Halal and Kosher meat

Apparently most of the supermarkets (including Waitrose (!) sell meat that has been slaughtered the halal way, without giving that information on the label (as POGS mentioned previously)

But similar to most other meat-eating animals, I suggest. I'm not arguing that that's a good or bad thing, just suggesting that it is a thing. I think it's a bit OTT to use the "less than human" argument.

What surprises me most about people who don't care is that they presumably don't care about taste or quality either. That I do find strange, but I know I have a very good sense of taste. Perhaps some people (apart from those with a damaged taste/smell system) have a less good sense of taste and texture.

I eat a small amount of meat, but only if it comes from our butcher. The lamb comes from his own herds, the beef from a reliable local source. I have long tried to ensure any meat we eat comes from sources with animal welfare at the heart of its work.
We have a brilliant Indian take away down the road, but I only eat their vegetarian option.
I read recently that all the schools in London now serve Halal meat. Is this true or an urban myth, does anyone know. I want to support religious freedoms, but not at the expense of animals we eat, or humans we live alongside

Can you actually tell whether meat has been slaughtered halal or not Bags? I can't!

Yes, jings, and most schools which serve meat use halal meat to avoid "offending" certain religious groups. This is wrong in my view. The religious meat lobby want special privileges rather than to have the same good rules, based on humane care of animals, applied to them. It's ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed. One law for all is the only fair way to proceed.

How animals die seem more important than how they live their short lives , wish vets would condemn factory farming, puppy farms, hunt kennels etc, but vets don't make money from slaughter of animals do they? How many here have stood outside slaughter houses as animals are driven up in trucks, the terror, the cries, and this happens in all slaughters houses in Briton not just England . Why suddenly have vets decided it is cruel that animals killed by halal and kosher methods are cruel? Kosher mets has been available for years, not a squeak ,

Sorry, that was in reply to your previous. No, i don,t think one can tell whether meat is halal if it isn't labelled. It's obvious why it isn't labelled: there'd be an outcry. Bring it on, I say.

They haven't suddenly decided, anniebach, and i'm sure most vets do object cruel farming practices.

Oh yes! The local butcher does tend to get forgotten! Ours takes charge of the lot - rearing, slaughtering etc. It's just so easy these days to add the joint to the online order.

You maybe just haven't heard the "squeaks" as you put it. I have.

thatbags, when have vets spoken out so strongly against factory farming as they now are against the slaughter of animals ?

Ah yes. I see Bags.

Annie we can choose not to buy puppies from puppy farms or go hunting with hounds. It is very hard to go completely vegetarian. Not everyone has the knowledge to be sure all the food groups are included. (I certainly haven't) We have to rely on laws to make slaughter methods as acceptable as possible. And slitting an animal's throat and letting it bleed to death isn't.

Surely all vets are in that profession because they love animals.

Just because it has been available "for years" doesn't mean we can't put a stop to it now. Or shouldn't mean that.

It does seem ironic that in order to protect one group's religious choices the rest of us are given no choice about whether to buy the resulting meat or not. And children in schools are given no choice about whether to eat it or not.

I don't think my comment about 'less than human' is OTT at all bags.

I agree absolutely about the irony, nightowl, and more than that: the unfairness of such a law. Quite apart from the humaneness issue, it is wrong to have different laws for different groups of people in the same country and for that reason alone we should be opposed to the current law on ritual slaughter.

With regard to my "less than human" comment, what I'm thinking is that millions (possibly billions) of people throughout the world do not have the luxury of being able to care where their food comes from. The same applies to other animals who eat what they can forage or hunt for. Even in Britain, people relying on foodbanks, for instance, and other people surviving on low incomes do not have the luxury of being able to care where their food comes from, how it is produced, or even what it comprises.
I'm not arguing that those of us who do have this luxury of choice should not use that choice humanely and wisely, nor that such an approach isn't to be desired for everyone; I'm only arguing that at the moment it is unreasonable to expect it of everybody. So I would not use the expression "less than human". Clearly, it isn't less than human because lots of human beings do not have the choices we assume here.

"slitting an animal's throat and letting it bleed to death" - this is not what happens.
The cut is done with a very sharp knife which severs the gullet and main nerves to the head so that death is instant. Bleeding is incidental.
We kill our chickens like that.
Also I think the photo in the article is unrealistic - nothing to do with kappara.

I think the idea of stunning first is to reduce pre-death stress and the animal not seeing a weapon of destruction coming towards its throat.

Remember the outcry about That Giraffe in Denmark? And yet, that was done in The Most Humane Way Possible with no stress to the animal. The animal knew nothing about it. Good mouse traps work like that too. The animals are as insouciant of death as possible before they snuff it.

That's what humaneness is about as well as instantaneous death.

bags I take your point. I would only apply my 'less than human' comment to those of us that have the luxury of choice, as does my friend and others I have met. Although I love her dearly, I am mystified by her apparent lack of compassion which in my view is an essentially human characteristic. Obviously it would be quite wrong to apply the same judgement to people who are less privileged and have less choice about where their food comes from.

Anyway, I've gone off topic now so I will shut up other than to say I resent the fact that other people's choices can be imposed on me and it's not what I expect in a so called free country.

I've tried to put forwards a good solution that would be acceptable to Halal rules, and also with animal welfare- with link. But of course a sensible solution that could solve the problem (animal welfare/cruelty) and allow people to live according to the rules of their faith- is .... of course, ignored.

Your idea hasn't been ignored, jura, it has been argued against. We have a good and humane law already. If someone's faith doesn't fit with that law, that's tough. We should not accommodate less good and less humane practices. One law for all means just that. One law regardless of ifs and buts.

Meanwhile halal food should be labelled as such so that the rest of us have a proper choice. Fair's fair.

That's not what the chief vet said on the Today programme triciaF. He spoke of the animal choking on its own blood.

Totalla agree about the labelling- we all should be able to know what we are buying and make the choice. Absolutely.

Your point about the law is not as clear as all that, really. The Law states that stunning must be done previous to the kill. Some forms of stunning are totally un-acceptable according to the Koran, but electrical stunning is not.

So why not compromise- not on the Law, but on the way to apply it- in order to find a solution that will be acceptable, and show willing and better understanding. What is wrong with compromising- if the compromise agrees with the law of the country. A refusal to compromise, WITHIN the law, is not helpful and will, not surprisingly, be seen as just being controversial in a way that coud be interpreted as racist and unfair.

I would never compromise, on, say, genital mutilation or enforced marriage - but in this case, a good and lawful compromise IS AVAILABLE, so why not push for that option, rather than a ban and insist on forms of stunning which are not acceptable according to the Islamic faith. If there was no solution which could satisfy all- it would be a different kettle of fish. But there is - a good solution- legal and also acceptable to the Koran.

I didn't know that Halal meat is sold in supermarkets without being labelled as such. If someone can point me to a pressure group about this I would appreciate it.

Also I am very much against all children being fed Halal meat in anything other than a faith school. If parents of children at a normal school don't like what is served in the school then it is their prerogative to provide suitable packed lunches rather than impose this meat on other people's children. I'm appalled.

Yes, I can understand that at the time these things were written it made a lot of sense but not now surely for any educated person?

Just found this petition online for Nonnie and all others who may wish to sign.

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52133