Indian restaurants, are Halal slaughtered animals always stunned ?

[boyfriday]

But that wouldn't prevent halal being forced on our schools etc because its the easy option. If halal meat cannot be produced by the same humane methods required by other producers it should be banned in the UK.

 

Wouldn't it be beneficial to establish whether the halal meat served in schools is pre-stunned before becoming over excited about the possibility that it isn't?

 

**NB: I bet it is**

[anywebsite]

But that wouldn't prevent halal being forced on our schools etc because its the easy option. If halal meat cannot be produced by the same humane methods required by other producers it should be banned in the UK.

 

Did you read the post of mine that you quoted?

 

Halal meat is usually slaughtered using more humane methods than are standard. Something like 80% of Halal meat is pre-stunned. It is allowed in the UK for Halal meat not to be pre-stunned, but most of it is pre-stunned & the animals are treated better than for non-halal meat.

 

Kosher meat is meat that can be eaten by Jews, as far as I know that can't be pre-stunned & still Kosher.

 

If meat that hasn't been pre-stunned had to be labelled as such then it wouldn't be forced on anybody & you don't force major religions to turn vegetarian.

[Plain Talker]

Wouldn't it be beneficial to establish whether the halal meat served in schools is pre-stunned before becoming over excited about the possibility that it isn't?

 

**NB: I bet it is**

 

now, now, BF, you're letting what's known as "Actually being in posession of the facts" get in the way of their good old slavverings...

[boyfriday]

now, now, BF, you're letting what's known as "Actually being in posession of the facts" get in the way of their good old slavverings...

 

Flippin ell PT, talk about posters with an 'agenda'..he wouldn't let it lie!

[libuse]

I've linked to this article before when this topic makes its regular appearance on the forum, but I wonder why people think it's so great that the animal they are eating has been electrocuted before it was killed; that's what we do to people when we want to make life really unpleasant for them;

 

While there is little doubt that animals killed without stunning experience significant pain, is it actually true to say that stunning makes for a pain-free death? Let us examine the details. One common method used to stun animals is the application of powerful electric currents to their heads, before their necks are cut. Its advocates’ belief that this is more humane than cutting the throats of conscious animals is, however, based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “stunning”. Veterinary dictionaries indicate that there are two elements to stunning – paralysing the animals and anaesthetising them. While paralysis is evident, there is absolutely no evidence in physiology, anaesthetics or surgery of burns that electricity anaesthetises. However, slaughterers and those who execute prisoners by the electric chair erroneously believe that animals and human beings lose consciousness as soon as the powerful electric currents are applied.

 

In the early 19th century the English surgeon Charles Bell and the French physiologist Francois Magendie showed that nervous systems are composed of two elements, which are separate, anatomically and physiologically. The sensory system receives signals from the environment and from the body. The motor system moves the muscles. For example, when a doctor injects local anaesthetic to sew up a skin wound in the finger, the patient cannot feel the suture, but can move the finger quite freely. In this case, the sensory system is blocked, while the motor system is working. A patient who awakens during an operation on the abdomen may still be able to feel, although he or she may not be able to move, due to paralysing drugs. In this case, the motor system is inhibited, while the sensory system is functioning. When large electric currents are applied, the skin is burned, and the muscles are stimulated. Stimulation causes muscle cramp, due to insufficient oxygen, followed by paralysis, not only of muscles of movement, but also the respiratory muscles and vocal cords. This causes extremely distressing “air hunger”, which cannot be satisfied. The cramp, the pain and the asphyxia may cause the person being electrocuted to faint.

 

Last year BBC 3 broadcast Kill It, Cook It, Eat It, in which participants ate meat from anmals they had just seen slaughtered. Immediately after the current was applied through tongs clamped to their heads, the animals fell down. They were then hoisted by hooks through their hind limbs, their throats were cut and they were exsanguinated (bled) and skinned. Many of the animals showed twitching movements during the procedure but the majority of the audience believed that the animals suffered no pain. They regarded the stunning and slaughter as rapid and humane. The reason for believing that there is no pain involved is that when healthy conscious animals are in severe pain, they make loud noises and thrash around. But because the electric current paralyses, there are no such signs after stunning, leading observers to conclude that there is no pain.

 

In fact, the medical literature from a wide variety of disciplines reveals that electric currents do cause pain to man and animals. People who touch live electric mains suffer painful burns, while histological examination of small lesions, caused accidentally or by electric torture, shows evidence of burns. In the US, police armed with taser guns, which transmit electricity to immobilise suspects, are subjected to them as part of their training. They say it is very painful indeed.

 

Amnesty International has extensive documentation of prisoners in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries who have been tortured electrically. The torturers, the victims and some heroic volunteers in Denmark have all found that the greater the power used, the greater the pain. At the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, in London, I have personally taken histories and physically examined dozens of victims of electrical torture. They told me that they had been bound to chairs or metal bedsteads, so that they could not pull their limbs away from the electrodes; the electric currents made their muscles contract and, as the current was increased, painful cramp ensued. They had difficulty in breathing, but could not cry out because of the paralysis of their respiratory muscles and vocal cords. They sweated, sometimes micturated and sometimes defaecated. Sometimes they fainted from the pain, but unless they fainted, the electric currents did not anaesthetise them. They sometimes had burns at the sites of the electrodes. The power of the instruments used for this kind of torture is similar to that used in stunning animals for slaughter – from a physiological viewpoint, I can see no reason why animals should not react to large electric currents in the same way as human beings do.

 

Prominent physiologists such as Professor Neville Gregory of the Royal Veterinary College, London, and Dr Temple Grandin of Colorado State University have concluded that electrical stunning of animals is humane. But neither of these authorities discuss whether animals are insensate after stunning. No physiologists investigating animal slaughter, other than myself, have considered the evidence from the electrical torture of human beings, and yet it is standard practice to regard evidence from animal physiology as relevant to humans. So why are findings in humans not applied to animals? The reluctance to do so seems inexplicable.

 

There is plenty of evidence, direct and indirect, that an electrically stunned animal suffers more pain than a ritually slaughtered one. “Shechita” and “dhabihah” may be “centuries-old religious practices”, but it does not necessarily follow that we should oppose their use today without first thoroughly reviewing the evidence. That is the rational approach that we, as humanists and secularists, should adopt, taking care not to be driven by any prejudices we may have against religion. More detailed research into the effects of electrical stunning is needed before we can be sure that it leads to relatively pain-free slaughter. In the meantime, perhaps the opponents of ritual slaughter need to review their position – it would be very sad if an alliance of well-meaning vegetarians, humanists and European lawmakers were to encourage the spread of cruel practices in the belief that they were being humane.

 

From: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2382/there-will-be-blood-by-harold-hillman-septemberoctober-2010

 

It's great that so many people on here appear to care about animal rights, but if you care that much, stop having them killed so that you can eat them.

[Kersplosh]

Bet most of the animals served up as halal on the wicker are not pre stunned before slaughter

[libuse]

Bet most of the animals served up as halal on the wicker are not pre stunned before slaughter

 

Hello kersplosh. Are you vegetarian or vegan?

[Glamrocker]

The Halal method of slaughter is barbaric, even McDonalds refuse to introduce Halal meat to their menu.

 

Go on Youtube and search Halal slaughter and see for yourself.

 

Now I didn't care about eating Halal meat a while ago, as far as I used to know, all they did was say a prayer, which I couldn't care less about, I had no issues eating it. But after realising the unecessary suffering these animals go through, i find it frankly unethical to eat.

To be fair they are only doing what was done in this country years ago,I remember as a kid watching them cut the throats of pigs without stunning and shooting bolts into cows that didnt stun but killed

[Bubble3082]

Why aren't animals allowed to be stunned in order for some to believe its 'proper' Halal? From my (limited) understanding the animal has to be alive whilst the prayer is uttered, followed immediately by the slaughter. If stunning renders the animal brain-dead why can't the prayer be said whilst they stun instead?

 

Also, why is Halal meat served in schools, etc. Is it cheaper or is it to satisfy Muslims? Wouldn't it be fairer to have an 'opt-in/out' system?

[boyfriday]

Why aren't animals allowed to be stunned in order for some to believe its 'proper' Halal? From my (limited) understanding the animal has to be alive whilst the prayer is uttered, followed immediately by the slaughter. If stunning renders the animal brain-dead why can't the prayer be said whilst they stun instead?

You're understanding is limited, the animal has to be alive after captive bolt stunning in conventional slaughter methods before it's taken for slaughter, otherwise it isn't bled effectively.

 

Also, why is Halal meat served in schools, etc. Is it cheaper or is it to satisfy Muslims? Wouldn't it be fairer to have an 'opt-in/out' system?

Halal meat served in schools is pre-stunned and everyone has a choice as to whether they want to eat it.