorry I would never presume to supply you with a partially correct answer. I had a fairly good grasp on the reasons of slaughter according to Kashrut and Halal law at one point, but some of the pieces of the story have misplaced lol. I just don’t want to feed you a half correct answer.

 

[ClayPots47]

Severus you are correct (as I have always understood at least). In the absence of Halal, a muslim may consume some foods that are CERTIFIED Kosher ( as opposed to the more common “Kosher Style” or “Pareve” which is not in accordance with Dietary law. )

There is a Muslim owned market in my area, that I have purchased some items from (They have the lowest price anywhere on Medjool dates). Some of the items there have both halel and certified kosher labels on them (these were mostly baked goods).

As for the article, I am in agreement with Temple Grandin, she’s the expert, she has done much to providing humane slaughter methods to the meat industry. I’ve read quite a bit about her life as a person having an Autism Spectrum Disorder. So I know about some of the contributions she has made to humane slaughtering methods. I like her “squeeze box”; as cows are corralled into narrow lines, they enter into a chamber that snugly holds them, then the stun is administered. Temple found that this calms the cow down and reduces stress due to fear.

 

[severus68]

There is a Muslim owned market in my area, that I have purchased some items from (They have the lowest price anywhere on Medjool dates). Some of the items there have both halel and certified kosher labels on them (these were mostly baked goods).

As for the article, I am in agreement with Temple Grandin, she’s the expert, she has done much to providing humane slaughter methods to the meat industry. I’ve read quite a bit about her life as a person having an Autism Spectrum Disorder. So I know about some of the contributions she has made to humane slaughtering methods. I like her “squeeze box”; as cows are corralled into narrow lines, they enter into a chamber that snugly holds them, then the stun is administered. Temple found that this calms the cow down and reduces stress due to fear.

I watched the movie on her. At the end there was a note that 90% of animal slaughter in the US is done using her method.

 

[severus68]

Forgive me on my almost complete ignorance of kosher and halal law, but I have wondered in the past why kosher or halal slaughter cannot be done with the animals being stunned or otherwise rendered unconscious beforehand.

Do stunning and other methods of producing unconsciousness somehow hamper the exsanguination process or something?

I think it is about the rule on not eating the flesh of a dead animal. The method of each type of slaughter includes prayer so there cannot be any possibility of the animal dying by the stunning. I may be wrong or inaccurate. Never wanted to know about killing anything.

 

[Hokomai]

Religions should not require animals to experience pain which can be avoided. Muslims accept the stunning of animals before slaughter. Much of the world sheepmeat trade is slaughtered in this way. there is no doubt that Halal and Kosher slaughter without stunning causes pain. This is as established as any fact in animal welfare. if religious people cannot accept humane slaughter, they should stop eating

meat.grandin.com/ritual/slaughter.without.stunning.causes.pain.html

 

[severus68]

Religions should not require animals to experience pain which can be avoided. Muslims accept the stunning of animals before slaughter. Much of the world sheepmeat trade is slaughtered in this way. there is no doubt that Halal and Kosher slaughter without stunning causes pain. This is as established as any fact in animal welfare. if religious people cannot accept humane slaughter, they should stop eating

meat.grandin.com/ritual/slaughter.without.stunning.causes.pain.html

I know you are incorrect there. While a few Muslims may want stunning, Muslim slaughter does not include stunning.
Well, if people stopped eating meat, there would be no issue of stunning or not stunning.

 

[Hokomai]

I know you are incorrect there. While a few Muslims may want stunning, Muslim slaughter does not include stunning.
Well, if people stopped eating meat, there would be no issue of stunning or not stunning.

Where I live we export huge amounts of Halal meat to Muslim countries. All are stunned before slaughter, with full observance of ritual. The original methods do not include stunning, but because the animal is still alive when its throat is cut after stunning, and because it is more humane, it is accepted and welcomes by Muslim communities. Google “halal slaughter”.