The government has said it will not remove the exemption from animal welfare law that permits religious communities to slaughter animals without pre-stunning despite "strong pressure" from welfare groups, veterinary interests and the public for a prohibition on all slaughter without stunning.

In its published response to a consultation on the protection of animals at the time of killing, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said: "Existing national rules will be retained in relation to religious slaughter. These rules limit slaughter without prior stunning to the slaughter of bovine animals, sheep, goats and birds by a Jew for the food of Jews or by a Muslim for the food of Muslims."

[...]

Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, commented: "While we're disappointed that the Government has opted to retain the exemption for religious groups, we're pleased it has reiterated that the exemption applies to people of that religion only. This makes it clear that permitting meat from religious slaughter methods to enter the general food chain is not only ethically unacceptable, it is also unlawful.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/05/no-change-to-religious-slaughter-rules?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nssnews+%28NSS+News%29

Schools, hospitals etc. are not going to be too chuffed because all the meat used by them is Halal, costs are either going to go up quite a bit or they have to break the law (again).

Mandatory labelling is being vigorously opposed by the religious slaughter industry.

(From the same link)

It will be interesting to see how this can be balanced with new rules certain to be imposed in the wake of the horse meat saga.

This appears to refer to the UK government, though only the domain name of the NSS tells me so.

The UK government has bent over backwards for years not to offend anyone with a vested interest. Groups like the NSS simply don't count.

Animal welfare ranks far lower in the scheme of things than rules devised to please the sky fairy of choice for religion. Whilst I am personally unhappy about any exemption whatsoever for humane slaughter practice I see it as both wicked and dishonest to foist such practices on the majority in order to placate vocal minorities, or make life easier for the food retailers.

If you eat NZ lamb in the UK it's halal meat, which should not be a problem if it's labeled as such. Trouble is it isn't.

Animal welfare ranks far lower in the scheme of things than rules devised to please the sky fairy of choice for religion. Whilst I am personally unhappy about any exemption whatsoever for humane slaughter practice I see it as both wicked and dishonest to foist such practices on the majority in order to placate vocal minorities, or make life easier for the food retailers.

I've been involved in animal welfare off and on for many years. I quite agree with you, Dan.

The UK is (or was once) a Christian country, and should not pander to the requirements of other religions. If they don't like our way of doing things, they should go elsewhere. I am not anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim.... but I am anti-cruelty, whoever practises it.

If you eat NZ lamb in the UK it's halal meat, which should not be a problem if it's labeled as such. Trouble is it isn't.

That is what I have heard.

Animal welfare ranks far lower in the scheme of things than rules devised to please the sky fairy of choice for religion. Whilst I am personally unhappy about any exemption whatsoever for humane slaughter practice I see it as both wicked and dishonest to foist such practices on the majority in order to placate vocal minorities, or make life easier for the food retailers.

Which begs the question of how can it be regulated to stop it entering the general food chain if it is not labeled? It's not like DNA tests can be used.

Mandatory labelling is being vigorously opposed by the religious slaughter industry.

Does anyone know on what basis it is being opposed? I guess the non religious slaughter industry could be forced to label instead.

If you eat NZ lamb in the UK it's halal meat, which should not be a problem if it's labeled as such. Trouble is it isn't.

That is what I have heard.

There's me thinking the UK had laws about labeling. You know like nut's and This packet may contain nuts

If you eat NZ lamb in the UK it's halal meat, which should not be a problem if it's labeled as such. Trouble is it isn't.

That is what I have heard.

There's me thinking the UK had laws about labeling. You know like nut's and This packet may contain nuts

I think the nuts warning could apply to many of our politicians.

If you eat NZ lamb in the UK it's halal meat, which should not be a problem if it's labeled as such. Trouble is it isn't.

That is what I have heard.

There's me thinking the UK had laws about labeling. You know like nut's and This packet may contain nuts

I think the nuts warning could apply to many of our politicians.

Outside some "learning" centres too,

If you eat NZ lamb in the UK it's halal meat, which should not be a problem if it's labeled as such. Trouble is it isn't.

That is what I have heard.

There's me thinking the UK had laws about labeling. You know like nut's and This packet may contain nuts

A lot of this is EU rules which have to be adopted but surely there has to be a point where member countries have got to say 'no, that is ridiculous' Having a warning that product 'x' has been manufactured in a plant which also manufactures products that contain nuts is fine IMO.

You have chicken joints with huge signs saying Halal on the frontage and restaurants with Kosha on them, that's fine but try to make businesses put 'Ritually slaughtered by using an legal exemption' on their product and it's a no no. Go to the local supermarket and lots of products will be labeled as Halal or Kosha and nobody bats an eyelid any more than they would if it said suitable for vegeterians. You have products such a vegan cheese but you don't see vegans up in arms about it.

When I was a lot younger I built a new laboratory for one of the main poultry breeders in the UK.

They took me round the complex to (proudly) show me their whole process. The sequence of preparing the birds for slaughter and packing went in roughly this sequence

1. Hang the bird up by it's neck
2. Spray with a caustic wash
3. Steam the bird clean
4. Mechanically pluck the bird
5. Kill the bird
6. Take it down, gut it and behead it.

The reason for processing the bird live was that it was easier to pluck it live, after steaming, than dead.

When the big fuss was on a couple of years ago about Indonesian slaughter houses (the Aussie fuss) it was frequently said that in a well run Halal/Kosher slaughterhouse the animal suffered less under ritual slaughter than under 'civilian' slaughter rules which included stunning. Evidently the quick slash across the jugular and other veins/nerves/whatever caused a more rapid loss of brain function and death than the stunning and bolt method. My problem is that ritually slaughtered meat is tougher and less tasty than the civilian way.

I know there was also a fuss in Oz about exports of sheep to Saudi. These were live shipments, as halal meat is supposed to be eaten within 24 hours of slaughter - so they had to be killed in Saudi, to ensure that the time-line was approved by the religious authorities. Living in Khobar and Jubail we knew when a ship arrived solely by the rich aroma that drifted over the port area. Could be smelt for about five miles around the ship. I reckon that journey was far more stressful for the sheep than slaughter by whatever means in the country of origin, but Saudi rules prevailed.

And in Hong Kong I lived near Kowloon Tong KCR station (in Village Gardens to those who know the place) and the pig trains from the mainland came through regularly. There is a curve in the track by the station and if you were waiting for a train it took no time at all to learn the Cantonese for 'pig train coming' which caused the entire platform to clear as passengers ran down into the booking hall area to avoid the detritus that spilled from the multi-level pig trains. The pigs were off-loaded at the Kowloon terminus and I recall the chaos one time when almost the entire cargo escaped from the handlers and flooded the streets around the terminus - including the tunnel to HK-side.

(For those unfamiliar with Hong Kong - Kowloon Tong and Kowloon terminus are two stations miles apart)

(And Village Gardens was where all the aspiring film actresses lived when they had made enough money to move out of the family apartment - marvellous time of my life - almost too many parties)

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

a number of scholars claim if halal slaughtered meat is frozen within 24 hours it will turn haram but remain halal.

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

a number of scholars claim if halal slaughtered meat is frozen within 24 hours it will turn haram but remain halal.

So it depends on their Imam then.

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

a number of scholars claim if halal slaughtered meat is frozen within 24 hours it will turn haram but remain halal.

should read "it will not turn haram..."

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

a number of scholars claim if halal slaughtered meat is frozen within 24 hours it will turn haram but remain halal.

So it depends on their Imam then.

it's not Imams who make claims or decisions. most of the time it's self-appointed, but acknowledged religious gurus. unfortunately a number of them are nothing but clowns who excel in issuing revolutionary, shocking and often plain ridiculous fatwas. that those fatwas have no weight is most of the time overlooked.

A lot of this is EU rules which have to be adopted but surely there has to be a point where member countries have got to say 'no, that is ridiculous'

The French do not adopt them, so why should we?

A lot of this is EU rules which have to be adopted but surely there has to be a point where member countries have got to say 'no, that is ridiculous'

The French do not adopt them, so why should we?

France refuse to accept many of the rules and find that it's cheaper to pay a small fine.

A lot of this is EU rules which have to be adopted but surely there has to be a point where member countries have got to say 'no, that is ridiculous'

The French do not adopt them, so why should we?

Because we're British and respect the rule of law.

Would you rather be French?

(Careful how you answer that question )

A lot of this is EU rules which have to be adopted but surely there has to be a point where member countries have got to say 'no, that is ridiculous'

The French do not adopt them, so why should we?

Because we're British and respect the rule of law.

Would you rather be French?

(Careful how you answer that question )

Do we?

I do not answer loaded questions!

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

Which may be why it isn't labelled as such.

My understanding is that slaughter houses who use Halal and/or Kosher methods (essentially the same) to slaughter all their animals do so for commercial reasons rather than religious ones.

They supply Halal and/or Kosher customers and others. It is cheaper for them to have one production line (for want of a better phrase) than two or even three.

If you want to eat meat, and I do, then you have to accept that an animal is going to be killed.

We like to think it's been killed by what we refer to as a 'humane' method, but is a quick slash across the throat any less 'humane' than stunning the animal first?

Particularly when the stunning often doesn't work anyway (ask anyone who works in a slaughterhouse)!

If you want to ensure you don't eat anything killed by Halal or Kosher methods; eat only pork.

If you want to ensure you don't eat anything which suffered when killed; become a vegan.

From all I've heard, few slaughterhouses are genuinely humane. Naturally, though, any slaughterhouse would prefer to use one method throughout.

What I am really objecting to is not the Halal or Kosher method of slaughter so much as allowing exceptions to our laws.

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

Which may be why it isn't labelled as such.

My understanding is that slaughter houses who use Halal and/or Kosher methods (essentially the same) to slaughter all their animals do so for commercial reasons rather than religious ones.

They supply Halal and/or Kosher customers and others. It is cheaper for them to have one production line (for want of a better phrase) than two or even three.

If you want to eat meat, and I do, then you have to accept that an animal is going to be killed.

We like to think it's been killed by what we refer to as a 'humane' method, but is a quick slash across the throat any less 'humane' than stunning the animal first?

Particularly when the stunning often doesn't work anyway (ask anyone who works in a slaughterhouse)!

If you want to ensure you don't eat anything killed by Halal or Kosher methods; eat only pork.

If you want to ensure you don't eat anything which suffered when killed; become a vegan.

Still I believe how the animal was killed should be labeled, and people should be aware what it means without pc bs interfering..

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

Which may be why it isn't labelled as such.

My understanding is that slaughter houses who use Halal and/or Kosher methods (essentially the same) to slaughter all their animals do so for commercial reasons rather than religious ones.

They supply Halal and/or Kosher customers and others. It is cheaper for them to have one production line (for want of a better phrase) than two or even three.

If you want to eat meat, and I do, then you have to accept that an animal is going to be killed.

We like to think it's been killed by what we refer to as a 'humane' method, but is a quick slash across the throat any less 'humane' than stunning the animal first?

Particularly when the stunning often doesn't work anyway (ask anyone who works in a slaughterhouse)!

If you want to ensure you don't eat anything killed by Halal or Kosher methods; eat only pork.

If you want to ensure you don't eat anything which suffered when killed; become a vegan.

Millions of vegetables are murdered daily by vegans, What do we do if science ever proves they feel pain. Some research suggests that trees in a wood, start to produce defensive hormones when one of their species is attacked by insects. If I want Halal food I go to a curry shop not Sainsbury's

..... where you can eat cat, rat, and possibly dog!

Nature made us into omnivores, and it is going against nature to become vegetarian, let alone vegan, unless it is a deliberate protest against the cruelty involved in slaughter.

....Post deleted

So given the 24hr rule, technically NZ lamb in the UK super markets isn't Halal.

Which may be why it isn't labelled as such.

My understanding is that slaughter houses who use Halal and/or Kosher methods (essentially the same) to slaughter all their animals do so for commercial reasons rather than religious ones.

They supply Halal and/or Kosher customers and others. It is cheaper for them to have one production line (for want of a better phrase) than two or even three.

If you want to eat meat, and I do, then you have to accept that an animal is going to be killed.

We like to think it's been killed by what we refer to as a 'humane' method, but is a quick slash across the throat any less 'humane' than stunning the animal first?

Particularly when the stunning often doesn't work anyway (ask anyone who works in a slaughterhouse)!

If you want to ensure you don't eat anything killed by Halal or Kosher methods; eat only pork.

If you want to ensure you don't eat anything which suffered when killed; become a vegan.

Still I believe how the animal was killed should be labeled, and people should be aware what it means without pc bs interfering..

PC BS has nothing to do with it; it's economics.

It's cheaper for slaughterhouses to use one method for slaughtering animals, and it's more expensive for supermarkets to print separate labels for all their meat to say how it was slaughtered.

Which is one reason why labelled Halal meat in Sainsbury's etc. is more expensive than the other meat.

If I want Halal food I go to a curry shop not Sainsbury's

Didn't know Sainsbury's had opened up in Thailand.

I guess that for those of us living in the UK who are overly concerned about this the only solution is to buy your meat from a local independent butcher who knows where his meat comes from. But can he guarantee how it was slaughtered?

How about non muslim countries slaughter the meat the old fashioned way. Stun the animal senseless, and if your friends want halal, they pay extra, His meat? Sexist.

Take your argument to the slaughter houses. It is they who choose how they slaughter the animals.; and they make the decision on commercial grounds, not PC ones.

His meat? Sexist.

Getting really desperate here, aren't you.

Standard English usage; I'd have thought that as you are so anti PC that you would approve of that!

You only mention Halal, why not Kosher as well?