Stunned by the slaughter

[Gob]

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?

The sound of pistons and mechanics fills the air as the last calf of the day steps into a holding box.

A device the size of a hand-held drill is brought to the animal's head, a trigger pulled and a four-inch bolt shot into its brain, causing it instantly to collapse. The unconscious calf is hoisted upside down and slaughtered seconds later with a massive cut to its throat, showering the floor with a torrent of crimson blood.

"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."

Religious slaughter
Jewish method called shechita
Muslim method called dhabiha
Stunning prohibited in Jewish law, which says animals must be healthy and uninjured at the time of slaughter
Islamic law also says animals must be uninjured, but authorities sometimes allow a form of stunning - in the UK, dhabiha usually involves stunning

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.

But if these parts of the animal are not sold, the operation becomes less economically viable.

Later this month, a bill that would effectively ban the slaughter of unstunned animals goes to the upper house of the Dutch parliament.

Sponsored by the Party for the Animals, it has already been approved in the lower house, where it was backed by the anti-Islamic Freedom Party and opposed only by the Christian parties, which took a stand in defence of religious freedom. Most observers expect it to become law.

Jewish and Muslim leaders see a worrying global trend, with the Netherlands a critical test case.

They are fighting a battle on two fronts - to dispel the idea there is anything inhumane about their traditional methods of slaughter, and to defend their right to live according to their religious beliefs.

Both faiths put great emphasis on animal welfare, and adhere to a one-cut method of slaughter, intended to ensure the animal's rapid death.



Under Jewish and Islamic law, animals for slaughter must be healthy and uninjured at the time of death, which rules out driving a bolt into the brain - though some Muslim authorities accept forms of stunning that can be guaranteed not to kill the animal.

"What I think is that stunning is friendly for the human being and our way of slaughtering is friendly for the animals," says Motti Rosenzweig, Holland's only Jewish slaughterer (shochet).

Under shechita, the animal's neck is cut with a surgically sharp knife, severing its major arteries, causing a massive drop in blood pressure followed by death from loss of blood. Supporters say unconsciousness comes instantaneously - the cut itself stunning the animal. A similar procedure is used in Islamic slaughter, or dhabiha.

"In one second - maybe two if it's a bull - the animal is gone," says Mr Rosenzweig, who trained for years in Israel and now slaughters once a week, under the observation of a state veterinary official, at the Amsterdam Abattoir.

"In my opinion [conventional] stunning is torture. Just because it can't say 'moo' or move anymore, it's very nice for the human eye, but the animal is alive and the scientists don't actually know if it's suffering or not. If I have to make my choice, my choice is clear."

A Dutch Muslim umbrella group, the Contact Body for Muslims and the Government (CMO), accused the Party for the Animals of leading an "emotional" campaign based on misleading information which "wrongly created the impression that Muslim and Jewish methods of slaughter are barbaric and outdated".

Moves on stunning in 2011
Dutch lower house passes bill against non-stunning - upper house to vote on issue
European Parliament starts considering mandatory labelling of meat from unstunned animals
US court rejects suit claiming religious slaughter unconstitutional
New Zealand ban on religious slaughter without stunning suspended pending legal challenge
Australian agriculture ministers considering removing exemption allowing slaughter without stunning in Victoria

"They use the words 'ritual slaughter' but there's nothing ritual about it," says Dutch Chief Rabbi Benjamin Jacobs.

"It's not dancing around a cow, it's a method, but by using the word 'ritual' a lot of people are getting very upset."

Positions on religious slaughter vary around the world - in the US, for instance, it is specifically defined as a humane method in the Humane Slaughter Act (1958) - but elsewhere several countries have already restricted or banned slaughtering unstunned animals.

Stunning has been obligatory in the European Union since 1979 in order to spare animals "avoidable pain or suffering", though most member states make exceptions for religious communities.

A study of the issue commissioned by the Dutch government in 2008 concluded that "ritual slaughter has a number of negative aspects for the animals when compared to conventional procedures where a stun is performed prior to slaughter".

Its findings were mirrored in a 2010 report by a consortium of scientists for an EU-funded project, which concluded that "it can be stated with the utmost probability that animals feel pain during the throat cut without prior stunning".

It said research showed most cattle seemed to lose consciousness between five and 90 seconds after the cut, and were sometimes subjected to "potentially painful manipulations", including follow-up cuts, while still conscious.

Both reports, though, have been dismissed as flawed by Jewish and Muslim groups, who argue that the research was done by scientists opposed to religious slaughter to begin with.

"It is still unproven that slaughtering with stunning is a better method," says CMO chairman Yusuf Altuntas.

Stunning of livestock
Introduced in England in 1929 with mechanically operated humane stunner device
Mandatory in EU since 1979, but member states can grant exemptions for religious slaughter
Method enables abattoirs to process animals more quickly
Mis-stuns involving captive bolt occur "relatively frequently", according to 2004 European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) report - which leaves the animal conscious and in pain
Animals can also regain consciousness

In the case of shechita, Jewish authorities say no investigations of the issue in Europe have actually involved the first-hand study of animal slaughter by a trained shochet using a chalef (shochet's knife), which differs from an ordinary abattoir knife in shape, length and sharpness.

"One has to assume that these people have a political agenda and it comes through time and time again in Europe," says Dr Joe Regenstein, an animal slaughter expert at Cornell University in the USA, who is preparing a report for the Dutch Jewish community to challenge the slaughter bill.

"They are going in there with what I'd call a scientific enlightened secular religion that says stunning must be better than unstunned slaughter."

In contrast, Dr Bert Lambooij of Wageningen University, a co-author of the Dutch report and consultant in the EU-backed project, says the evidence against religious slaughter is clear.

"There are some scientists who are unconvinced, but they haven't done the research," he says.

One scientist who has observed closely the work of trained shochets is Dr Temple Grandin of Colorado University, a renowned expert on the humane treatment and slaughter of livestock.

Her verdict is that conventional slaughter with preliminary stunning, and religious slaughter without stunning, are both acceptable when conducted properly.

"There's good and bad stunning but the research shows very clearly that when you stun an animal properly with a well-maintained captive bolt, unconsciousness is instantaneous - it's like turning off a light switch," she told the BBC.

"Similarly when I've seen shechita on a cow done really right by a really good shochet, the animal seemed to act like it didn't even feel it - if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me."

Animal rights groups see the Dutch bill as a stepping stone towards further bans on religious slaughter.

"The Netherlands is a very important example, but for us it's just a battle, not the war," says Dr Michel Courat of Eurogroup for Animals, a federation of animal protection groups.

"We need to win lots of other battles after this one to make sure more countries stop this practice."

This is the big fear among Europe's Jewish and Muslim communities.

"The vast majority of Halal meat in the UK is pre-stunned. In the Jewish community, in a small number of cases, animals are stunned immediately after the cut, which reduces the animal's suffering. We think stunning should take place before the cut, but it is better afterwards than not at all." Julia Wrathall, RSPCA

"We're afraid that other countries in Western Europe will follow the Dutch example," says Mr Altuntas.

"We heard from our Muslim council partners in Germany, Belgium and France that parties there are watching it closely and are preparing to take a position."

If the Dutch bill becomes law, Jewish and Muslim leaders say they will fight it in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that it is a violation of the right to freedom of religion.

"If the Party for the Animals proposed a law which said there shouldn't be any slaughtering of animals any more and everyone should be vegetarian, I could understand it better," says Rabbi Jacobs.

"But it's a vote against religion. The new religion is anti-religion and people get fanatical about this. What worries me is what might come next."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14779271

[thestoat]

I think killing animals in that way is utterly sick and depraved. I would not want anything to do with a god that expected that sort of atrocity from me.

[Sean]

I agree 100% Stoat.
Anti-religion my arse! It's anti-cruelty. It just so happens that this cruelty is perpetrated in the name of God.

Right! I'm starting a new religion and calling it the Church of Twat-a-twat. Our central tenet is that we twat anybody who supports this crap around the head with a heavy, blunt instrument. They can't stop us either but must offer their heads otherwise they are violating our right to freedom of religion.

So who wants in? Cricket bats, baseball bats, lead pipes, hammers, wrenches and crowbars are all recognised as blunt instrments by the Church.

[BoSoxGal]

I'm game. But being an American, I'd like to include pistols - to pistol whip with!

[thestoat]

I agree 100% Stoat.
Right! I'm starting a new religion and calling it the Church of Twat-a-twat. Our central tenet is that we twat anybody who supports this crap around the head with a heavy, blunt instrument. They can't stop us either but must offer their heads otherwise they are violating our right to freedom of religion.

So who wants in? Cricket bats, baseball bats, lead pipes, hammers, wrenches and crowbars are all recognised as blunt instrments by the Church.

I'll happily be your disciple. Not a priest though - interfering with children doesn't interest me

[Sean]

Consider yourself ordained Sister BSG.
You now have the divine power to bless any blunt instrument for use as a sacred object of twatification.
Yea and faith shall guideth thy hand verily unto their bonces.*

No priests in this chuch Brother Stoat. Follow the Holy Gourd and use it to smite thine enemies mightily!

*From the CoTAT Bible (a work in progress)

[Scooter]

Temple Grandin, as far as I am aware, is not any sort of religious fanatic, and she has a worldwide reputation for her study of the humane treatment of animals. And she says she has seen problems with both bolt stunning and ritual slaughter, but that when performed correctly, there is no apparent difference. It is inconceivable that a person of her impeccable reputation as an advocate for the humane treatment of animals would be operating from some position of bias that would cause her to condone slaughter methods she believed to cause pain and distress to animals.

[BoSoxGal]

Sure, sure.

But on to the real meat of the matter - what's your bludgeoning implement of choice, Brother Scoot?

[Sean]

From her quotes above I can see a slight difference Scoot...

"There's good and bad stunning but the research shows very clearly that when you stun an animal properly with a well-maintained captive bolt, unconsciousness is instantaneous - it's like turning off a light switch," she told the BBC.

"Similarly when I've seen shechita on a cow done really right by a really good shochet, the animal seemed to act like it didn't even feel it - if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me."

She doesn't sound quite so convinced about the second bolded part.

As for the last part of the quote:

if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me.

Now I'm no expert in this field as you know but my first thought is that shock might play a part there...
Not to mention, "I would have got a much bigger reaction"... Sounds more like speculation than actual knowledge.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on her credibility. I know little of her work and am only going on the quotes provided.

[Sean]

Sure, sure.

But on to the real meat of the matter - what's your bludgeoning implement of choice, Brother Scoot?

In the Church of TAT we prefer to call them 'Attitude Adjusters' Sister BSG.

[Guinevere]

I've seen the bolt used and it isn't pretty either.

Sean, I think you're reading far too much into Temple Grandin's statements, based on your own biases. Look her up -- she is an amazing person and she cares so much about how those animals are treated.

[Scooter]

But on to the real meat of the matter - what's your bludgeoning implement of choice, Brother Scoot?

If I gave it the consideration it deserves I would probably become a vegetarian, because I've seen slaughterhouse operations first hand and it ain't pretty.

[Scooter]

She doesn't sound quite so convinced about the second bolded part.

She was sure enough about it to have designed restraint devices to be used in ritual slaughter so as not to cause discomfort or anxiety in the animal. She has been very critical of some restraint methods used in ritual slaughter, like hanging the animal up by its hind legs, which she considers cruel. So it's not as if she has been reluctant to criticize inhumane practices in ritual slaughter when she has observed them.

[Guinevere]

But on to the real meat of the matter - what's your bludgeoning implement of choice, Brother Scoot?

If I gave it the consideration it deserves I would probably become a vegetarian, because I've seen slaughterhouse operations first hand and it ain't pretty.

About once a year I try to go pescatarian (and hey, killing fish isn't all that humae either, or what about crustaceans and other creatures that get steamed/boiled alive), but then invariably slide back to eating meat. I try to limit myself to no more than once per day (so no bacon for breakfast, chicken for lunch, and steak for dinner), and chose humanely raised animals from small local farms (my farmers market now sells beef, lamb, and pork products all locally raised -- but its done until April). Not always possible, but I do the best I can, and on an annual basis I'm sure I have reduced my total meat consumption by more than 50%.

Lets face it, we are omnivores and we were designed to eat meat. That doesn't mean we can't be thoughtful in how to chose what meat to eat.

[BoSoxGal]

Check into grass-fed beef and bison (amazingly good meat!) that can be purchased mail order, for the off-farmer's market season. True free range animals, not finished off at a feedlot, are very humanely raised.

[rubato]

Bolt guns are no more humane (and they are no more 100% reliable) than throat-cutting.

It's just religious bigotry recycled. Stop being such assholes. This has already been discussed here.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Kosher or 'throat-cutting' isn't new, and was considered quite humane in antiquity; as opposed to letting the animal choke on it's own blood after you put an arrow into it's lung, when you had to hunt for your own meat ...which was better than what most other predatory carnivores did, which was start feeding before the beast was even dead.

Eating meat sucks, which is why I don't do it.

[thestoat]

Kosher or 'throat-cutting' isn't new, and was considered quite humane in antiquity;

Emphasis on the "was". We've come a long way from those credulous peasants. At least, some of us have. (actually, I am not sure it was considered humane - because I don't think that used to be a consideration).

[Rick]

Dead is dead.

After that it's a matter of how squeamish one is.

These folks bleed out the meat on the front end, instead of letting it hang around to "age"...

[Sue U]

Kosher or 'throat-cutting' isn't new, and was considered quite humane in antiquity;

Emphasis on the "was". We've come a long way from those credulous peasants. At least, some of us have. (actually, I am not sure it was considered humane - because I don't think that used to be a consideration).

In fact, the enitire purpose of kosher slaughter (shechita) is to ensure the humane treatment of animals, stemming from Biblical injuction to reduce the suffering of living creatures to the greatest extent possible (resulting in, for example, requirements that your animals be fed and cared for before you yourself may eat, the requirement to aid the animal of your enemy if it is in distress, prohibitions on working or otherwise burdening any animal on the Sabbath, and a general prohibition on hunting, particularly for sport). Formal anti-cruelty statutes have been an express part of Jewish law for more than 2,000 years. As noted here and in previous threads on this topic, it is entirely unclear from what scientific evidence there is that slaughter by a single swift cut with a razor-sharp blade produces any greater suffering than shooting an animal in the head with a steel bar. And as I have pointed out previously, the conditions for producing meat that is clearly neither kosher nor halal (i.e., pork) are atrocious; yet the protest here is focused solely on Muslim and Jewish practice. Why is that?