Halal

[Winston72]

I think ill stick to buying pork and bacon to avoid the issue

[scotslad]

Good posts above by cranfield and IPS above.

 

The simple fact is almost all meat will be killed halal as it makes handling/labelling a lot simplier

Althou ur probably right it should be labelled and let the punters vote with there feet mibee things might change

 

I've got a few mates that work in a well respected slaughter house killing lambs, they say there is actually very little difference from normal slaughter, really the only difference is the muslim who says the prayer.

 

 

Someone above said someone slit a calf's throat and its head was almost cut of yet was trying to breathe 5 mins later, if its head is hanging off it WILL not be trying to breathe 5 mins later it'ds just not physically possible

[Lloyd90]

i.e ....... Immigration problem solved in large part....... and emigration probably boosted......

 

But remember the spineless bunch of trough creatures at Westminster will do SFA, the BBC and its highly paid Lib Elite ( Packham et al ) will go all out to ban a humane harvest of a natural product from the Uplands, and ....well , need I go on..... excuse me while I go and regurgitate.....:(---

You think it's inhumane to cut an animals throat without it even knowing it's about to die, but it's perfectly fine to shoot a bird trying to escape out of the sky with a shotgun?

 

That's an interesting perspective...

[Mice!]

Reading through this thread there are some widely conflicting "facts" on how Halal and Kosher is carried out.

I think some people choose to denigrate Halal and/or Kosher meat preparation more as a reaction to the religions that practise it, than the actual practice itself.

I agree with that, watching country file a bit back and one of the presenters went through with a cow? Watching what actually happened, they didn't show it but he was quite shook up but don't think they said how the slaughter was done.

 

If your doing the weekly shop and the meat was clearly labelled halal chicken £4.50 non halal chicken £6.00 which will folk buy??

[scotslad]

And that's the thing there might be a good chance that the non halal would be dearer as it has more handling/storage costs to slaughter houses and butchers

[Hamster]

Reading through this thread there are some widely conflicting "facts" on how Halal and Kosher is carried out.

I think some people choose to denigrate Halal and/or Kosher meat preparation more as a reaction to the religions that practise it, than the actual practice itself.

 

I would avoid any "religiously" treated meat by choice but as I keep saying, there is a reason they don't show the exact implications of the practices on the telly .

[Penelope]

A good article by Alastair Mitchell in this week's Shooting Times about this very practice but a slightly different slant.

[del.gue]

Ive not read the full thread but i heard the author of the Ethical Carnivore on thr Pace brothers podcast. She stated that most lamb slaughtered in the UK is done as halal as it saves confusion when it comes to sales to certain groups. It is also 80% "humane" slaughter...i guess the other 20% is not.

[yod dropper]

Way, way more widespread than you'd think. It's all that some councils use, some large multi-brand restaurant chains are nearly all halal, lots in supermarkets.

Edited September 29, 2017 by yod dropper

[TriBsa]

There should just be one law on animal slaughter, with no exceptions.If certain minorities don't like our laws or customs they should leave.

[panoma1]

Welfare and cruelty are issues when slaughtering animals, halal, kosher, pre-stunned whatever........dead is dead and when on our plate, It's just meat!

I am more interested in provenance, origin and traceability of our food..........how the animal has been slaughtered is a matter for the authorities.

[ips]

Slightly going away from the main topic but I have often wondered how many people would eat meat if they had to kill it. I would bet it would be a huge percentage that would turn veggie.

 

I have also always struggled with folk who consider shooting to be cruel or at least none pc and yet have no problem with fish being dragged out of there habitat and left to suffocate (or whatever fish equivalent it is) to death....halal or fish dying slowly.....which is worse.

[Penelope]

Ah, but fish aren't cute and fluffy.

 

I also believe, for the same reason, despite being one since a child, that course angling is the 'cruelist' if that is the right word, of any of the field sports. But that is another debate, one well taken up in Colin Willock's 'Landscape with a Solitary Figure'.

 

Slightly going away from the main topic but I have often wondered how many people would eat meat if they had to kill it. I would bet it would be a huge percentage that would turn veggie.

I have also always struggled with folk who consider shooting to be cruel or at least none pc and yet have no problem with fish being dragged out of there habitat and left to suffocate (or whatever fish equivalent it is) to death....halal or fish dying slowly.....which is worse.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Penelope

[Hamster]

There should just be one law on animal slaughter, with no exceptions.If certain minorities don't like our laws or customs they should leave.

 

Errrr, not quite so simple though is it, the minorities own a big chunk of the msm for a start not to mention either own or participate in the government.

[TriBsa]

 

Errrr, not quite so simple though is it, the minorities own a big chunk of the msm for a start not to mention either own or participate in the government.

 

Simple or not it's time the tail stopped wagging the dog. If you keep making special cases of minorites under law you have anarchy.

 

There is either the concept of animal welfare and accepted slaughter practices or there is not.

[harkom]

Talking of dogs - can anybody explain why the veterinary profession are silent about it being acceptable practice to kill a conscious animal by exsanguination.... but it is unethical to dock a puppy dogs' tail within a few days of birth. I suppose this argument/discussion on ethics and welfare can be extended to castration and tail amputation/removal in lambs and piglets.

Any suggestions> ?

[12gauge82]

I believe that we should be doing everything possible to deliver the most humane death possible to any animal killed for the table, that is what I've always believed hunters to aspire to, which I have always followed, anything else should come second including and not limited to either, others religious beleifs.

[12gauge82]

Talking of dogs - can anybody explain why the veterinary profession are silent about it being acceptable practice to kill a conscious animal by exsanguination.... but it is unethical to dock a puppy dogs' tail within a few days of birth. I suppose this argument/discussion on ethics and welfare can be extended to castration and tail amputation/removal in lambs and piglets.

Any suggestions> ?

Quite right, I think the human race has got a long way to go with regard the ethical treatment of animals, including other humans to be honest.

[Benthejockey]

Looks like I started a good thread for a change. I wasn't personally objecting to Halal I think it was more the same bull **** that is social media that was ruining Dickinsons Real Deal for me. It seems it's quite a hot subject even amongst people who regularly shoot live animals. A couple of interesting points I've seen - would the public vote with their feet if the choice was £4 Halal chicken or £6.50 non Halal chicken? I think your £4 chicken will outsell your £6.50 chicken every day of the week. Maybe not in M&S or Waitrose but the average man doesn't shop there and value will always win out over ethically slaughtered meat. Stock badger steaks at 50p each and they'd still shift them.

And the other point was about the video with the cow having its throat slit. Anyone who shoots deer knows to shoot the deer, mark the shot site and wait 5 minutes. Why do we wait? Because a bad shot might not kill it instantly but 5 minutes is time to let it bleed out and die.

[panoma1]

It's not PC to speak out against the customs, practices and religious beliefs of non-christians in the UK, even if those customs, practices and beliefs involve cruelty to animals, as recognised in UK culture! More positive descrimination at work?

[scotslad]

I think with topics like this is there is a massive amount of false truths and mis information out there and because it suits some folks views/agenda's they like to rant about it for 5 mins before they forget about it.

 

There is far bigger problems (in my opinion) in farming/meat/milk production than the slaughter.

The vast majority of folk in this country don't really give a stuff about there food other than its cheap.

 

never mind actually killing an animal more and more folk can't eat meat that looks like an animal, fish with head on or pork on a hog roast

[harkom]

You think it's inhumane to cut an animals throat without it even knowing it's about to die, but it's perfectly fine to shoot a bird trying to escape out of the sky with a shotgun?

 

That's an interesting perspective...

 

 

Well, Joe,

how would you know that those about to die in a slaughterhouse are ignorant of their impending fate? Not uncommonly they can smell blood - as well as hear distressed animals - so perhaps your comment is superfluous. And why do the occasional escapee (usually bovine) run off, reportedly "berserk"?

 

And seeing you have mentioned perspective.... I did not specifically mention grouse.... but could have been referring to cervine creatures = ( quadraped with cloven hooves)....but to get back to the point you made about blasting birds out of the sky, I would humbly suggest that at least there is a realistic of recovering the dead/wounded on the moor.

 

I do however find it reprehensible of those who shoot wildfowl on an estuary without a retrieving dog to recover the dead and wounded.

 

And finally a word of caution...... Chesapeakes are not really for the novice handler/trainer. So get yourself off to the local petstore or SA vet practice and get some leaflets about dog husbandry, etc.

 

ATB

 

by the way I have yet to see a bird in the sky with a gun.....

[CharlieT]

A few facts from the Humane Slaughter Association to ponder......................

 

Many animals killed to provide meat for the Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK are slaughtered in a way that complies with certain religious beliefs. This is known as religious slaughter and legally may only be carried out in licensed slaughterhouses by authorisedslaughtermen of the Jewish or Islamic faiths. Under EU legislation (Regulation 1099/2009 EC) all animals must be stunned before being slaughtered. However, the legislation provides for this requirement to be waived in the case of religious slaughter. Special provisions are made for the slaughter of animals by religious methods. The legislation allows religious slaughter to be carried out in licensed slaughterhouses without prior stunning, (but only if unnecessary suffering is prevented)

 

The Jewish and Islamic religions emphasise the importance of the humane treatment of animals, and both faiths recognise that taking the life of an animal carries great responsibility. The religious method was developed many centuries ago, motivated by respect for animals and a desire to slaughter them as humanely as possible. However, although it has been argued by some supporters of the religious methods that these methods cause no pain because of the sharpness of the knife used, there is a considerable body of scientific evidence that this is not the case. The HSA believes that, with the development of new technology, these principles can now be best ensured by preslaughter stunning and, therefore, all food animals should be stunned prior to slaughter in order to preclude any risk of suffering.

 

The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), the Government’s independent advisory body on animal welfare, published its report on the welfare of animals slaughtered by religious methods in 1985, in which it was recommended that religious slaughter without prior stunning should be phased out. The HSA strongly supported this recommendation along with the recommendation that all carcasses and cuts of meat prepared from animals slaughtered by religious methods without stunning, and offered for sale to the general public, should be clearly labelled as to the method of slaughter employed. The Government at that time accepted neither of these recommendations.

 

In 2003 FAWC published a new report on the welfare of animals at slaughter or killing, (‘Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing. Part 1: Red Meat Animals’). However, the Government in its 2005 response to the FAWC report again rejected these recommendations on the grounds that it was committed to respect the rights of religious groups

 

HSA’s view Whilst respecting differing religious beliefs, the HSA’s position on the pre-slaughter stunning of animals has always been unequivocal, all animals should be effectively stunned prior to being bled. Recent advances in the electrical stunning of cattle now make reversible stunning a practical option for all. This overcomes one of the main obstacles preventing a full uptake of pre-slaughter stunning. As long as meat from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning is available in the UK (whether slaughtered in the UK or imported), we believe it should be clearly and accurately labelled as such.

[Penelope]

Charlie, is that from Alistair Mitchell's article in the Shooting Times? If not, he makes reference to reports mentioned.

 

A few facts from the Humane Slaughter Association to ponder......................

 

Many animals killed to provide meat for the Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK are slaughtered in a way that complies with certain religious beliefs. This is known as religious slaughter and legally may only be carried out in licensed slaughterhouses by authorisedslaughtermen of the Jewish or Islamic faiths. Under EU legislation (Regulation 1099/2009 EC) all animals must be stunned before being slaughtered. However, the legislation provides for this requirement to be waived in the case of religious slaughter. Special provisions are made for the slaughter of animals by religious methods. The legislation allows religious slaughter to be carried out in licensed slaughterhouses without prior stunning, (but only if unnecessary suffering is prevented)

 

The Jewish and Islamic religions emphasise the importance of the humane treatment of animals, and both faiths recognise that taking the life of an animal carries great responsibility. The religious method was developed many centuries ago, motivated by respect for animals and a desire to slaughter them as humanely as possible. However, although it has been argued by some supporters of the religious methods that these methods cause no pain because of the sharpness of the knife used, there is a considerable body of scientific evidence that this is not the case. The HSA believes that, with the development of new technology, these principles can now be best ensured by preslaughter stunning and, therefore, all food animals should be stunned prior to slaughter in order to preclude any risk of suffering.

 

The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), the Government’s independent advisory body on animal welfare, published its report on the welfare of animals slaughtered by religious methods in 1985, in which it was recommended that religious slaughter without prior stunning should be phased out. The HSA strongly supported this recommendation along with the recommendation that all carcasses and cuts of meat prepared from animals slaughtered by religious methods without stunning, and offered for sale to the general public, should be clearly labelled as to the method of slaughter employed. The Government at that time accepted neither of these recommendations.

 

In 2003 FAWC published a new report on the welfare of animals at slaughter or killing, (‘Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing. Part 1: Red Meat Animals’). However, the Government in its 2005 response to the FAWC report again rejected these recommendations on the grounds that it was committed to respect the rights of religious groups

 

HSA’s view Whilst respecting differing religious beliefs, the HSA’s position on the pre-slaughter stunning of animals has always been unequivocal, all animals should be effectively stunned prior to being bled. Recent advances in the electrical stunning of cattle now make reversible stunning a practical option for all. This overcomes one of the main obstacles preventing a full uptake of pre-slaughter stunning. As long as meat from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning is available in the UK (whether slaughtered in the UK or imported), we believe it should be clearly and accurately labelled as such.

[12gauge82]

A few facts from the Humane Slaughter Association to ponder......................

 

Many animals killed to provide meat for the Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK are slaughtered in a way that complies with certain religious beliefs. This is known as religious slaughter and legally may only be carried out in licensed slaughterhouses by authorisedslaughtermen of the Jewish or Islamic faiths. Under EU legislation (Regulation 1099/2009 EC) all animals must be stunned before being slaughtered. However, the legislation provides for this requirement to be waived in the case of religious slaughter. Special provisions are made for the slaughter of animals by religious methods. The legislation allows religious slaughter to be carried out in licensed slaughterhouses without prior stunning, (but only if unnecessary suffering is prevented)

 

The Jewish and Islamic religions emphasise the importance of the humane treatment of animals, and both faiths recognise that taking the life of an animal carries great responsibility. The religious method was developed many centuries ago, motivated by respect for animals and a desire to slaughter them as humanely as possible. However, although it has been argued by some supporters of the religious methods that these methods cause no pain because of the sharpness of the knife used, there is a considerable body of scientific evidence that this is not the case. The HSA believes that, with the development of new technology, these principles can now be best ensured by preslaughter stunning and, therefore, all food animals should be stunned prior to slaughter in order to preclude any risk of suffering.

 

The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), the Governments independent advisory body on animal welfare, published its report on the welfare of animals slaughtered by religious methods in 1985, in which it was recommended that religious slaughter without prior stunning should be phased out. The HSA strongly supported this recommendation along with the recommendation that all carcasses and cuts of meat prepared from animals slaughtered by religious methods without stunning, and offered for sale to the general public, should be clearly labelled as to the method of slaughter employed. The Government at that time accepted neither of these recommendations.

 

In 2003 FAWC published a new report on the welfare of animals at slaughter or killing, (Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing. Part 1: Red Meat Animals). However, the Government in its 2005 response to the FAWC report again rejected these recommendations on the grounds that it was committed to respect the rights of religious groups

 

HSAs view Whilst respecting differing religious beliefs, the HSAs position on the pre-slaughter stunning of animals has always been unequivocal, all animals should be effectively stunned prior to being bled. Recent advances in the electrical stunning of cattle now make reversible stunning a practical option for all. This overcomes one of the main obstacles preventing a full uptake of pre-slaughter stunning. As long as meat from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning is available in the UK (whether slaughtered in the UK or imported), we believe it should be clearly and accurately labelled as such.

Good post backed up by facts