Halal Burger 'Discrimination' Stirs Debate in France

[Scipio]

There is an argument not over taste, but over animal welfare to do with halal meat and, more particularly, kosher meat.

And the argument is ...     

Islam requires the animal to be alive when it's slaughtered and slaughter has to be with a very sharp knife (I believe it's sharpened ever 10 kills) slitting the throat.  In the UK (a major halal meat exporter) though not most of Europe that's taken to mean that general the animal can be stunned and then have its throat slit - though this is a pretty strongly contested bit of Sharia law so both co-exist.  There aren't, alas, any labels to distinguish them.  Judaism is, I believe, more strict and stunning isn't allowed - I think it's largely because the stunners are electric and so cause a blemish on the skin of the animal which is forbidden.

I believe that under British animal welfare law were it not for their religious significance both non-stunned halal butchery and kosher slaughter would be illegal.  Generally non-Halal, non-Kosher meat will come from an animal that was stunned and so died painlessly.  That's especially the case because I believe the slit throat non-stunned method can leave the animal dying for a while.

http://www.grandin.com/ritual/rec.ritual.slaughter.html

This is a good website re: humane ritual slaughter.

[dps]

I really don't care how the animals that die to stock my refrigerator are killed, as long as it's not too unsanitary.

[Martinus]

I really don't care how the animals that die to stock my refrigerator are killed, as long as it's not too unsanitary.

I think we already established in this thread that religious people are idiotic savages - no need to remind us.

[Sheilbh]

I really don't care how the animals that die to stock my refrigerator are killed, as long as it's not too unsanitary.

Well the sanitary angle is the reason for halal and kosher butchery.  In the context of their times slitting the throat of a still living animal with a very sharp knife was best in terms of health of the meat and, actually, in terms of kindness.  The blemish thing, for example, was so that you didn't beat the animal to death which was common.

I do care though.  I think we've got a duty of care and don't think animals should suffer anymore than is strictly necessary during their death.  Similarly I'd support far stricter rules on animal rearing.

[grumbler]

I think we've got a duty of care and don't think animals should suffer anymore than is strictly necessary during their death.  Similarly I'd support far stricter rules on animal rearing.

Having looked into this some more after the last Languish discussion dealing with animal feed, I would say we are past the point of diminishing returns in terms of animal food value per dollar spent raising it, and wouldn't mind seeing some sane laws in that regard... or at least a public awareness program so people know what effect animal husbandry decisions have on the quality of their food.