Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on April 24, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports animal welfare
CONSUMERS have a right to know how an animal was slaughtered when they decide which meat product to purchase. This was the view expressed by several members of the House of Lords during a short debate on welfare at slaughter on January 16. Introducing the debate, veterinary peer Lord Trees asked Her Majesty’s Government what assessment it had made of ‘the ethical, legal and religious factors that influence the way in which some animals are slaughtered in the United Kingdom’. He reminded peers that, throughout the UK and the EU, the law required cattle and sheep to be stunned before their throats were cut, except when animals were slaughtered to produce either halal or kosher meat for the Muslim and Jewish faiths, where an exemption was in force. While he recognised that both faiths had serious concerns for animal welfare and he defended and respected the freedom of expression of all groups, religious or non-religious, within reasonable limits acceptable to society, it was his contention that ‘unnecessary suffering is being caused to a very substantial number of animals by slaughter without stunning’. He addressed the issue under the headings of ‘inconsistency’, ‘injury’ and ‘insult’. Regarding inconsistency, he noted that, in Britain, ‘we rightly pride ourselves . . . on our animal welfare regulations and our humaneness’. However, while it had recently been made an offence to dock a puppy’s tail – and he was happy with that – it was still permitted for the throats of adult animals to be cut without rendering them unconscious first. ‘Is that a consistent approach to humaneness?’ he asked. Turning to biological tissue injury, Lord Trees cited a 2003 report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), part of which considered the injury caused to the neck as a result of throat cutting. It had concluded that ‘such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes’. The FAWC had recommended that the Government should repeal the current exemption, he noted. Regarding the ‘biological insult’ – the tissue damage and induction of pain – Lord Trees acknowledged that determining the perception of pain could be very difficult. However, he cited a study conducted on calves in New Zealand which, he argued, ‘provides strong evidence that pain is
perceived by a neck cut and that stunning abrogates it.’ The study had compared electrophysical measurements of brain signals for which there was evidence to support their association with pain in calves that were stunned before having their necks cut, calves that were not stunned, and calves that were stunned immediately after cutting. ‘A neck cut without prestunning caused pain signals lasting for up to two minutes,’ Lord Trees reported. ‘Such signals did not occur when stunning was used before the neck cut. Finally, if the neck cut was made and then animals were stunned, the pain signals
occurring after the cut were immediately abolished.’ Discussing the number of animals slaughtered without stunning in the UK, Lord Trees said that a survey by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in 2011 indicated that approximately 70,000 cattle were slaughtered without stunning annually, mainly by shechita, and about 1.5 million sheep were despatched without stunning, mainly for halal consumption. He also noted that the majority of sheep that were killed for halal meat in the UK were prestunned.
t
Lords debate welfare at slaughter
January 25, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 81
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on April 24, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports ‘I contend that, given the nature of the biological insult and the numbers involved, slaughter without stunning is a major, if not the major, animal welfare issue in the United Kingdom today,’ said Lord Trees. ‘A further important fact is that much of the meat from non-stunned slaughter goes into the food chain for mainstream consumers. I suggest that consumers can justifiably expect to be informed if the normal legally required form of humane slaughter has not been used’. Lord Trees noted that a European survey on providing consumers with the relevant information on the stunning of animals by labelling of meat products was currently being conducted. In the UK, the beef and lamb levy body, EBLEX, was working on the issue of clear labelling with halal producers. ‘Will the Government support measures to label meat appropriately to enable consumers to make informed choices?’ he asked. ‘I make it clear that I am not asking in this debate for non-stun slaughter to be banned,’ Lord Trees said. ‘I am not a believer in bans; I would rather that society collectively arrived at decisions about what is acceptable and what is not.’ He asked Muslim and Jewish communities and their leaders to consider whether ancient practices, for which there were good reasons many years ago, were necessary today. ‘There are non-lethal, non-invasive methods of stunning, and even if there is disagreement on the extent or duration of pain perception, is it not time to adopt stunning to preclude the possibility of unnecessary suffering—as some Muslim food authorities have allowed?’ Giving a different perspective, Lord Sheikh said that Islam permitted the slaughter of animals for food, but dictated that such slaughter must be exercised humanely. ‘There has never been any conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that religious slaughter is less humane than conventional mechanical methods,’ he said. ‘The controversy revolves primarily around the issue of stunning.’ He said that, in halal slaughter, the animal ceased to feel pain due to immediate brain starvation of blood and oxygen. ‘For the first few seconds after the incision is made, the animal does not feel any pain. This is followed by a few seconds of deep unconsciousness as large quantities of blood are drained from the body. Thereafter, readings indicate no pain at all.’ He noted that prohibiting halal meat would have profound social and economic implications. Muslims comprised 4.8 per cent of the UK’s population, and halal meat accounted for between 10 and 15 per cent of UK meat sales, although some of this meat was prestunned. ‘I want to see a rigorous code of conduct and an efficient system of self-regulation,’ said Lord Sheikh. ‘This would reassure non-Muslims that such animals are being 82 | Veterinary Record | January 25, 2014
respected and standards are being adhered to. I would also like a full and transparent system of labelling for all meats, so that the consumer can make an informed decision about the meat they buy. Labelling should not be confined to religiously slaughtered meat.’ Lord Sacks, formerly chair of the Rabbinical Commission for the Licensing of Shochetim, the body responsible for the supervision of every act of animal killing done in the UK under Jewish law, said that shechita was designed to minimise animal pain. ‘The animal must be killed by a single cut with an instrument of surgical sharpness, and in the absence of anything that might impede its smooth and swift motion,’ he explained. ‘The cut achieves three things: it stuns, kills and exsanguinates in a single act.
‘I make it clear that I am not asking in this debate for non-stun slaughter to be banned. I am not a believer in bans; I would rather that society collectively arrived at decisions about what is acceptable and what is not’ – Lord Trees We believe that this is the most humane, or a most humane method of animal slaughter. Quite apart from the fact that other methods are not permitted by Jewish law, we have doubts about their effectiveness.’ He added that, if a case were to be made for meat to be labelled to indicate how the animal was killed, it should apply to all methods of slaughter, not just to some.
Labelling
The issue of labelling of meat was raised by a number of other peers. Among them was Lord Rooker, a former Labour minister at Defra and previous chair of the FSA, who said that he had no problem with religious slaughter but that he did not wish to eat non-stunned meat and that it should be labelled. ‘It should be labelled where born, raised, slaughtered and the method of slaughter. That is perfectly acceptable information to be put on a label for consumers,’ he said. While the numbers of animals that were slaughtered without stunning were relatively small, it was a problem that not all meat produced in this way went to the communities for which it was intended and instead entered the general food chain. Consumers had the right to know the method of slaughter. ‘The simple answer to this is labelling,’ he said. Baroness Parminter agreed: ‘We must respect the rights of religious communities, but equally we must respect the rights of consumers for them to be able to make informed choices about the food they eat,’ she said. Several peers referred to figures suggesting that many animals slaughtered
conventionally were not correctly stunned. They included Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who argued that all meat should be labelled with the method of slaughter. He referred to a report from the European Food Safety Authority which indicated that the failure rate for penetrative captive bolt stunning was up to 6.6 per cent, and that for non-penetrating captive bolt stunning and electric stunning it could be as high as 31 per cent. ‘The percentages of mis-stuns far exceed the total quantity of animals slaughtered for the Jewish community,’ he commented. ‘Every year, millions of animals across Europe are mis-stunned and left in great distress. I say: label all this meat.’ Lord De Mauley, parliamentary undersecretary of state at Defra, brought the debate to a close. He noted that new legislation on welfare at slaughter had been introduced in Europe last year which aimed to ensure that animals were spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering at the time of slaughter, and therefore required that animals were stunned before they were killed. There was, however, an exception when animals were slaughtered according to religious rites. The consumption of meat was a personal choice, he said, and those who chose to eat meat expected animals to be treated humanely at slaughter. The FAWC’s view that non-stun slaughter should be banned on the grounds of unnecessary suffering had to be balanced against the rights of the Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. Insisting on prestun slaughter would also effectively deny Jews and Muslims access to meat slaughtered in the UK, he said. He commented: ‘While the Government would prefer to see all animals stunned before slaughter, we respect the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. It is worth noting that the term “religious slaughter” does not automatically mean that the animals are slaughtered without being stunned.’ Lord De Mauley said that the Government agreed that consumers should have the information needed to make an informed choice. It was awaiting the results of the European survey on the labelling of meat from non-stunned animals, which were due shortly. ‘We will look carefully at what options are available for providing information to consumers in the light of the study,’ he said. n The complete transcript of the debate can be viewed at www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/ text/140116-gc0001.htm#14011665000550 doi: 10.1136/vr.g413
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on April 24, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Lords debate welfare at slaughter
Veterinary Record 2014 174: 81-82
doi: 10.1136/vr.g413 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/4/81
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
News & Reports animal welfare
CONSUMERS have a right to know how an animal was slaughtered when they decide which meat product to purchase. This was the view expressed by several members of the House of Lords during a short debate on welfare at slaughter on January 16. Introducing the debate, veterinary peer Lord Trees asked Her Majesty’s Government what assessment it had made of ‘the ethical, legal and religious factors that influence the way in which some animals are slaughtered in the United Kingdom’. He reminded peers that, throughout the UK and the EU, the law required cattle and sheep to be stunned before their throats were cut, except when animals were slaughtered to produce either halal or kosher meat for the Muslim and Jewish faiths, where an exemption was in force. While he recognised that both faiths had serious concerns for animal welfare and he defended and respected the freedom of expression of all groups, religious or non-religious, within reasonable limits acceptable to society, it was his contention that ‘unnecessary suffering is being caused to a very substantial number of animals by slaughter without stunning’. He addressed the issue under the headings of ‘inconsistency’, ‘injury’ and ‘insult’. Regarding inconsistency, he noted that, in Britain, ‘we rightly pride ourselves . . . on our animal welfare regulations and our humaneness’. However, while it had recently been made an offence to dock a puppy’s tail – and he was happy with that – it was still permitted for the throats of adult animals to be cut without rendering them unconscious first. ‘Is that a consistent approach to humaneness?’ he asked. Turning to biological tissue injury, Lord Trees cited a 2003 report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), part of which considered the injury caused to the neck as a result of throat cutting. It had concluded that ‘such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes’. The FAWC had recommended that the Government should repeal the current exemption, he noted. Regarding the ‘biological insult’ – the tissue damage and induction of pain – Lord Trees acknowledged that determining the perception of pain could be very difficult. However, he cited a study conducted on calves in New Zealand which, he argued, ‘provides strong evidence that pain is
perceived by a neck cut and that stunning abrogates it.’ The study had compared electrophysical measurements of brain signals for which there was evidence to support their association with pain in calves that were stunned before having their necks cut, calves that were not stunned, and calves that were stunned immediately after cutting. ‘A neck cut without prestunning caused pain signals lasting for up to two minutes,’ Lord Trees reported. ‘Such signals did not occur when stunning was used before the neck cut. Finally, if the neck cut was made and then animals were stunned, the pain signals
occurring after the cut were immediately abolished.’ Discussing the number of animals slaughtered without stunning in the UK, Lord Trees said that a survey by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in 2011 indicated that approximately 70,000 cattle were slaughtered without stunning annually, mainly by shechita, and about 1.5 million sheep were despatched without stunning, mainly for halal consumption. He also noted that the majority of sheep that were killed for halal meat in the UK were prestunned.
t
Lords debate welfare at slaughter
January 25, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 81
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on April 24, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports ‘I contend that, given the nature of the biological insult and the numbers involved, slaughter without stunning is a major, if not the major, animal welfare issue in the United Kingdom today,’ said Lord Trees. ‘A further important fact is that much of the meat from non-stunned slaughter goes into the food chain for mainstream consumers. I suggest that consumers can justifiably expect to be informed if the normal legally required form of humane slaughter has not been used’. Lord Trees noted that a European survey on providing consumers with the relevant information on the stunning of animals by labelling of meat products was currently being conducted. In the UK, the beef and lamb levy body, EBLEX, was working on the issue of clear labelling with halal producers. ‘Will the Government support measures to label meat appropriately to enable consumers to make informed choices?’ he asked. ‘I make it clear that I am not asking in this debate for non-stun slaughter to be banned,’ Lord Trees said. ‘I am not a believer in bans; I would rather that society collectively arrived at decisions about what is acceptable and what is not.’ He asked Muslim and Jewish communities and their leaders to consider whether ancient practices, for which there were good reasons many years ago, were necessary today. ‘There are non-lethal, non-invasive methods of stunning, and even if there is disagreement on the extent or duration of pain perception, is it not time to adopt stunning to preclude the possibility of unnecessary suffering—as some Muslim food authorities have allowed?’ Giving a different perspective, Lord Sheikh said that Islam permitted the slaughter of animals for food, but dictated that such slaughter must be exercised humanely. ‘There has never been any conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that religious slaughter is less humane than conventional mechanical methods,’ he said. ‘The controversy revolves primarily around the issue of stunning.’ He said that, in halal slaughter, the animal ceased to feel pain due to immediate brain starvation of blood and oxygen. ‘For the first few seconds after the incision is made, the animal does not feel any pain. This is followed by a few seconds of deep unconsciousness as large quantities of blood are drained from the body. Thereafter, readings indicate no pain at all.’ He noted that prohibiting halal meat would have profound social and economic implications. Muslims comprised 4.8 per cent of the UK’s population, and halal meat accounted for between 10 and 15 per cent of UK meat sales, although some of this meat was prestunned. ‘I want to see a rigorous code of conduct and an efficient system of self-regulation,’ said Lord Sheikh. ‘This would reassure non-Muslims that such animals are being 82 | Veterinary Record | January 25, 2014
respected and standards are being adhered to. I would also like a full and transparent system of labelling for all meats, so that the consumer can make an informed decision about the meat they buy. Labelling should not be confined to religiously slaughtered meat.’ Lord Sacks, formerly chair of the Rabbinical Commission for the Licensing of Shochetim, the body responsible for the supervision of every act of animal killing done in the UK under Jewish law, said that shechita was designed to minimise animal pain. ‘The animal must be killed by a single cut with an instrument of surgical sharpness, and in the absence of anything that might impede its smooth and swift motion,’ he explained. ‘The cut achieves three things: it stuns, kills and exsanguinates in a single act.
‘I make it clear that I am not asking in this debate for non-stun slaughter to be banned. I am not a believer in bans; I would rather that society collectively arrived at decisions about what is acceptable and what is not’ – Lord Trees We believe that this is the most humane, or a most humane method of animal slaughter. Quite apart from the fact that other methods are not permitted by Jewish law, we have doubts about their effectiveness.’ He added that, if a case were to be made for meat to be labelled to indicate how the animal was killed, it should apply to all methods of slaughter, not just to some.
Labelling
The issue of labelling of meat was raised by a number of other peers. Among them was Lord Rooker, a former Labour minister at Defra and previous chair of the FSA, who said that he had no problem with religious slaughter but that he did not wish to eat non-stunned meat and that it should be labelled. ‘It should be labelled where born, raised, slaughtered and the method of slaughter. That is perfectly acceptable information to be put on a label for consumers,’ he said. While the numbers of animals that were slaughtered without stunning were relatively small, it was a problem that not all meat produced in this way went to the communities for which it was intended and instead entered the general food chain. Consumers had the right to know the method of slaughter. ‘The simple answer to this is labelling,’ he said. Baroness Parminter agreed: ‘We must respect the rights of religious communities, but equally we must respect the rights of consumers for them to be able to make informed choices about the food they eat,’ she said. Several peers referred to figures suggesting that many animals slaughtered
conventionally were not correctly stunned. They included Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who argued that all meat should be labelled with the method of slaughter. He referred to a report from the European Food Safety Authority which indicated that the failure rate for penetrative captive bolt stunning was up to 6.6 per cent, and that for non-penetrating captive bolt stunning and electric stunning it could be as high as 31 per cent. ‘The percentages of mis-stuns far exceed the total quantity of animals slaughtered for the Jewish community,’ he commented. ‘Every year, millions of animals across Europe are mis-stunned and left in great distress. I say: label all this meat.’ Lord De Mauley, parliamentary undersecretary of state at Defra, brought the debate to a close. He noted that new legislation on welfare at slaughter had been introduced in Europe last year which aimed to ensure that animals were spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering at the time of slaughter, and therefore required that animals were stunned before they were killed. There was, however, an exception when animals were slaughtered according to religious rites. The consumption of meat was a personal choice, he said, and those who chose to eat meat expected animals to be treated humanely at slaughter. The FAWC’s view that non-stun slaughter should be banned on the grounds of unnecessary suffering had to be balanced against the rights of the Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. Insisting on prestun slaughter would also effectively deny Jews and Muslims access to meat slaughtered in the UK, he said. He commented: ‘While the Government would prefer to see all animals stunned before slaughter, we respect the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. It is worth noting that the term “religious slaughter” does not automatically mean that the animals are slaughtered without being stunned.’ Lord De Mauley said that the Government agreed that consumers should have the information needed to make an informed choice. It was awaiting the results of the European survey on the labelling of meat from non-stunned animals, which were due shortly. ‘We will look carefully at what options are available for providing information to consumers in the light of the study,’ he said. n The complete transcript of the debate can be viewed at www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/ text/140116-gc0001.htm#14011665000550 doi: 10.1136/vr.g413
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on April 24, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Lords debate welfare at slaughter
Veterinary Record 2014 174: 81-82
doi: 10.1136/vr.g413 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/4/81
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
