Kosher and Halal slaughtering method banned in the EU

[Inkubus]

Won't no one think of the chemicals? How many of them died to make the supplement pills the sad bastards need to stay alive. I mean, I ask you?

[Dānu]

The best cruelty-free food is vegan.



Just saying.

[Minimalist]

I even worked at one of the abattoirs that I later dealt with and all the animals there were getting killed with a metal rod to the brain, some sort of pressurised gun...

Probably a pneumatic captive bolt device...

That reminds me of Javier Bardem as the serial killer in No Country for Old Men. He used one of those devices connected to a tank of compressed air, to kill a random victim. Because it was an unfamiliar device, and Bardem's character was posing as a policeman, the person meekly submitted to getting a rod driven into his brain between his eyes during what he thought was a traffic stop.

Please don't give the cops any more ideas, Mord.

[Minimalist]

The best cruelty-free food is vegan.



Just saying.

[epronovost]

If some want to listen to a few vids on basically slaughtering best practice, I can link some of Temple Grandin videos on the subject. She's basically one of the great specialist on the question of ethics and slaughtering.

[Aliza]

If some want to listen to a few vids on basically slaughtering best practice, I can link some of Temple Grandin videos on the subject. She's basically one of the great specialist on the question of ethics and slaughtering.

Agreed. She's who I trust on the matter.

[Paleophyte]

It seems that the EU court has upheld a ban on all slaughter of animals without the animal being pre-stunned. This effectively makes halal and kosher slaughter method illegal as the animal must be "intact" before slaughter and stunning them is considered as "damaging" the animal. I personnaly think it's a reasonnable decision. Of course, I don't highl value religious ritual in food preperation and I do value more highly the idea of affording the most painless death reasonnably possible to the animals we have raised for slaughter. I don't think it strictly prevents the practice of those religion since eating meat isn't mandatory to those faith and not respecting scrupulously the requirements of halal and kosher practice doesn't make you less Jew or Muslim in my opinion. Not every one of them needs to be highly practicing to be considered as such. Of course, jewish and muslim organisation are deeply concerned and opposed to such a ban stating that it impeeds their freedom of religion and a clear sign of antisemitism and islamophobia.

What do you think?

I suspect that the religious communities are correct and that this is little more than intolerance using animal suffering as an excuse. Most of us can agree that animal cruelty is abhorrent, but when bigots pimp out your virtues to further their ugly little agendas it does little more than tarnish your virtues.

The sniff test would be to examine which member states pushed for the ruling and compare that with their stance on factory farming where animals are kept in some pretty horrific conditions or cultural blood sports such as bull fighting. If you find a shitload of hypocrisy then it's unlikely that the law was backed for virtuous reasons.

If the religious communities are clever they'll let the law stand and turn it against its authors. @Aliza can enlighten us on the details but if the animal simply need be "intact" prior to slaughter then there are any number of ways to render an animal entirely senseless without ever breaking the skin. Most of these are more humane than "stunning" with a pneumatic bolt gun, a practice only marginally evolved over the last century when they'd have smacked the beast between the eyes with a large hammer to achieve the same effect.

[epronovost]

The sniff test would be to examine which member states pushed for the ruling and compare that with their stance on factory farming where animals are kept in some pretty horrific conditions or cultural blood sports such as bull fighting. If you find a shitload of hypocrisy then it's unlikely that the law was backed for virtuous reasons.

The country at the middle of it was Belgium and it's one of the country with the stiffest law when it comes to animal welfare in the world.

[Paleophyte]

The sniff test would be to examine which member states pushed for the ruling and compare that with their stance on factory farming where animals are kept in some pretty horrific conditions or cultural blood sports such as bull fighting. If you find a shitload of hypocrisy then it's unlikely that the law was backed for virtuous reasons.

The country at the middle of it was Belgium and it's one of the country with the stiffest law when it comes to animal welfare in the world.

Hardly surprising given its small size, high population density, and lack of a significant agricultural sector. Belgium's outsourcing its burgers.

And what about the other EU countries? Belgium may have been at the heart of this but who else was involved?

What rings hollow to me is this nonsense about stunning being humane. We don't stun animals because it's humane. We stun them because panicked beef flailing in terror is an OSHA nightmare even for a slaughterhouse. We know this because the practice originated a long time before we gave a rat's ass about animal welfare.The few mercies that it brings the animal are a coincidental side-effect.

[Dom]

The sniff test would be to examine which member states pushed for the ruling and compare that with their stance on factory farming where animals are kept in some pretty horrific conditions or cultural blood sports such as bull fighting. If you find a shitload of hypocrisy then it's unlikely that the law was backed for virtuous reasons.

The country at the middle of it was Belgium and it's one of the country with the stiffest law when it comes to animal welfare in the world.

Hardly surprising given its small size, high population density, and lack of a significant agricultural sector. Belgium's outsourcing its burgers.

And what about the other EU countries? Belgium may have been at the heart of this but who else was involved?

What rings hollow to me is this nonsense about stunning being humane. We don't stun animals because it's humane. We stun them because panicked beef flailing in terror is an OSHA nightmare even for a slaughterhouse. We know this because the practice originated a long time before we gave a rat's ass about animal welfare.The few mercies that it brings the animal are a coincidental side-effect.

Indeed, stunning had been used long time by family farmers. Sometimes the side effects of an action are more beneficial than the intent.

[Aliza]

It seems that the EU court has upheld a ban on all slaughter of animals without the animal being pre-stunned. This effectively makes halal and kosher slaughter method illegal as the animal must be "intact" before slaughter and stunning them is considered as "damaging" the animal. I personnaly think it's a reasonnable decision. Of course, I don't highl value religious ritual in food preperation and I do value more highly the idea of affording the most painless death reasonnably possible to the animals we have raised for slaughter. I don't think it strictly prevents the practice of those religion since eating meat isn't mandatory to those faith and not respecting scrupulously the requirements of halal and kosher practice doesn't make you less Jew or Muslim in my opinion. Not every one of them needs to be highly practicing to be considered as such. Of course, jewish and muslim organisation are deeply concerned and opposed to such a ban stating that it impeeds their freedom of religion and a clear sign of antisemitism and islamophobia.

What do you think?

I suspect that the religious communities are correct and that this is little more than intolerance using animal suffering as an excuse. Most of us can agree that animal cruelty is abhorrent, but when bigots pimp out your virtues to further their ugly little agendas it does little more than tarnish your virtues.

The sniff test would be to examine which member states pushed for the ruling and compare that with their stance on factory farming where animals are kept in some pretty horrific conditions or cultural blood sports such as bull fighting. If you find a shitload of hypocrisy then it's unlikely that the law was backed for virtuous reasons.

If the religious communities are clever they'll let the law stand and turn it against its authors. @Aliza can enlighten us on the details but if the animal simply need be "intact" prior to slaughter then there are any number of ways to render an animal entirely senseless without ever breaking the skin. Most of these are more humane than "stunning" with a pneumatic bolt gun, a practice only marginally evolved over the last century when they'd have smacked the beast between the eyes with a large hammer to achieve the same effect.

I think there are kosher, halal, and main market slaughter houses that practice both humane and cruel animal treatment. When animal activists get their hands on footage or pictures of animals suffering, they may make the mistake of labeling the method of kill rather than the cruel actions leading up to the kill, and including the kill when it gets botched. All three methods have the chance of their method failing due to human negligence, poor training, and a work culture that is dismissive of animal welfare. 

Temple Grandin, who is a leading food scientist in the U.S. wrote that she did not witness any indication that the cows were suffering or in pain while she observed the Jewish slaughter method. I believe she has also given her stamp of approval for the stun bolt, but I don't know what her position is about the halal method of slaughter. Dr. Grandin writes that the time leading up to the animal's death is the biggest area of concern and whether the animal is handled carefully by trained people who care about the wellbeing of the animal while it is still alive.

Dr. Grandin entered the meat industry in the 1960's (or 70's?). The cruelty she witnessed here in the U.S. is what sparked her to get her Ph.D. and change the meat industry. She found ways to make animal welfare a priority while not sacrificing profits, and this was a huge advancement for the western world. The Muslims and Jews have been concerned about animal cruelty since the inception of their religions and have maintained their practices for the purposes of minimizing the fear and pain the animal experiences, and not simply because that's what's in their book. From an observer's standpoint, one may not agree with their methods, but animal welfare is the reason for the way they do things and they do not believe that G-d has commanded them to be cruel to animals to make him happy.

[Dom]

It seems that the EU court has upheld a ban on all slaughter of animals without the animal being pre-stunned. This effectively makes halal and kosher slaughter method illegal as the animal must be "intact" before slaughter and stunning them is considered as "damaging" the animal. I personnaly think it's a reasonnable decision. Of course, I don't highl value religious ritual in food preperation and I do value more highly the idea of affording the most painless death reasonnably possible to the animals we have raised for slaughter. I don't think it strictly prevents the practice of those religion since eating meat isn't mandatory to those faith and not respecting scrupulously the requirements of halal and kosher practice doesn't make you less Jew or Muslim in my opinion. Not every one of them needs to be highly practicing to be considered as such. Of course, jewish and muslim organisation are deeply concerned and opposed to such a ban stating that it impeeds their freedom of religion and a clear sign of antisemitism and islamophobia.

What do you think?

I suspect that the religious communities are correct and that this is little more than intolerance using animal suffering as an excuse. Most of us can agree that animal cruelty is abhorrent, but when bigots pimp out your virtues to further their ugly little agendas it does little more than tarnish your virtues.

The sniff test would be to examine which member states pushed for the ruling and compare that with their stance on factory farming where animals are kept in some pretty horrific conditions or cultural blood sports such as bull fighting. If you find a shitload of hypocrisy then it's unlikely that the law was backed for virtuous reasons.

If the religious communities are clever they'll let the law stand and turn it against its authors. @Aliza can enlighten us on the details but if the animal simply need be "intact" prior to slaughter then there are any number of ways to render an animal entirely senseless without ever breaking the skin. Most of these are more humane than "stunning" with a pneumatic bolt gun, a practice only marginally evolved over the last century when they'd have smacked the beast between the eyes with a large hammer to achieve the same effect.

I think there are kosher, halal, and main market slaughter houses that practice both humane and cruel animal treatment. When animal activists get their hands on footage or pictures of animals suffering, they may make the mistake of labeling the method of kill rather than the cruel actions leading up to the kill, and including the kill when it gets botched. All three methods have the chance of their method failing due to human negligence, poor training, and a work culture that is dismissive of animal welfare. 

Temple Grandin, who is a leading food scientist in the U.S. wrote that she did not witness any indication that the cows were suffering or in pain while she observed the Jewish slaughter method. I believe she has also given her stamp of approval for the stun bolt, but I don't know what her position is about the halal method of slaughter. Dr. Grandin writes that the time leading up to the animal's death is the biggest area of concern and whether the animal is handled carefully by trained people who care about the wellbeing of the animal while it is still alive.

Dr. Grandin entered the meat industry in the 1960's (or 70's?). The cruelty she witnessed here in the U.S. is what sparked her to get her Ph.D. and change the meat industry. She found ways to make animal welfare a priority while not sacrificing profits, and this was a huge advancement for the western world. The Muslims and Jews have been concerned about animal cruelty since the inception of their religions and have maintained their practices for the purposes of minimizing the fear and pain the animal experiences, and not simply because that's what's in their book. From an observer's standpoint, one may not agree with their methods, but animal welfare is the reason for the way they do things and they do not believe that G-d has commanded them to be cruel to animals to make him happy.

It was better than stabbing an animal to death. It was a breakthrough in being considerate of the welfare of other beings. 

It is, now, not a better method, and being hung to bleed out is NOT humane. It is simply antiquated and needs to be adjusted to our current knowledge. The fact that others are being cruel to animals doesn't change that.

[Aliza]

It was better than stabbing an animal to death. It was a breakthrough in being considerate of the welfare of other beings. 

It is, now, not a better method, and being hung to bleed out is NOT humane. It is simply antiquated and needs to be adjusted to our current knowledge. The fact that others are being cruel to animals doesn't change that.

Hung and bled to death is not a kosher practice. That's a main market practice that is used by slaughter houses regardless of their religions. Hanging animals and cutting their throats while they're upside down is horrible, but it's not Jewish or Muslim in origin.

[epronovost]

Hardly surprising given its small size, high population density, and lack of a significant agricultural sector. Belgium's outsourcing its burgers.

Actually, Belgium has a fairly important agricultural sector especially in Flanders. 39% of Belgium land is dedicated to agriculture. They are self sufficient in several domain like dairy product, sugar (extracted from sugar beets) and weat. It employs only 2% of the population, but this is fairly consistent within all industrialised nation which rarely have more than 2% or 3% of their population employed in agriculture. Their export vs import of agricultural product is also positive (39 billions vs 34 billions). They are the fifth biggest exporter of agricultural product in the EU behind Germany, the Netherland, Spain and France. Note that Belgium is also fairly hostile to GMO crops.

[Dom]

How to Properly Slaughter a Cow Under the Kosher Method Shechitah (wikihow.com)



Are there any modern variations to kosher slaughtering?

Yes, you can slit the throat at the same time the animal is stunned by a stun gun. There is a device for this in most slaughterhouse equipment catalogues.

[Aliza]

How to Properly Slaughter a Cow Under the Kosher Method Shechitah (wikihow.com)



Are there any modern variations to kosher slaughtering?

Yes, you can slit the throat at the same time the animal is stunned by a stun gun. There is a device for this in most slaughterhouse equipment catalogues.

I have heard of using both of these at the same time, or the stun bolt comes directly before the "stick" (which is apparently the meat industry's term for cut). I maintain that the actions leading up to the kill is what terrifies and stresses the animal out.

Also killing it. Eat more tofu.

[Dānu]

Sadly, I can't find a video for it, but there was a short film aired on SNL a long time ago. In the film, it shows a guy sitting around, eating peanuts. After a short while, he falls asleep, and the peanuts get up and start acting out some plan they apparently have, shimmying down the leg of the table, carrying bits of stuff here and there, and so on. At the end of the short, it pans back to reveal that the peanuts had spelled out something using discarded shells. It said, "Eat more fruit."

[SYZ]

...What rings hollow to me is this nonsense about stunning being humane. We don't stun animals because it's humane. We stun them because panicked beef flailing in terror is an OSHA nightmare even for a slaughterhouse. We know this because the practice originated a long time before we gave a rat's ass about animal welfare.The few mercies that it brings the animal are a coincidental side-effect.

I'd have to disagree with this.  Stunning—either captive bolt or electric shock—is the most
humane, considering that the animal is actually unconscious when its throat is cut (sticking)
and it bleeds out. And your notion of animals "flailing in terror" is certainly not the case here
in Australia, where specific calming procedures in penning and approachment paths avoid that.

From your stance, I'm assuming you're a vegetarian or vegan who denies that human beings
are omnivorous—as are pigs, bears, chimpanzees, chickens, cassowaries, and dingoes.  And
if not, then how do you suggest we kill livestock more humanely?    Do you eat beef or lamb?

[SYZ]

After viewing the video (below) I decide to post its link in order to illustrate the horrors and
sickening inhumanity of kosher livestock killing in South America.  80% of this product is
exported globally, particularly to Israel, and also the United States.

Please be warned that the video is EXTREMELY graphic and shows absolutely nauseating
live and uncensored images of cattle being slaughtered, under horrendous conditions.  If
you're repulsed by and/or have a sensitivity to animal slaughter, I suggest you do not watch.

Show ContentSpoiler:

https://investigations.peta.org/kosher-s...ael/#video

In July 2016, eyewitnesses from PETA and Anonymous for Animal Rights (Israel) travelled to
South America to expose one of the cruellest industrial cattle slaughter methods in the world.
It’s known as “shackle and hoist.”

“The shackling and hoisting shown in this video is a violation of all industry and international welfare guidelines.”

—Dr. Temple Grandin, renowned animal-welfare expert

[Aliza]

“The shackling and hoisting shown in this video is a violation of all industry and international welfare guidelines.”

—Dr. Temple Grandin, renowned animal-welfare expert

I can't watch it, I'm too sensitive. People who use shackle and hoist are horrible and I hope they get their due one day.

[Dom]

How to Properly Slaughter a Cow Under the Kosher Method Shechitah (wikihow.com)



Are there any modern variations to kosher slaughtering?

Yes, you can slit the throat at the same time the animal is stunned by a stun gun. There is a device for this in most slaughterhouse equipment catalogues.

I have heard of using both of these at the same time, or the stun bolt comes directly before the "stick" (which is apparently the meat industry's term for cut). I maintain that the actions leading up to the kill is what terrifies and stresses the animal out.

Also killing it. Eat more tofu.

I used to raise 3 or 4 pigs a year. Something for us, something for some other people. The piglets were cute as can be, and the adolescents had lots of fun playing soccer and rolling tires and such. They had an acre to roam and forage. They had a hut, and they lined all the walls with the straw we put in there, we put more straw, they built more.. the 3 little pigs comes to mind.

When they are grown, they get lazy, greedy and mean. 

When it was time, we called the butcher. He drove up with a refrigerated, tricked out truck. He walked into the pasture, up to one pig and shot it point blank. It went down quietly. Since pigs tend to just plop to the ground and sleep, it didn't alarm the others. 

He then did the basic processing in the truck and drove off. 

No fear, no pain, and a very nice, good life. 

I did not feel bad at all eating bacon. I would not have minded being one of those pigs myself, they had a fun life.

[Paleophyte]

...What rings hollow to me is this nonsense about stunning being humane. We don't stun animals because it's humane. We stun them because panicked beef flailing in terror is an OSHA nightmare even for a slaughterhouse. We know this because the practice originated a long time before we gave a rat's ass about animal welfare.The few mercies that it brings the animal are a coincidental side-effect.

I'd have to disagree with this.  Stunning—either captive bolt or electric shock—is the most humane, considering that the animal is actually unconscious when its throat is cut (sticking) and it bleeds out.

Being the least horrible current practice does not make it a good or humane practice.

And your notion of animals "flailing in terror" is certainly not the case here in Australia, where specific calming procedures in penning and approachment paths avoid that.

You misunderstand my point. I was saying that animals that are not stunned can be very dangerous to us humans when they have their throats slit. Oddly enough they tend to object. That is why stunning came into practice.

From your stance, I'm assuming you're a vegetarian or vegan who denies that human beings are omnivorous—as are pigs, bears, chimpanzees, chickens, cassowaries, and dingoes.

I'm sorry that they don't make an emoticon for this but I'll give it a shot...


I'm an unapologetic carnosaur. I grew up on my grandfather's farm and have no illusions about where my burgers come from. Why do you assume that I'm an extremist simply because I disagree with you?

And if not, then how do you suggest we kill livestock more humanely?

Bullet to the brainstem. Guillotine. Nitrogen/Argon Hypoxia. Just to name a few off the top of my head. Or off the top of somebody's head.

Do you eat beef or lamb?

Only when I can't get bacon.

[Phaedrus]

Sadly, I can't find a video for it, but there was a short film aired on SNL a long time ago.  In the film, it shows a guy sitting around, eating peanuts.  After a short while, he falls asleep, and the peanuts get up and start acting out some plan they apparently have, shimmying down the leg of the table, carrying bits of stuff here and there, and so on.  At the end of the short, it pans back to reveal that the peanuts had spelled out something using discarded shells.  It said, "Eat more fruit."

I cannot find the video either, but I found more information on the skit:

P-Nut Fever: A man eats a bunch of shelled peanuts and leaves the shells in a pile on the table. After he goes to bed, the remaining peanuts climb out of the bag and are horrified to see the remains of their comrades. They climb down the table on an extension cord and drag a meat cleaver to where the man is sleeping on the sofa. They try to murder him, but they drop the knife, which wakes him up. He falls back asleep, and the peanuts perch the cleaver over him on the couch. They drop the cleaver, but it misses his neck. He walks into the kitchen to see the peanuts have spelled out "Eat Fruit" on the table.

http://tviv.org/Saturday_Night_Live/Anth...tty_Carter

[Aegon]

It seems that the EU court has upheld a ban on all slaughter of animals without the animal being pre-stunned. This effectively makes halal and kosher slaughter method illegal as the animal must be "intact" before slaughter and stunning them is considered as "damaging" the animal. I personnaly think it's a reasonnable decision. Of course, I don't highl value religious ritual in food preperation and I do value more highly the idea of affording the most painless death reasonnably possible to the animals we have raised for slaughter. I don't think it strictly prevents the practice of those religion since eating meat isn't mandatory to those faith and not respecting scrupulously the requirements of halal and kosher practice doesn't make you less Jew or Muslim in my opinion. Not every one of them needs to be highly practicing to be considered as such. Of course, jewish and muslim organisation are deeply concerned and opposed to such a ban stating that it impeeds their freedom of religion and a clear sign of antisemitism and islamophobia.

What do you think?

I think it's ridiculous to look at factory farm practices and say with a straight face that they're more humane than halal just because they're "stunned" before slaughter. What is their qualify of life before their untimely deaths? They're going after the wrong actors. It's the massive corporations you need to regulate.

However, I know very little about EU regulations in this area, so perhaps all cows, chickens and pigs are treated like royalty on farms throughout Europe. I highly doubt it though.

[SYZ]

I think it's ridiculous to look at factory farm practices and say with a straight face that they're more humane than halal just because they're "stunned" before slaughter. What is their qualify of life before their untimely deaths? They're going after the wrong actors. It's the massive corporations you need to regulate...

I live in the middle of our state's biggest dairy/beef cattle and sheep region, and we
don't have any "factory farms" as you describe them.  The modern practice of food
animal husbandry here in Australia has moved on markedly in the past few decades.
Farming practices now dictate appropriate natural feedlots, predator protection, minimal
or no transport, and government-mandated low stress slaughtering.

As one of our farmers says; "beef cattle have 364 good days and one bad day".

—I guess it could be vastly different in America?