News broke earlier this week regarding the Bowood Lamb abattoir in Thirsk, North Yorkshire. It was a report of reprehensible treatment of the animals in the act of, and shortly before, their slaughter.
This animal cruelty is abhorrent. We should be aiming for the strictest of standards to be upheld in all abattoirs. If I had to guess, I’d say this isn’t an isolated incident and maltreatment occurs at other abattoirs in the UK. The risk of this grows as people who work in the abattoirs become desensitised to the type of unpleasant work they are performing.
The reporting of these incidents can sometimes be troublesome. It can be used to demonise Muslims and Jews and assert that this appalling behaviour can only happen in the abattoirs dedicated to ritual slaughter. This is clearly wrong.
It also muddies the ethical issue. The ethical question as I see it can be framed as this:
1. Are halal / kosher slaughter methods more humane than the ‘secular’ standard?
2. If they are not, should Muslims / Jews have the right not to adopt the ‘secular’ standard, thus understanding that the methods are sub-optimal for animal welfare?
The first question is one that is answered through science. It is measurable and demonstrable which is more humane (once we’ve defined ‘humane’).
The second is an ethical question involving the relative rights of humans and animals, and isn’t so clear.
I will put forward arguments for ‘No’ answers for both of the questions above.
Are halal / kosher slaughter methods more humane than the ‘secular’ standard?
Humane – Minimising the suffering of the animal during the slaughter process.
So, is this first question a straw man? Does anyone actually believe ritual slaughter methods (here I’m talking about non-stunned animals) are more humane than the stunned alternative?
Now, I know the source isn’t highly credible, but this argument appears to be the orthodox stance. As always, I’m open to having my mind changed. Whilst Mo Ansar doesn’t state halal is more humane in the longer article, he does in the tweet.
His argument is deeply flawed and I’m not going to spend time unpicking it, except to say that arguing that prescribed standards not being met somehow makes halal as humane is a non sequitur. It just means controls need to be put in place to ensure standards are being met. A position I totally support.
Mo does think he has evidence on his side. Ignoring the piece of the argument commented on above, he quotes the scientific studies to back up his position. And this IS a scientific argument….
He quotes 4 papers in the last 90 years. I couldn’t find the first 3 papers online. They’re just now referred to when the paper by Schulze (the misspelling isn’t mine) is quoted. This is what proponents of halal slaughter hang their scientific hats on.
What of this paper by Schulze? It was written in 1978 and quoted results of a small study done by a colleague on 15 cattle. An excellent review of this study is here. The bottom line is that this study isn’t good science. Or rather the conclusion of the report isn’t good science. Old EEG (Electroencephalography) equipment, flawed assumptions and small sample sizes eventually persuaded the author himself to distance himself from his own paper in his later years.
What about positive evidence that stunning is more humane?
These are just some of many modern studies. EEG understanding has moved on and scientific consensus (including the British Veterinary Association (BVA)) has now concluded that stunning is more humane than non-stunned ritual slaughter.
The answer to the titular question is a resounding ‘No’.
I hope that those proponents of ritual slaughter can now look beyond the first defence of science (because it is no defence, just confirmation bias and cherry picking on their part) and admit that they want the practice to continue on the grounds of their faiths.
It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that slaughter techniques have improved over the last 1500 years.
Should Muslims / Jews have the right not to adopt the ‘secular’ standard, thus understanding that the methods are sub-optimal for animal welfare?
Given the scientific consensus, we move on to the ethical question. The question here is which scenario gives least suffering to the sentient beings involved.
Obviously, from the point of view of physical harm, the case is clear. It’s only the animals we consider in this scenario and scientists have reached consensus. In purely physical harm terms, it’s clearly unethical to ritually slaughter, rather than stun.
However, this isn’t the only consideration. We must accept that psychological harm can also be inflicted on the humans whose sincerely held beliefs may be being attacked. This is a valid consideration.
Herein lies the moral and ethical conundrum. Does appeasement of sincerely held beliefs in humans outweigh the incremental suffering of animals?
Even though I think reasonable adjustment should be made to accommodate faith, I don’t think this particular accommodation is reasonable.
We know societal pressure have persuaded religions to adapt their interpretations of scriptures on many things over the centuries – slavery, homosexuality, etc all now have much different orthodox interpretations to centuries ago. This has happened more quickly than this particular issue because the suffering of humans outweighs the suffering of animals. This is true, but it is not absolute. Even though I attach more weight to them, a balance still has to be struck.
I believe the alleviation of the incremental harm to the animal does outweigh the ideological belief of a human in a liberal, secular democracy in the 21st century.
As a reasonable accommodation, the ritual element of the slaughter should be allowed post-stun, when the animal is unconscious. Proper best practices and stunning methods should be enforced throughout the industry and proper monitoring should be put in place. Once the stun is effectively and professionally performed, religious minorities should be free to practise whichever final slaughter method appeases their conscience.
I accept that some people won’t agree with this view (religious and not). Let’s make sure we continue the dialogue and this is an ethical, not a scientific, discussion. The science is clear and unlikely to change.
PS For the record I think, with the advancement of artificial meat technologies and availability of other protein sources, that this will be an issue our descendants will look back in 500 years and say ‘They used to eat animals!?!?’.
Further Reading
A (slightly) opposing and well argued view – Matthew Scott (@BarristerBlog), here.
A more detailed & politically astute view – Rye Zuul Iblis (@RyeZuul), here.
Sci-Lo Green's Blog 
It was thirty years ago (I used to work for the Ministry of Agriculture), but I have seen this done in an abattoir in New Zealand. Here, the animals are stunned BEFORE they are ritually slaughtered. That meat was exported to the Middle East, and the meat was considered to meet religious requirements – there was considerable discussion with theologians of Islam before the practice was introduced. I assume (and hope) it is still being done that way. If it can be done here, I don’t see why it isn’t done elsewhere too.
LikeLike
Like a lot a ethical issues, New Zealand are at the forefront. Here in the UK, 80% of animal are pre-stunned before ritual slaughter. Not so, of course, areas of high Muslim population (ie Middle East, Indonesia). So, whilst I focussed on the UK, I was trying to make a general ethical argument.
Some Scandinavian countries have legally enforced a pre-stun already.
Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
Doesn’t this argument assume that stunning is always effective? In how many cases does stunning not work properly? And what happens to animals that are mis-stunned and then slaughtered in the secular way? How long does it take for them to die versus being slaughtered in the religious manner? Then you can compare animal welfare. Or become a vegetarian.
LikeLike
There are lots of cases of bad practice in the industry. I accept that and hope I made clear in the piece that standards should rise for my argument to hold. Theoretically, I think the argument is sound.
LikeLike
It doesn’t assume that stunning is always effective at all, to think it should is a false equivalence.
Many advocates for ritual slaughter make the point that it is a religious requirement to treat animals well, and might paint a picture of the farmer leading his animal to be slaughtered with a sharp knife. Again this is false equivalence.
In the UK we have industrialised slaughter, necessary to feed millions of people. Within such an industry it is inevitable that we will have many cases of deliberate or negligent cruelty, whether religious or not. Scilogreen is correct to point out that the example of Bowood is no argument against ritual slaughter, just as a negligent non-religious abattoir would be no argument for it.
We have industrialised slaughter, we can argue whether we should but we have, and within that context we should compare like for like, and the evidence is absolutely clear.
Thank you scilogreen for your excellent summary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not talking about deliberate or negligent cruelty. I am talking about the normal failure rate of industrialised slaughter. And every process has some level of failure.
What is the effect on the animal when it does go wrong? What is the evidence there? When I’ve looked previously I’ve found it hard to come by.
a) How long does it take before the animal is killed while it is in the failed stunned state and what pain is it experiencing during that time?
b) How much pain does the industrialised slaughter process inflict on the animal while it is in the non-stunned state?
c) How many animals does this affect?
d) What is an “acceptable” level of failure in terms of the humanity of this method?
e) How does this compare to the religious method of slaughter?
These questions seem perfectly valid to me in terms of determining the equivalence of the humanity of these different methods of slaughter.
LikeLike
A more relevant question is:
What is the incidence of stun failure compared to the failure rate of ‘perfect’ ritual slaughter?
But generally I agree all factors need to be weighed up.
LikeLike
As I said above, I have seen this happening and worked the the Ministry of Agriculture. Also, I come from a family of multiple sheep, cattle and dairy farmers. In a well-regulated industry, where those regulations are enforced, the picture is not the potential horror story you paint. I do not know how the industry is regulated in Britain, or how the government enforces the regulations. However, you can be assured that any horror story in NZ would soon be leaked and there would be a public uproar, which is why in this particular industry at least, I’m confident it’s not happening. Therefore, I know it can be done without undue suffering to the animals. Of all the animals I’ve seen stunned and slaughtered, and it’s a lot, I never saw one where the stun didn’t work. They go up a chute where their heads are held steady, so it’s easy to apply the stun, and the slaughter is immediate. The stun is so strong, “waking up” is all but impossible too,
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you have to look at the whole process, success and failure, and at different points in the process. Not just stun failure versus religious slaughter failure. Googling for evidence (perhaps not very scientific but the best method I have available) what strikes me is that the various methods of stunning poultry sheep and cows seem to be far from 100% effective. Factors such as how dehydrated an animal is affects how well they are electrocuted for example. How is that taken into account in a fast moving slaughter house? Since the animal is then rendered senseless or is meant to be so, it must be conveyed to be exsanguinated. If it is indeed properly stunned then it doesn’t matter so much how that is done – shackled and hanging upside down for example, but if it is not fully stunned then how humane is that method of conveying the animal if in a conscious or semi-conscious state? Another question is how long the animal remains senseless before being exsanguinated. One report suggested that the length of time between stun and exsanguination was too long and that the animal could regain consciousness while being conveyed and even during exsanguination. Finally how does the method of exsanguination in a factory performing post stun secular slaughter compare with religious slaughter. Are they the same or do they differ? And if they differ in what ways do they differ in method and speed of exsanguination?
Almost everyone would agree it is more humane to slaughter an animal while it is senseless than when it is fully conscious. That’s a non-question in my opinion. For me the question is whether it is more humane to slaughter a conscious animal by religious slaughter than by a secular slaughter method (which may or may not be as quick as the religious method) when in (let’s say) 10% of cases the animal might be fully sensible to pain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand your point. All processes must be viewed in the round. And if some processes aren’t up to scratch, new processes, standards and technology may need to be created. When I talk about ‘weighing’ the argument, this is what I mean; all pros & cons accounted for.
However, whilst the humaneness of senseless versus conscious is clear cut to you, certainly others think differently.
LikeLike
I don’t see how it can ever be more humane when the animal is conscious, because pain must exist. 10% failure of stunning is impossible via the method I know of. Failure of stunning is extremely rare when done properly by an experienced person, as it should be in a properly regulated industry, Further, the actual slaughter is also done by someone who is trained and does it hundreds of times a day, so their methods are far less likely to be botched than an inexperienced or less experienced person. All these matters were debated at length by vets before the practice was introduced here, so there are probably papers available. Of course, we’re talking the early 1980s, so finding the info on the internet might be difficult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some interesting data points here: http://barristerblogger.com/2015/02/10/religious-slaughter-not-banned/
Somewhere between 100,000 (4%) and 400,000 (16%) cows are mis-stunned in the UK based on estimated failure rates.
“If not stunned properly, a cow may be conscious, or become conscious during the next stage of slaughter, as a chain is attached to its leg and it is hoisted into the air before having its neck slashed.”
That compares with 78,000 cows slaughtered by professional Jewish slaughters in the UK.
While campaigning against both improved stunning methods and against non-prestunned slaughter is a valid position to take, in my experience process improvement generally goes for the easy win. My concern is that banning non-prestun slaughter will be based on ease of regulation, least cost, the needs of big business, dare I even say anti-religious sentiment, rather than science, logic, and reason.
And a good dollop of cognitive dissonance.
For example, in Sweden, where Shechita is banned, 100,000 moose are shot each year by 250,000 amateur hunting enthusiasts. Yet there’s very little data I can find on moose welfare.
In an age when most of us like our meat to be neatly laid out in polystyrene trays covered with cellophane wrapping and to look as little like the original animal as possible, we don’t want to think about how it got there.
We love our labels to tell us how healthy or unhealthy products are for us. Or when we should throw them away rather than risk eating them. So labelling meat with a simple message “pre-stunned before slaughter” is just another piece of consumer information in the name of “choice”. It assuages our conscience. The animal was oblivious to pain when it was killed. The market decides. And non-pre-stunned killing disappears. We save 78,000 cows from Jewish religious slaughter without pre-stunning while the mis-stunning of many more continues.
But such labelling doesn’t tell the full story. What if the label said “pre-stunned with 96% certainty before slaughter”? What if the label added the method of pre-stunning too? And the method of slaughter whether pre-stunned or not.
Meat packaging would become more like cigarette packaging, many of us might become vegetarians and in the process help save the planet.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.VNs67CzroXg
That’s it from me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve read, and left a comment on that (very good) piece. Thanks for taking the time to engage and putting forward rational and interesting perspectives.
LikeLike