Halal meat

I expect the lives of farm animals are far less stressful in the main than those of wild animals. Predators have be on the look out for food all the time (or a good deal of it anyway, and be prepared to go hungry for long periods when hunting is not good); The predated have to be on the look out for predators all the time and in a fit state to run away. Farm animals are mostly protected from all that.

Yes. Tranquilisers?

I suspect that normal slaughter rules are not based on any research into the stress felt by animals. Just "put yourself in their shoes" guessing. We can all guess. My guess is that the least stressful way to kill a sheep is to take it by surprise in its own environment and quickly (if necessarily ritually) cut its throat . I also suspect that it is not the killing that is the worst bit for the animal - but the transport to the slaughterhouse.

Ariadne, I wondered what the ducks were doing beneath the parapet - then I understood, - it is very early in the morning for me, and I am a bit late tuning into this. Story of my life, obviously.

Modern, secular laws, that is. I don't think ancient religious laws give a damn about suffering.

And the more we can reduce suffering the better, which is what having laws about slaughter is all about. I would point out (again) that human meat eaters are not carnivores though, but omnivores. Carnivores eat nothing but meat.

Re race.. there is the government list of official racial groups that you find on hospital forms/ school admission etc etc .. You can be white /black/Asian and various combinations thereof but those from the Middle East to the Gulf , those from Polynesia, Inuit, Aborigines, Maoris and other groups are lumped together as 'other, please specify'! So complex!

Re slaughter: not that long ago since animals in GB were slaughtered by farmers /butchers on farms. Think we can get a bit prissy about how animals are killed. As I said before stunning is not exactly stress free! If you eat meat animals suffer and carnivores have to accept that...

Anagram

nightowl I agree!

Too wise to be ignored

Although you are right, my post went up before yours. Ignore me, I'm confused (I'm old you know)

Yes Bags I noticed we crossed posts there. I'm a very slow typist!

Thanks for that, nightowl. I was composing while you were posting.

Sure, pogs . I understand that. My point was that people can't go getting upset because their religion says they have to eat halal meat but some of us are wondering (a) whether the way halal meat is killed is really justifiable/fair to the animals, and (b) whether this is really necessary nowadays as the understanding that presumably dictated it hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago is no longer of prime importance.

Nobody is being attacked. Reasons for behaving in certain ways are being questioned on perfectly rational grounds. That's all.

I accept your point of view. I just don't think it should prevent anyone from discussing the issues that halal meat raises.

I agree with you that labelling would be a good idea. I would also like to see agreed definitions of what various slaughter methodsactually entail so that we could really judge what was reasonable and acceptable in the twenty-first century.

Ariadne - I meant of course that we should be addressing the issue in question, not how it could be avoided!

I know I said I was trying to keep out of this one but here's my opinion, for what it's worth.

I am vegetarian but I accept (reluctantly) that most people in this country are not. I do not believe ritual slaughter should be allowed on any grounds for all the reasons the vet puts forward. I do not believe causing animals 'distress, fear and pain' can ever be justified and I don't care if this point of view offends people from any particular religion. However, given that ritual slaughter does take place in the UK, then I strongly believe that all halal (and kosher for that matter) meat should be labelled and it is a scandal that it is not.

Never thought anything else!

Bags. Ofcourse you should speak your mind, I hadn't actually attatched my comment toward anyone. I was simply trying to be sensitive to any gransnetter who may require halal meat and tried to bring the subject back to should meat be labelled and to inform gransnetters of what had happened in Parliament and the Vets comments as I am interested in the thoughts of gransnetters.

Precisely.

Vegetarianism isn't really the essential issue here, though, is it? Each to their own, for whatever reason, but if everyone in the world was vegetarian the issue about halal and non-halal meat would not have arisen - and it has.

Brave woman Ariadne! I am trying to keep out of this one! (coward)

Easier not to eat meat at all? Sorry, don't try to plug the vegetarian bit but to me, all this is missing the essential issue. (Ducks down beneath parapet.)

I think the concept of race goes back to 19th century anthropology that tried to establish clear categories of human : negro, causasian etc. This is long discredited as such clear categories are proved to not exist in any scientific sense.
Back to the meat. Halal and Kosher both stem from the book of leviticus don't they? Making sure that animals are not diseased when they are slaughtered. So in simple terms of several thousand years ago - if it looks half dead, groggy or semi conscious then it may not be fit for human consumption.
This has been perpetuated by religions as part of the general "thou shalt or shalt not" religious laws. Power, control, us and them etc.
There is little agreement amongst muslim groups about the exact requirements I understand. Which makes food labelling a bit tricky. What is halal to one is not proper halal to another.
I was reading an article in NZ about the effects of stress on the quality of meat. A group of farmers, aided by a scientist, were researching how to manage lambs in the weeks running up to slaughter, so as to produce a tender "low stress" humane product. So the science exists to determine what is and is not stressful to animals.

absent yes, if only we could stop defining people in terms of race and ethnicity, but as long as one person or group is harming another, the authorities will continue to collect statistics to show whether we are all being treated equally in the eyes of the law.

I googled 'What percentage of white Americans have Negro blood' and found some interesting sites. It was fairly common for white slave owners to impregnate their female slaves and the child would be raised as black and would probably have a black woman partner (the weren't not usually offered marriage by those good christian owners). The white blood would gradually be attenuated. Some white Americans, though, did get quite a shock when blood tests showed them to have negro blood. Just proves how stupid trying to stereotype people by their ethnicity is. One caveat, though - some diseases are more prevalent in certain races, such as sickle cell anemia, so it might be necessary to identify origin in order to provide correct treatment or prevention.
That is fine, as long as no race, nationality or blood-line is considered superior to another.

Agreed