Britain goes halal, on the sly

[Gob]

A Mail on Sunday investigation – which will alarm anyone concerned about animal cruelty – has revealed that schools, hospitals, pubs and famous sporting venues such as Ascot and Twickenham are controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public.

All the beef, chicken and lamb sold to fans at Wembley has secretly been prepared in accordance with sharia law, while Cheltenham College, which boasts of its ‘strong Christian ethos’, is one of several top public schools which also serves halal chicken to pupils without informing them.

Even Britain’s biggest hotel and restaurant group Whitbread, which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains, among many others, has admitted that more than three-quarters of its poultry is halal.

Animal welfare campaigners have long called for a ban on the traditional Islamic way of preparing meat – which involves killing animals by drawing a knife across their throats, without stunning them first – saying it is cruel and causes unnecessary pain.

Sharia law expressly forbids knocking the animal out with a bolt gun, as is usual in British slaughter­houses. Instead, it must be sentient when its throat is cut, and the blood allowed to drip from the carcass while a religious phrase in praise of Allah is recited.

The extent of halal meat consumption, even in areas of Britain with a very small Muslim population, was revealed as the Pope, on his first visit to Britain, expressed fears that the country was not doing enough to preserve traditional Christian values and customs.

In a strongly worded speech to Parliament, he said: ‘There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none.’

But it is animal rights groups which have been most vociferous in their opposition to halal slaughter. Campaign organisation Viva!, whose supporters include Heather Mills and Joanna Lumley, said in a statement: ‘Other practices which may be undertaken for religious reasons, such as polygamy or the stoning of adulterers, are not permitted in the UK.

‘Religious freedom does not override other moral considerations and the suffering caused by this form of slaughter is so severe that it cannot be allowed to prevent action to be taken. Consumers can do their bit by boycotting places that persist in selling meat from unstunned animals.’

An RSPCA spokesman added: ‘The public have a right to know how their meat is produced. Many people are extremely concerned about animal welfare. What The Mail on Sunday has discovered shows that people are not being kept informed. The key to a more humane death for these animals is that they are stunned before slaughter.’

A spokesman for Twickenham, which sells only halal chicken despite not advertising the fact, insisted that the lack of transparency ‘had never been an issue’ and said: ‘Our consideration is more for those who want halal, to ensure they get it.’

Other institutions secretly serving up meat that is halal – or ‘permissible’ – include Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and one of London’s ­biggest NHS Trusts, Guy’s and St ­Thomas’. A spokesman for the London hospitals admitted: ‘The only way ­people using the canteen would know they were ­eating halal chicken would be if they asked a member of staff directly.’

Whitbread, which also owns Table Table restaurants, Costa Coffee shops and Premier Inn hotels, admitted last night that 80 per cent of the chicken it served comes from halal poultry ­suppliers, including some in Muslim-dominated Turkey.

A Whitbread spokesman said: ‘We don’t specify halal as a requirement in our procurement. We base our ­decision on quality and price.

‘It just turns out that we source that amount of chicken from suppliers that happen to be halal.

‘It is not mentioned on any of our menus because we don’t think there is customer demand for that information. But if people started asking, then we would definitely provide it.’

Rival operator Mitchells & Butlers, which owns the Harvester, Browns and Toby Carvery restaurant chains as well as pub chains All Bar One and O’Neill’s, was even more opaque about the source of its meats.

A spokesman said it had a ‘broad range of suppliers’ but declined to say how many were halal-certified.

Ascot racecourse said it was easier to store and cook only one type of meat. ‘All our chicken is halal. This is not advertised as the menus are kept as simple as possible,’ said a spokesman.

A Football Association spokesman confirmed: ‘All the beef, chicken and lamb sold at Wembley Stadium is halal which means a large proportion of the meat on offer to our customers falls into this category.’ Pork, which is ­forbidden to Muslims, is also served at the stadium.

Cheltenham College boarding school in Gloucestershire admitted: ‘We have not sent a letter, nor is there any note on menus that informs parents and pupils that the chicken served in the canteen is mostly halal.’

Marlborough College, in Wiltshire, admitted that while halal chicken is usually served only to Muslims, it had ‘occasionally’ served it to all pupils. The school refused to say whether parents and pupils had been informed.

Britain’s Muslim community is exempt from regulations that require animals to be stunned before death, as is kosher meat prepared for the Jewish market.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0zvFfSkbM

[Lord Jim]

‘Other practices which may be undertaken for religious reasons, such as polygamy or the stoning of adulterers, are not permitted in the UK.

yet....

[loCAtek]

Oh Sh!t!

[Sue U]

Britons are being secretly fed halal meats! Someone said bismillah on their food! They're being turned into unwitting mooslins!

What a bunch of bigoted horseshit.

First, the article conflates the slaughter of poultry with that of beef and lamb. By any standard, halal (and kosher) chicken slaughter is infinitely more humane than the "standard" method.

Second, with respect to beef and lamb, it is far from clear that shooting an animal in the head with a steel bolt before hacking away at its neck is any less cruel or painful than a swift single sroke of an extremely sharp ritual blade that is intended to result in instant loss of blood pressure and flow to the brain that promptly induces unconsciousness.

Third, as far as meat production goes, why is this story so outrageous while there is no mention of actual practices in other cattle and hog slaughterhouses which are obviously not halal or kosher:

For her book Slaughterhouse, Gail Eisnitz, chief investigator for the Humane Farming Association (HFA), interviewed slaughterhouse workers in the U.S. who say that, because of the speed with which they are required to work, animals are routinely skinned while apparently alive, and still blinking, kicking, and shrieking. Eisnitz argues that this is not only cruel to the animals, but also dangerous for the human workers, as cows weighing several thousands of pounds thrashing around in pain are likely to kick out and debilitate anyone working near them.[12]

According to the HFA, Eiznitz interviewed slaughterhouse workers representing over two million hours of experience, who, without exception, told her that they have beaten, strangled, boiled, and dismembered animals alive, or have failed to report those who do. The workers described the effects the violence has had on their personal lives, with several admitting to being physically abusive or taking to alcohol and other drugs.[13]

The HFA alleges that workers are required to kill up to 1,100 hogs an hour, and end up taking their frustration out on the animals.[13] Eisnitz interviewed one worker, who had worked in ten slaughterhouses, about pig production. He told her:

“ Hogs get stressed out pretty easy. If you prod them too much, they have heart attacks. If you get a hog in the chute that's had the shit prodded out of him and has a heart attack or refuses to move, you take a meat hook and hook it into his bunghole. You try to do this by clipping the hipbone. Then you drag him backwards. You're dragging these hogs alive, and a lot of times the meat hook rips out of the bunghole. I've seen hams — thighs — completely ripped open. I've also seen intestines come out. If the hog collapses near the front of the chute, you shove the meat hook into his cheek and drag him forward."[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterh ... e_concerns

Anyone who is genuinely interested in humane treatment of animals wouldn't be eating industrially raised and slaughtered meat at all. While I am quite sympathetic to the militant vegetarians' point of view, I find it very disturbing to exploit anti-Muslim paranoia to advance the no-meat agenda.

[Big RR]

I agree Sue, especially since I would bet that the insitutions may well have had kosher meats previously, and the kosher slaughter and butchering practices are quite similar to the halal ones. Indeed, some of my moslem friends said they were taught that they could substitute kosher for halal in a pinch (when halal meats were not avaialable).

[Sue U]

That's one of the tell-tale signs of the story playing to anti-Muslim bigotry: there's no mention of the almost identical practices of kosher slaughter. And most mainstream Sunnis consider kosher meat perfectly acceptable where specifically halal meat is not available, and regard all other kosher products (except those containing alcohol) to be generally halal.

[Gob]

Is it not a question of choice here? Should the public not be informed? BTW Sue, linking to a report or wiki article on slaughterhouse practice in the USA when the article is on the UK just goes to show you are playing to anti-Brit bigotry.

[Sue U]

Is it not a question of choice here? Should the public not be informed?

Informed of what? That they're eating MuslimMeatTM? Is there some health risk involved? Will they someday wake up as radical Islamists for having consumed halal McNuggets? Did anyone give a shit before these twits mentioned Sharia?

BTW Sue, linking to a report or wiki article on slaughterhouse practice in the USA when the article is on the UK just goes to show you are playing to anti-Brit bigotry.

Yes, clearly, I'm racist against the British (whatever "race" that is). Seriously, I can't imagine that slaughterhouse practices in the UK are significantly different than they are in the U.S. or Aus. I know we get plenty of Aussie beef and lamb here (but none of that mad-cow stuff from Old Blighty, thank Dog). I'll bet the UK imports tons (tonnes?) of good ol' Merkin dead cow flesh too. Where's the outrage?

[Big RR]

Gob--do these venues normally disclose how the meat they sell is slaughteed or butchered? If so, i would agree with you they should continue to do so, if not, why start now?

In the US, many places do serve kosher beef and lamb without stating so; I wouldn't think halal meat would be any different so i wouldn't expect it to be advertised.

Sue--

Yes, clearly, I'm racist against the British

Haven't you been reading DBA; they're descended from Joseph (of the coat of many colors).

[Sean]

Is it not a question of choice here? Should the public not be informed?

Informed of what? That they're eating MuslimMeatTM? Is there some health risk involved? Will they someday wake up as radical Islamists for having consumed halal McNuggets? Did anyone give a shit before these twits mentioned Sharia?

As an example Sue, I have a friend in the UK who is a devout Christian. She has always shied away from Halal meat as she feels uncomfortable eating meat that has been slaughtered for a God which is not hers (as she puts it). She was in fact taught by her church that eating Halal meat is wrong for a Christian. To her it's almost a form of idolatry. Much as I disagree, I respect her right to choose. That's what this is all about. The right to choose.

[Gob]

Well as I am a vegetarian, I would be very concerned to hear that my daughter, who is not vegetarian, had been eating Halal meat as I do not consuider the practice humane. Again, it is about informed choice.

The RSPCA is concerned there are greater risks of animal suffering during this type of religious slaughter than for conventional slaughter. Fortunately, the number of animals involved is a tiny percentage of all animals killed. The method is distressing to the animal due to:

increased restraint
injury caused by the slaughter methods
subsequent bleeding out.

The use of stunning during the slaughter process can remove some, but not all, of these concerns.

The RSPCA definition of humane killing is: ‘an animal must be either killed instantly or rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes’. When killing animals for food, this means they must be stunned before slaughter so they immediately become unconscious.

The RSPCA policy on ritual slaughter is clear: sticking prior to stunning is inhumane and completely unnecessary. It is opposed to inhumane methods of killing, religious customs aside, and continues to promote this view to governments and the public.

Edited to add; Surely the best way to remove any chance of "Anti-Muslim" sentiment would be for people to know/be informed of what they are eating, Halal kosher or otherwise?

[Scooter]

Perhaps the best chance would lie in rags like the Daily Mail not using pseudoconcern for animal welfare as a pretext for fuelling anti-Muslim bigotry, particularly when the actual science that exists on the subject does not support the notion that ritual slaughter is any less humane than standard slaughtering practices, and in fact might be even more humane:

Experiments for measuring the heart frequency and brain activity during slaughter conditions were carried out on 23 sheep and 15 calves. After implanting permanent electrodes into the Os frontale the cerebral cortex impulses were measured for 17 sheep and 10 calves during ritual slaughter and for 6 sheep and 5 calves during captive bolt application with subsequent bloodletting. Some sheep were additionally subjected to thermal pain stimuli after the ritual cut.

The investigations had the following results:

a) For slaughter by ritual cut:

1. After the bloodletting cut the EEG initially is the same as the EEG before the cut. There is a high probability that the loss of reaction took place within 4 – 6 seconds for sheep and within 10 seconds for calves.

2. The zero line in the EEG was recorded no later than after 13 seconds for 17 sheep and no later than 23 seconds for 7 calves.

3. Thermal pain stimuli did not cause an increase in activity.

4. After the cut the heart frequency rose for calves within 40 seconds to 240 heart actions per minute and for sheep within 40 seconds to 280 heart actions per minute.

b) For slaughter after captive bolt application:

1. After captive bolt stunning all animals displayed most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.

2. The zero line in the EEG was reached for 4 calves after 28 seconds.

3. For two sheep the cerebral cortex activity only stopped in one half of the brain, whilst it continued in the other in the –region (up to 3.5 Hz) until the bloodletting cut.

4. The bloodletting cut resulted for all animals in a brain activity (e and d waves).

5. Thermal pain stimuli caused an increase in activity in one sheep.

6. The heart frequency rose directly after stunning to values above 300 actions per minute.

In summary the following conclusions are possible:

1. Slaughter after captive bolt stunning

A. Calves

After captive bolt stunning most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) occurred in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.

B. Sheep

Similar disturbances were also seen in sheep, but besides the somewhat higher frequency there are still clearly superimposed waves. For one animal waves could be recorded after pain stimuli until after the 200th second. Apparent cramps were registered for all sheep with the exception of one animal.

2. Slaughter in the form of ritual cut

A. Calves

After the bloodletting cut loss of reaction (loss of consciousness) occurred with high probability within 10 seconds. A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal. For 7 animals a zero EEG was recorded no later than after 23 seconds. Cramps occurred in the animals regularly only after the brain currents had stopped.

B. Sheep

After the bloodletting cut loss of reaction (loss of consciousness) occurred after 10 seconds the latest. A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal. The zero line was recorded no later than 14 seconds after the cut. Cramps only occurred after the zero line had been detected and were much shorter than after captive bolt stunning.

The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions.

During the experiments with captive bolt stunning no indications could be found for proscribing this method for calves.

For sheep, however, there were in parts severe reactions both to the bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli. A proof of the reliable effectiveness of captive bolt stunning could not be provided using the methods applied.

These first experiments carried out under clinical conditions and the insights for the correlations of sensory physiology during stunning/slaughter of small ruminants initially lead to the following factual and legal considerations for the preparation of legislation:

These experiments on sheep and calves carried out within a clinic show that during a ritual slaughter, carried out according to the state of the art using hydraulically operated tilting equipment and a ritual cut, pain and suffering to the extent as has since long been generally associated in public with this kind of slaughter cannot be registered; the ritual slaughter carried out under these experimental conditions complies with the requirements of article 4 para. 1 TierSchG. The EEG zero line – as a certain sign of the expiration of cerebral cortex activity and according to today’s state of knowledge also of consciousness – occurred generally within considerably less time than during the slaughter method after captive bolt stunning.

It should also be noted that when humans have used captive bolt devices to attempt suicide, one-third of them survived. Not exactly a foolproof method of ensuring a quick and painless death.

So much for pain during slaughter. Ritual slaughter is also criticized for criticized for using restraining methods, such as hanging animals upside down, which overly stress the animal. First, hanging animals upside down is not a requirement of ritual slaughter; it was something imposed by governments something like 100 years ago on ALL slaughterhouses as a health measure to prevent the blood from animals being slaughtered from falling on animals still waiting their turn. Before the use of captive bolt stunning, animals in non-ritual slaughterhouses were also hung upside down while still conscious (and, of course, they still are today after being stunned, whether still conscious or not). And most ritual slaughterhouses have found alternate restraining mechanisms that avoid hanging animals upside down, a requirement they have always hated because conscious animals will thrash around in that position, potentially injuring workers as well as bruising the meat, which would render it unacceptable.

As far as the RSPCA statement: I don't know from what era it originates. In today's world, there are humane and inhumane restraint methods used in both ritual and non-ritual slaughterhouses; there is nothing inherent in ritual slaughter that requires inhumane restraint. And the claim about bleeding animal without stunning first being inhumane simply ignores the science on the subject.

[Gob]

Halal and kosher meat should be labelled when it is put on sale so the public can decide whether they want to buy food from animals that have bled to death, the Food and Farming minister says.


Lord Rooker said all meat from animals killed by slitting their throats should be marked, allowing customers to decide whether the suffering troubled their consciences. "I object to the method of slaughter," he said.

"My choice as a customer is that I would want to buy meat that has been looked after and slaughtered in the most humane way possible."

His office later said that Britain would play a "full part" on religious slaughter practices in negotiations to introduce a European-wide labelling system by 2010.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 05396.html

A number of factors must be given serious consideration before this type of slaughter is acceptable: -

1. Animals that are slaughtered according to Kosher or Halal requirements should be securely restrained, particularly the head and neck, before cutting the throat. Movement results in a poor cut, bad bleeding, slow loss of consciousness (if at all) and pain. This has serious implications for animal welfare. The knife that is used to cut the throat and the carotid and jugular blood vessels must be razor sharp and without blemishes and damage. This is to ensure a swift, smooth cut across the throat behind the jaw and to ensure immediate and maximum gush of blood. Poor bleeding causes slow loss of consciousness and reduces meat quality.

2. Animals should not be shackled and hoisted before bleeding. This causes them severe discomfort and stress. Hoisting should be done only after the animal has lost consciousness Restraining equipment should be comfortable for the animal.

3. Operator competence is of great importance in order to carry out satisfactory religious slaughter, and the authorities should license all slaughter personnel. A poor technique will result in great suffering and cruelty to the animal. Religious slaughter should be carried out paying attention to detail and ensuring the method, equipment and operators are correct. The slaughter process is slow.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6909E/x6 ... %20Kosher)

I take it you're not opposed to people having the choice/knowledge of whether they are eating halal meat or not Scoot?

[Scooter]

I'm not surprised that you didn't want to actually address anything that I posted about it. God forbid some facts should get in the way of a good anti-Muslim rant, eh?

And to answer your question, as someone who used to visit slaughterhouses regularly as part of audits of government departments that regulated their operation, I am all for people knowing more about ALL the practices used to slaughter the meat they put on their table so. When and if such unbiased information (including comparative success at inducing rapid loss of consciousness) is, say, posted conspicuously by the meat counter, then of course the meat for sale should be labelled appropriately according to the method used. For example, given the disturbing findings on the use of bolt guns in sheep, a package of lamb chops might be labelled: "Warning, this animal may have experienced prolonged severe pain during slaughter."

[loCAtek]

Gob, you sound like such a city-clicker. Anyone who's hunted or raised livestock for food (the old-fashioned way) has used this method since antiquity. Deer hunters don't always kill their game cleanly with the weapon; they often have to slit the throat of the wounded animal. Farm animals are routinely killed this way because you have to 'bleed' the carcass anyway before you dress the meat. ...all a nasty business which is why I'm a vegetarian too,.

[Long Run]

My understanding comports with Sue's that the halal and kosher practices are more humane than typical industry practices. Thus, serving kosher hot dogs in a New York venue would make sense because there is such a large Jewish population who wouldn't buy the product if it were not kosher, and the rest of the patrons really don't care they are getting a superior product. Gob may be right that disclosing that the meat satisfies a higher authority* is the best way to go. But I don't see they problem that if an establishment only wants to serve one type of meat, having a type that appeals to the greatest number of patrons makes sense.

*Hebrew National slogan for our overseas friends.

[Gob]

And yet none will address the issue of informed choice? Strange.

Ps. Have a guess what my perspective would be if this were a "catholic" method of meat prearation which was being sneaked into the food system...

Oops, would that mean that I was still "anti-Muslim"?

Or would I be, as I have always been, being anti-religion?

[Sean]

I'm not sure that the patrons of Twickenham, Ascot, Wembley or Cheltenham Ladies College are predominantly Muslim though Long Run...

Putting aside the humane/inhumane argument for a moment, what about the religious one. As I posted above it goes against the belief of some non-Muslim people to eat Halal meat. Should they not be informed as to what they are eating?

[Scooter]

Do those same people know for a certainty that someone in a non-ritual slaughterhouse isn't saying a prayer to Zeus while butchering meat for their table?

[Sean]

That's just dodging the question.

Should they not be informed as to what they are eating