Halal meat

Back in January I published a post about 'Laws for some and not for others' and the arguments about Halal meat brought the subject to my attention. My focus then wasn't really Halal meat but the even-handed application of laws. I didn't have enough information to pronounce on Halal meat, now I have a little more knowledge. The Festival of Eid at the end of Hajj took place during my recent visit to Egypt and animals are sacrificed on the first day.

I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of whether we should eat meat or not, I'm a meat-eater and this post is based as follows: we eat meat, in order for us to eat meat animals have to be killed, as they have to be killed then they should be killed in the least distressful way possible. I'm not going to suggest there is a distress-free way because I'm not in a position to know that.

In the UK, animals must be stunned before the throat is cut to reduce suffering to the animal. Blood must be drained from the body before the animal dies or the meat is not fit for marketing, in other words - it is not healthy.

In Egypt it is forbidden to eat animals who have not been drained of blood before being killed. Blood is considered halal; forbidden but, stunning is not allowed because it reduces the heart-rate and the blood does not drain fully.

So, with either method, the animal's throat is cut and it dies of exsanguination to ensure the meat is as free of blood as possible. So the question is whether the animal should be stunned before the throat is cut...or not.

There are several ways of stunning animals and many arguments for and against the different methods, however, they seem to involve some form of technology, electrical-stunnung or stun-gun or gassing. Historically these would not have been available to the Egyptians. Neither would they have been available in the UK and it seems the stunning laws are relatively new, since fact only since the early 1900's.

As well as being the only available way of slaughtering there was also the health implications of un-bled meat. Increased amounts of blood present in meat increase the rate of decay, rendering the mean inedible. In the UK, with our climate, it is not such a problem, in Egypt it is much more of a problem.

So, we have a milder climate meaning less of an imperative to drain meat fully and an earlier introduction to modern stunning methods. We have the luxury of passing the laws that are now in place.

In Egypt there is still a wide-spread lack of effective refridgeration and less access to modern stunning methods. Therefore the live ex-sanguination of animals for meat makes sense.

From what I've seen they take no pleasure from the killing itself and each animal is treated with as much respect and consideration as possible. In the village, which is the only place for me to have observed this, they care for the animals greatly and they are well-looked after. When they are taken for slaughter it is done with the least distress to the animal as possible, the end is brought about quickly by a skilled man with a very sharp knife. I'm told the sudden loss of blood from the brain causes unconsciouness almost immediately.

I know there are also religious arguments for and against halal meat but it's not for me to comment on others' religious beliefs, I prefer to stick to the practical aspects.

All things considered, I have no qualm about eating halal meat in Egypt because it is acceptable within the society. As a meat-eater I believe it would be hypocritical of me to think otherwise. In the UK? Well, as we do not have a refridgeration problem and we have the technology, and as a matter of personal preference, I would like to know any animal I was eating had been stunned first.

As for whether we should allow the Halal method of slaughtering in the UK...the law remains and if it is a good law it should be followed by all, if it is not it should be repealed. No change there!

Laws for some but not for others

I overheard a heated discussion recently about Halal meat and how it is allowed in the UK despite contravening laws regarding the slaughter of animals.

The core of the discussion was whether Halal meat was humane or not. It seems (according the the protagonists) the law states animals must be humanely stunned before they are bled to death. Halal meat must come from animals that are not stunned before they are bled to death. Well, I don't know enough about slaughtering to have a definite view on the subject of Halal meat other than to acknowledge we need meat therefore animals have to be slaughtered and they should be slaughtered in a way to cause least distress. Also, I don't know enough about the law to know if the situation is as stated although I do know it is widely believed, rightly or wrongly. However, I do have definite views about the fairness and compliance of laws. In this example...

If the law is a good law and it is inhumane to kill an animal without stunning it first then it should apply to everyone. The fact that Halal meat is a religious requirement wouldn't make it any less inhumane. On the other hand, if it a bad law and stunning is no more humane than the Halal method, then the law needs to be repealed as pointless and not fit for purpose. However, having a law for humane reasons and allowing some people to be exempt is unfair, divisive and morally wrong.

It's about time those in a position to do so, and with the knowledge to make a balanced judgement should find out the true situation once and for all. Then either repeal the law or enforce it for everyone depending on the outcome. Breaking the law, whatever the law and whatever the reasons, is not acceptable. Bad laws need to be ended; good laws need to be enforced - FOR ALL.