Archives for H-CONSUMER
True fact: Commercial breads contain human hair harvested in China
If you read the ingredients label on a loaf of bread, you will usually find an ingredient listed there as L-cysteine.
This is a non-essential amino acid added to many baked goods as a dough conditioner in order to speed industrial processing. It’s usually not added directly to flour intended for home use, but you’ll find it throughout commercial breads such as pizza dough, bread rolls and pastries.
The hair is dissolved in acid and L-cysteine is isolated through a chemical process, then packaged and shipped off to commercial bread producers. Besides human hair, other sources of L-cysteine include chicken feathers, duck feathers, cow horns and petroleum byproducts.
Hair, however, is not the only commercial source of l-cysteine. Poultry feathers also contain substantial amounts of l-cystine, and are often processed in the same manner as hair for this purpose. While the thought of eating dissolved hair might make some people uneasy, most Western consumers ultimately have no principled objections doing so. For Jews and Muslims, however, hair-derived L-cysteine poses significant problems.
Muslims are forbidden from eating anything derived from a human body, and many rabbis forbid hair consumption for similar reasons. Even rabbis who permit the consumption of hair would forbid it if it came from corpses – and since much L-cysteine comes from China, where sourcing and manufacturing practices are notoriously questionable, this is a real concern. In one case, a rabbi forbade the consumption of L-cysteine because the hair had been harvested during a ritual at a temple in India.
By Vegetarian Resource Group
The VRG recently surveyed food ingredient manufacturers and suppliers as well as bread and bagel companies to find out if the animal sources of the common amino acid dough conditioner and human and pet food reaction flavor used to make flavor enhancers, L-cysteine, were still dominant in the marketplace as they were in 2007 when we last reported on L-cysteine. The answer was a resounding “yes.”
One leading amino acid supplier reported to us in February 2011 that “duck feathers or human hair” were the sources, based on an official statement received from its Chinese supplier.
A product manager with another food ingredients company reported to The VRG in August 2010 that “it’s not human hair, not duck feathers, that’s the major source of L-cysteine today; it’s hog hair.” He estimated hog hair to be the source of 90% of the Chinese L-cysteine supply.
A manager of company that produces non-animal L-cysteine stated in September 2010 that the major animal source of L-cysteine today was “human hair mostly” followed by “duck feathers or hog hair when the human hair supply was low.” According to this source, feathers and hog hair “are reportedly inefficient compared to [human] hair [in yielding great quantities of L-cysteine]. So if there is a problem with hair [supply], then hog hair or feathers may be a backup.”
In September 2010, the VRG asked companies that produce non-animal versions of L-cysteine how their product was doing on the market. Estimates given by the leading companies put the vegetable-based fermentation or synthetic product at approximately 10% of the L-cysteine market today. The reason given for the low market share is the high price of non-animal L-cysteine (two to three times as much) compared to the much cheaper and much more plentiful Chinese (and Indian, to a lesser but growing degree), supply.
A second reason given is that a growing number of food companies are demanding a “natural” product and a “synthetic” L-cysteine does not meet that criterion. Furthermore, a major reseller of L-cysteine told us in September 2010 that the company policy is to label anything using an animal-derived (i.e., hair or feathers) L-cysteine as “non-vegetarian” even though it is still technically “vegetarian” and considered “natural.” Their labeling decision was precautionary in response to those who prefer to avoid all animal-sourced ingredients. (Note: one company does sell an L-cysteine manufactured through microbial fermentation and another is in the process of developing their own fermentation technique. The latter company estimates that it may take two-three years to perfect the process on an industrial scale and then bring it to market.)
By Mike Adams, Editor of NaturalNews.com. View source
Related:
Shocking Ingredient in Bread That’s Problematic for Jews and Muslims
Filet O-Fish buns in France contaminated with pork?
By Horizontal Perspective
Muslim tourists beware: the next time you visit France, do not think you can take refuge by ordering the traditionally “halal safe” Filet O-Fish at the nearest McDonald’s as the buns (yes, you read it right – buns!) may just contain pork.
As reported by Al Kanz, a popular French Halal consumer site, although the buns themselves are not made of pork, its local supplier East Balt also makes buns for McBacon sandwiches which do contain pork.
Since East Balt cannot safely guarantee that there will not be any cross contamination, they have listed pork on the bun’s packaging as required by law (see article below). It is therefore safe to assume that even the fish fillets at all French McDonald’s are not safe for Muslim consumption.
Here’s the original article by Al Kanz:
“Produced in a factory that uses sesame, pork” As you can see it is indicated on the label of some of the buns sold in McDonald’s, which are used for the fish-fillet!
In January 2011, our post McDonald’s: bacon in your fish-fillet? attracted a few scathing comments from some of our readers, accusing us of being excessive. We were, at that time, pointing out at not only possible but also real contaminations. Here’s what we wrote:
This was quickly confirmed by former McDonald employees. Nothing surprising since it all makes sense. However, it is going to be far more difficult to refute the following elements that are in this case undeniable: some hamburger buns that are sold in McDonald’s restaurants can contain pork, as you can see it is indicated on the label «produced in a factory that uses sesame, pork».
Hence the expression ”may contain” actually clarifies a fact rather than reveal an uncertainty, since the supplier has a legal obligation of mentioning it on the label that pork may enter the composition of some of McDonald’s buns and that nothing in the manufacturing process is done to make sure that it does not happen.
In other words, when East Balt (the supplier), makes the buns, pork can sometimes break into the production chain. As long as it is mentioned on the package label the manufacturer can’t be blamed.
When mentioned on the label, the probability of finding one of the ingredients is high. Hence the precautions that people who are allergic to gluten, peanuts, aspirin, etc. must take. In the case of an allergy, allergen and any material whose use can have serious and sometimes fatal consequences, no one will deny that these labeling conditions are necessary to stop us from eating a product because we know the hazardous ingredient is present. In the case of pork, there are always objections, excuses, false arguments.
Let’s have a look at the elements we have on the McDonald buns packaging:
If we zoom in:
Even better!
Last October, we tried to learn more about it by calling East Balt in Fleury Mérogis, Essonne (France). We started by asking for more information about the fat acid monoglyceride E472 in that particular bread [East Balt updated it at 12:45 on the 24th of January: the company said that the E472 in the bread was of plant origin] but we didn’t get any answer to our question about possible pork presence. They promised to call us back, but we haven’t heard from them since.
But I only took a breef inspection of the company’s website to confirm the presence of pork on the production lines. In the « Products » section of its website, here’s what we found:
Zooming in, we can see that pig processed as bacon, is actually part of the ingredients handled in the plant.
Regarding the previous label, they are for all McDonald’s King Size breads, the cheese sandwiches, McBacon. So far no problem if you do not consume halal meat. What is problematic, however, is that it also affects the Royal-O-fish, the fish burger.
But also the Regular breads, and thus the famous Fish-fillet, typicaly consumed by Muslims who are fond of McDonald’s hamburgers.
The lesson we can draw from this, is that we must always check what’s on our plate before eating. The McDonald case is certainly going to provoke a large reaction, because the brand is iconic and the Fish-fillet is widely consumed by Muslims. But actually it is our food and consumption habits that we have to reconsider. But this does not mean that we have to become Sherlock Holmes or fall into a state of psychosis when it comes to swallowing something.
Still we must keep in mind that not verifing food carries the risk of eating a product that may be present. The most concerned ones should read the book Toxic Food by William Reymond. You will never look at mass-produced food like you did before.
Finally, dear readers, please consider that this article is by no means sufficient evidence. Please go as quickly as possible into the nearest McDonald’s restaurant and ask to see the packaging of the bread we talked about. Do not trust Al-Kanz, check for yourself.
Re-blogged with kind permission from AlKanz.org.
A perspective on Halal and shechita slaughter
By Mohammed.Amin.com | Fresh thinking from a British Muslim
Shechita is the technical term for slaughtering an animal in accordance with Jewish religious law so that its meat is kosher, assuming that the animal itself falls within the categories which are permissible to be eaten by Jews such as sheep and cows. The equivalent technical term in Islam is zabihah, but as its usage in English is less common, in this page I have used the phrase “halal slaughter”. In both cases the animal is killed by having its throat cut.
Judaism is clear that the animal must not be stunned before it is killed. Amongst Muslims, some consider pre-stunning to be permissible while others regard it as prohibited. My own view, which I believe is the majority view amongst Muslims, is that pre-stunning is not permissible.
From time to time shechita and halal slaughter become an issue in politics and the media. The issues tend to fall into the following categories:
2. Attempts to require the compulsory labelling of excess kosher or halal meat which is sold into the mainstream food chain in a particular manner. This was the case with the recent EU initiative which looks as if it has been shelved.
3. Objections to halal meat being served in certain institutional settings.
Are shechita and halal slaughter cruel?
It is frequently alleged that shechita and halal slaughter cause suffering to the animal compared with killing the animal using other means such as a captive bolt fired into the brain.
Several decades ago, in 1978, Wilhelm Schulze and his colleagues, and published a paper in German, in the journal Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift which summarised various pieces of research into the cruelty issue. I received a photocopy several years ago, and an English translation is available on the internet.
The research involved inserting electrodes into the brains of animals, waiting until the electrode insertion wounds had healed, and the slaughtering the animals by using a captive bolt or by cutting its throat. It is worthwhile reading the full paper, but I have copied its key conclusions below:
As part of the research project the effectiveness of captive bolt stunning was first analysed using EEG. Comparable data about the ritual slaughter were then gained using the same method of deduction and evaluation.
The ritual cut experiments were carried out on 17 sheep of the breed “black headed meat sheep” and 15 calves of various breeds.
To further investigate the occurrence of low frequency potentials in sheep stunned by captive bolt followed by a bloodletting cut, six sheep were stunned in a second phase of the experiment by captive bolt and then bled at various intervals.
The approach of these studies can be summarised as follows:
Experiments for measuring the heart frequency and brain activity during slaughter conditions were carried out on 23 sheep and 15 calves. After implanting permanent electrodes into the Os frontale the cerebral cortex impulses were measured for 17 sheep and 10 calves during ritual slaughter and for 6 sheep and 5 calves during captive bolt application with subsequent bloodletting. Some sheep were additionally subjected to thermal pain stimuli after the ritual cut.
The investigations had the following results:
For slaughter by ritual cut:
After the bloodletting cut the EEG initially is the same as the EEG before the cut. There is a high probability that the loss of reaction took place within 4 – 6 seconds for sheep and within 10 seconds for calves.
The zero line in the EEG was recorded no later than after 13 seconds for 17 sheep and no later than 23 seconds for 7 calves.
Thermal pain stimuli did not cause an increase in activity.
After the cut the heart frequency rose for calves within 40 seconds to 240 heart actions per minute and for sheep within 40 seconds to 280 heart actions per minute.
For slaughter after captive bolt application:
After captive bolt stunning all animals displayed most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.
The zero line in the EEG was reached for 4 calves after 28 seconds.
For two sheep the cerebral cortex activity only stopped in one half of the brain, whilst it continued in the other in the –region (up to 3.5 Hz) until the bloodletting cut.
The bloodletting cut resulted for all animals in a brain activity (e and d waves).
Thermal pain stimuli caused an increase in activity in one sheep.
The heart frequency rose directly after stunning to values above 300 actions per minute.
In summary the following conclusions are possible:
Slaughter after captive bolt stunning
Calves - After captive bolt stunning most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) occurred in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.
Sheep - Similar disturbances were also seen in sheep, but besides the somewhat higher frequency there are still clearly superimposed waves. For one animal waves could be recorded after pain stimuli until after the 200th second. Apparent cramps were registered for all sheep with the exception of one animal.
Slaughter in the form of ritual cut
Calves - After the bloodletting cut loss of reaction (loss of consciousness) occurred with high probability within 10 seconds. A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal. For 7 animals a zero EEG was recorded no later than after 23 seconds. Cramps occurred in the animals regularly only after the brain currents had stopped.
Sheep - After the bloodletting cut loss of reaction (loss of consciousness) occurred after 10 seconds the latest. A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal. The zero line was recorded no later than 14 seconds after the cut. Cramps only occurred after the zero line had been detected and were much shorter than after captive bolt stunning.
The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions.
During the experiments with captive bolt stunning no indications could be found for proscribing this method for calves.
For sheep, however, there were in parts severe reactions both to the bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli. A proof of the reliable effectiveness of captive bolt stunning could not be provided using the methods applied.”
The American Temple Grandin is an expert on animal welfare in the context of large scale slaughter. On her website she has written extensively on “ritual slaughter practices” and in particular addressed some studies that purport to show that shechita and halal slaughter are cruel.
In my view, the animal welfare argument that shechita and halal slaughter cause excessive suffering to animals is not well founded. The best evidence indicates that shechita and halal slaughter are not cruel, and certainly no crueller, than other methods of slaughter used in the meat industry.
Would animal welfare grounds justify a ban anyway?
This question is a difficult one philosophically and rarely discussed.
There are those who argue that humans should not kill animals for food in any circumstances. While they are entitled to be vegetarians, I do not think they have the right to enforce vegetarianism on other people.
Observant Muslims and Jews are quite clear that if an animal is not slaughtered in the religiously mandated manner, then its meat cannot be eaten. Accordingly, if shechita and halal slaughter were banned, they would be forced to give up eating meat. While animals should not be subjected to avoidable pain and suffering, the rights (if animals are accepted as having any rights) of animals are clearly significantly less than the rights of humans; after all we kill and eat animals but do not allow animals to eat humans!
Accordingly, I would require overwhelming evidence of significant extra pain and suffering to the animals concerned before even engaging in any discussion of whether some humans (comprising over 20% of the human race) should be banned from killing animals in the only manner that they regard as religiously appropriate. No such overwhelming evidence of significant extra pain exists, so there is no need to attempt to conclude on the question itself.
Halal meat in certain institutional settings
A little while ago, the Daily Mail newspaper carried a series of articles under the theme Halal Britain.
Its article on 19 September 2010 Britain goes halal… but no-one tells the public: How famous institutions serve ritually slaughtered meat with no warning made the point that many establishments use halal food without telling their customers. That included some chains owned by Whitbread.
Its piece on 25 January 2011 Halal Britain: Schools and institutions serving up ritually slaughtered meat mentioned that:
There are two distinct issues which need to be considered separately.
1. Use of halal food without notifying the customer
This is clearly not done for the benefit of Muslim customers. As a Muslim eating in a Whitbread Premier Inn hotel, I have no way of knowing that the chicken on the menu might be halal, and therefore will avoid it.
As the Whitbread spokesman quoted above made clear, in such cases meat is purchased from a supplier on grounds of price and quality, and the supplier just happens to be halal. It is up to the organisation and its customers whether the establishment mentions that the meat is halal. Most customers (excluding Jews and Muslims) do not care either way, although the inflammatory language of the Daily Mail stories is clearly trying to create a groundswell of opinion against the use of halal meat.
If a customer does care whether the meat is halal, they should ask the institution. If they are told it is halal, they can then choose to go elsewhere, which is exactly the same decision Jews and Muslims make every day in reverse.
2. Use of halal food in schools and sometimes other institutions, where it is labeled as such
In these cases the halal food is clearly being supplied for the benefit of the Muslim schoolchildren.
My view is that the correct course of action depends on the numbers. When I attended secondary school, perhaps 1% (or less) of the children in my school were Muslims. Obviously none of the meat was halal, and as part of a tiny minority I would not expect halal food to be provided. I spent my school days eating packed lunches.
Conversely if say 90% of the children in a school are Muslims, then the school should provide halal meat. In most cases it will not be cost effective or practical to also provide non-halal meat for those pupils who are both non-Muslim and who do not wish to eat halal meat. I do not regard it as unreasonable to give non-Muslims the choice of eating the halal meat on offer, or eating something else, since practicality requires catering for the majority, as in my school days.
My rights were not infringed when I was at school, and the rights of non-Muslim pupils in the circumstances above are not being infringed today. It is simply a case of considering what is practical and cost effective.
Conclusions
In my view there are no grounds for banning shechita and halal slaughter. While this conclusion might be expected since I am a Muslim, I believe that I would hold the same view even if I became an atheist tomorrow; I simply believe that the rights of humans come before the rights of animals.
Customers have a right to know if they are being served kosher or halal meat. They may have an ethical or religious objection to eating it. It is up to the establishment whether it gives an advance notice or responds to questions from those who care about the issue. However it should be recognised that, absent newspaper campaigns about halal food, few non-Jews or non-Muslims express much concern about whether the meat they are being served has been killed using shechita or halal slaughter.
Whether an institutional caterer serves meat which is expressly stated to be non-kosher/halal or is expressly stated to be halal/kosher depends upon the needs of the people eating there. Where they are majority Jewish or Muslim, it is entirely reasonable for the establishment to serve kosher/halal meat respectively, even if that means the minority of non-Jews/Muslims cannot eat the meat. It is the mirror image of the situation that prevails when Jews/Muslims are in the minority.
Halal Horror Stage Act
by Black Sabbath
- Macaulay Culkin’s shocked face, from home alone DVD cover – get it at Amazon.com, and learn few tricks against forceful invasion from stealing your natural resources.
The selected news below illustrate that there are ‘some non-Muslims’ in a really ‘furious’ mode, like ready-to-bomb-all-McD-outlets-across-Europe furious. They are furious ‘cos the news said so. It painted a picture as though the consumers don’t have a choice for non-Halal fast food.
But McD have already told the consumers that they do have a choice; since there are more conventional normal food as compared to Halal or Kosher or Vegie out there on this planet. And also, “customers who did not want halal food should buy from any of its (McD) other stores.” as the news reported.
That’s a simple solution innit? Very simple – just avoid the food with Halal, Kosher or Vegie logo. Like that. But the news said they are ‘furious’… So the horror is not about how the consumers are reacting to something, but how news agencies exploited them, even there’s only one of them ‘furious’ dude. To make the news sounds ‘horrifying’ and could start a genocide, which would sell more news. Money-money-moneeeyyy…. Below are the news…
However some non-Muslim customers are furious they were not told their hamburger meat was slaughtered and blessed in accordance with Islamic rules laid down in the Koran.
McDonald’s consulted Muslim leaders before introducing halal products at its Brunswick East and St Albans stores. Halal meat is from animals that have been killed facing Mecca and blessed using the name of Allah. Brunswick East store assistant manager Nicholas Yacoub said the move had attracted a surge of new customers.
“It has pretty much doubled our sales,” Mr Yacoub said. The store does not tell drive-through customers about the change and has only one small sign inside advertising the move.
Coburg resident Miriam McLennan was stunned to discover the hamburger she bought from the Brunswick East store was blessed.
“Just as a Muslim would not want to eat anything that isn’t halal… I should have my rights to eat normal, ordinary food that hasn’t been blessed,” she said.
A Catholic Church spokesman said non-Muslims deserved to know if the food was halal before buying. But he said there was no biblical reason for Christians to avoid halal food. A McDonald’s spokeswoman said customers who did not want halal food should buy from any of its other stores.
Below is the observation of the ‘furious’ scenario after the news report, from Australabe.com. Included are some of the readers’ comments which are pretty interesting. Read below…
In the last couple of weeks, there have been three stories about companies selling halal products and apparently distressing some of their non-Muslim consumers.
Firstly, we have a McDonalds store in Melbourne that, shortly before Ramadan, decided to use halal meat for their products. There is a sign on the wall next to the counter that advises that the products are now halal and have been certified by some organisation but perhaps some customers may have missed it.
Secondly, we have Red Rooster, a chain of fried chicken stores, that has apparently started using halal meat too.
As MX reports: “If Red Rooster has made the decision to make all of their chicken halal that’s appalling, because people need choice. We think many Christians would be offended if they went into Red Rooster and had to eat halal meat,” said Australian Christian Lobby spokesman David Yates.
Finally, we have A Current Affair running a story about Nestle who have decided to include a stamp denoting halal certification on their products too. In this case, the stamp means that the products don’t contain pork, alcohol or non-halal meat products. Unlike the other two examples, there hasn’t been a change of product.
Not withstanding the outrage — real and manufactured — that this news has generated, it should be remembered that for each of these companies it is a commercial decision. They are seeking to capture a new market (Muslims) and expand sales of their product. In the case of the McDonalds stores, it has certainly been beneficial and they have increased sales as a result. Given companies have no obligation or responsibility other than to make a profit for their shareholders, the only possible complaint that can be made is that the decision has somehow reduced sales or they didn’t recognise the opportunity earlier.
The whole issue of halal certification is somewhat questionable but we’ll leave that for another post at another time, but suffice to say, I don’t see anything objectional about the manner in which the animals are slaughtered. They are not slaughtered in the name of the Prophet Muhammad or anything other than God alone: in the case of a chicken, a mechanical blade slices whilst a Muslim recites Bismillah (In the name of God) and Allahu Akbar (God is Great).
However, if some Christians don’t want to eat such foods then that is their choice and we should respect it. Just as Muslims should not feel compelled to eat forbidden foods, these Christians shouldn’t feel compelled to eat halal food. In fact, Christians and other non-Muslims who feel offended by halal foods should therefore welcome the labeling of each of these products; it will make it much easier for them to know which products to avoid when shopping or looking to dine out at McDonalds.
Selected Readers’ Comments
#1 – From Hus
it will make it much easier for them to know which products to avoid when shopping or looking to dine out at McDonalds.
LOL good point
#2 – From Martijn
Very interesting, the Netherlands recently faced the same issue with the main food chain Albert Heijn. It took place during the last election campaign in ‘Albert Heijn’was forced to withdrew its selection of halal products from stores after receiving 5000 protest emails through the Party for the Animals website. The emails sharply expressed the public outrage; namely the demand of Islamic law that halal meat be produced without the use of anaesthesia when killing animals.
People were probably also offended because Albert Heijn was not clear on this issue (which I can imagine; i agree with you that people should be able to make a choice and therefore they have a right to know). And perhaps also because they found out that the Netherlands is one of the main exporting countries when it comes down to halal meat.
After the incident Albert Heijn stopped selling halal meat from animals that were not sedated. This led one of the national Muslim organizations to the conclusion that people should not buy it anymore because it did not meet the criteria for being halal.
#3 – From Gavin
The wider Australian community would be well served to pull its collective head in on this one. halal meat exports provide a huge chunk of Australia’s meat trade, without which many cattle and sheep farmers would not have a livelihood, just ask grain farmers who lose important markets such as Iraq, and as for Christian pastors who find this offensive to eat meat blessed in the name of God, I suggest they are 1500 years too late to introduce dietary code into their religion.
I would invite them to chill out take a back rub, just like Pastor Ted here.
#4 – From Fatima
I wonder what they will do if they find out most Nandos are actually halal as well.
#5 – From Shadower
Yes, Nando’s has been halal for ages.
Gavin made a good point. Australia’s Halal meat trade is growing, and the city of Hume is aiming to become the center of it in Melbourne with the local council supporting it strongly considering how great it would be for the local economy.
Australia has great potential to tap into the halal trade considering the region we are in.
#6 – From Hus
Oportos is halal too.
#7 – From Tobias
I want to add my voice to the ridicule of the australian christian lobby, who appear to make up religious doctrine based on the prevailing public mood.
After discarding jewish dietary law 2000 years ago, they can not issue a press release and say that it is now impermissible to eat meat blessed in the name of G-D. What sort of religion do they practice? do they read the opinion section of the daily telegraph and then make doctrine to suit the mood?
what a joke, its OK for a christian to nibble on the testicles of a swine but not to eat halal meat.
david yates needs to take a deep knee bend or a cold shower
#8 – From JDsg
For Australians and New Zealanders coming up north to Singapore and Malaysia on holiday, don’t get too indignant when you find out that virtually all the fast-food restaurants (McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut, LJS, etc.) in these two countries are all halal. You want choice? Go to a non-halal (regular) restaurant.
#9 – From Antiquated Tory
Two issues, one of gross stupidity and one of spirit vs letter of the law.
The objection to eating halal meat because one is Christian is imbecilic and contemptible, as has been commented upon here. I often buy meat from the couple of halal butchers here in Prague simply because it is higher quality (imported from halal slaughterhouses in Germany I expect) and because they are the only butchers in town who understand lamb, and will even bone it for me and crack the bones for stock. Don’t hold your breath asking a Czech butcher to do that.
The second issue mentioned in passing is the anaesthetized (dig my transatlantic spelling) animal for halal/kashreth. The same issue exists in the UK with kosher slaughterhouses and I believe for similar reasons: under Jewish law, the animal must be fully awake and without blemish, etc. Now, the reasons behind a lot of the Jewish slaugher laws are 1) to prevent the consumption of bad meat and 2) to slaughter animals as humanely as possible. I suspect halal operates on a similar logic.
But the laws were set a long, long time ago, and if the gentiles come up with a more humane way of slaughter, shouldn’t we adopt it? (In kosher slaugherhouses there is also an issue with non-sedated animals injuring themselves, rendering their meat trefe. This is both more cruel and more wasteful than modern British or Australian slaughter methods and I cannot understand the justification for it, other than empty piety.)
If the law of long time ago is more humane to animal, why can’t we adopt it? Cos consumers have the rights to choose. It’s not about the law, it’s about consumers. We want what we prefer. We want, and we always want what we want. If the capitalist can’t give what we want, we don’t spend money on them. Capitalist will loose us consumers. On top of the food chain are the capitalist. Who are stupid enough to attack them? Maybe animal rights activist and the news agencies should go attack the capitalist, if they got the balls – IF – but sadly no balls. Capitalist are more smarter and much stronger than the very weak and easily bribed animal rights activist. Plus capitalist only listen to consumers to dominate the market, they have the rights to sell whatever they want – Consumer’s Rights is Consumer’s Rights… Go try tell the Japs to stop eating shark fin soup and whale meat, you’ll find ninjas in your house LOL.
So doesn’t matter if the consumers are Muslim, Shinto, Christian, or Atheist, Consumers always have the rights. Beat that if you can LOL… It’s your rights. You don’t like something, don’t buy, just DIY.
“Its a serious crime, a cruelty and against human’s right when someone says religious slaughter is not right.” – Black Sabbath
FEATURED EVENTS
Upcoming Events
3rd Moscow International Halal Expo (MIHEX 2012) | Thursday, June 7, 2012 | Moscow, Malaysia
-
Pig-laced Golden Churn butter now Halal again
by HM Admin on May 3rd 2012In an unexpected twist of fate, the haram ruling for Golden Churn, which had caused millions in lost profits and untold damages in reputation, have been reversed with immediate effect.
-
Halal is 5% of Malaysia’s total export, minister announced
by HM Admin on March 15th 2012Minister of International Trade and Industry announced Malaysia’s export value for Halal products in 2011 to be RM35.4 billion, or 5.1% of total exports.
-
Malaysia urges French businesses to leverage on MIHAS
by HM Admin on March 12th 2012French businesses can tap into the growing halal market at MIHAS 2012, which will be kicking off its 9th showcase from April 4 to 7 at Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre.
-
French President Panders to the Extreme-Right
by HM Admin on March 9th 2012French economic growth is slowing, unemployment rising. Yet, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy declared “the biggest concern of French people is halal meat.” Who knew?
-
Islam and Animal Welfare – Cruelty to Animals during Transport & Slaughter
by HM Admin on March 14th 2012This well written paper for the OIE World Organisation for Animal Health suggests measures to improve the transportation and slaughtering of animals for Halal.
-
Akhawat – The Abaya Haute Couture
by markpiet on February 18th 2012Akhawat is a designer abaya couture. A premium Muslimah fashion house offering modern abaya – the first in the west to offer customised and sizing of abaya.
-
Is Green Muslim The Hulk?
by markpiet on February 11th 2012Not The Hulk, but The Haq (truth) that link-up the Muslim with nature – a natural reality. Read the words of Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, the Green Muslim superhero.
-
Muslim Trend in Hawaii
by markpiet on February 11th 2012Since 9/11, more have embraced Islam – quite the opposite of Islamophobic’s intentions. Its happening globally, even in remote Hawaii. Say Aloha Islam! Say Alhamdulillah.
-
Korea Street Guide – Halal Korean Food
by markpiet on February 9th 2012Here’s a street wise guide on surviving as a Muslim in Korea who prefers Korean traditional food instead of Pakistani or Indian food which is aplenty.
-
US299.99 for Halal Peacock Meat
by markpiet on February 7th 2012HalalMeatMarket.net in Los Angeles, California, offers Halal California peacock at USD299.99. You can Halal slaughter it yourself at their own slaughter house.
GM Food – Killing Me Softly
by Black Sabbath
Genetically Modified (GM) Food should be tested on babies of the scientists, investors and politicians who produced and support this evil technology to control population. Let them see their babies deformed and die. That would teach them a lesson… Tweaking the nature which are not created by human is dangerous.
It is said that (a media lie) GM technology can sort out hunger in Africa, but truth is it is already creating a huge mess in the U.S. The reason to donate GM food to hungry nations could be to kill its people, and steal their land and natural resources. They thought they are smart in planning, but God is smarter. Consumers should check their food and boycott GM food. Halal cert agency must do a Non-GM labeling.
It’s better to be a sceptic than to become victims of greedy con-men. Defend yourself and your family from the evils of Genetically Modified food. Listed are ten clear dangers of GM foods.
The small amount of information available about genetically modified foods is skewed and not accurate at times. When the application for Roundup Ready genetically modified soybeans was completed for market approval of the soybeans, the information in the application was based on the safety level and compound concentration levels of traditional soybeans and not from testing on the genetically modified version.
One of the biggest dangers with genetically modified foods is that there is no labeling requirements. These foods make up one fourth of the food supply in the United States, and is in more foods than you may think. Without labeling it is impossible to know which foods have higher risks so that you can avoid them and protect the health of your family. Halal, Kosher and Vegetarian certification agency should start doing non-GM labeling for the sake of global consumers.
o3••No Long Term Research
Genetically modified foods have not had long term research done, and very little short term information. The government approved the use of these foods in the food chain under the assumption that the risks were the same as the unmodified plants, and this was a big mistake. The genetic modification done on the plants can have a dramatic effect on the risks and safety concerns, and there is no long term risk information available to determine if these foods have long term risks.
Genetically altering seeds and foods can pose unknown risks of toxins and allergens that have never been present before. This was seen with an L-tryptophan supplement produced in 1989. This supplement caused the death of thirty seven people and affected more than fifteen hundred more. The bacteria used was altered genetically, resulting in a new and toxic amino acid never found in this supplement before.
When genetically modified food crops are fed to animals, the result can be unexpected. When genetically altered soybeans were used as part of the diet for dairy cows, the resulting milk had higher percentages of fat in it. This factor shows that the genetically modified foods should not be considered just as safe as the traditional food.
Glyphosate, which is applied to make crops resistant to weeds, causes higher plant estrogen levels. Estrogen affects all mammals, including humans, especially children. Baby and children are very susceptible to higher estrogen levels, which can be dangerous and pose long term health risks.
o7••Unknown Genetic Effect On Humans
There is no way to tell if genetically modified foods can have an effect on the genetics of people. At first it was believed by scientists and researchers that the modified genes were destroyed during the digestion process, but recently modified food genes have been found in the brains of some infant mice. This can be very dangerous in infants and children, and poses unknown risks for anyone who eats these foods.
Foods which are genetically altered to minimize the need for pesticides can actually cause an increase in chemical use over time and produce insects which become resistant to commonly used pesticides. This can create insect problems that can threaten the food supply and result in food shortages.
Food crops grown from genetically modified seeds can affect the weeds that grow in the same area. Weeds can access the modified genes which make the crops resistant, and after some years the weeds themselves can become resistant. This will mean more chemicals needed, which can affect the safety of the food crops when consumed. Higher chemicals means the food should not be eaten.
With genetically modified foods, there is always a risk of interactions or reactions that have never been seen. This can be an interaction between two different foods with modified genes or between the genes in the food and certain medications. There is not enough evidence because these crops and foods have not been in use long enough, and new varieties are frequently being produced.
………………..
Learn more on GM dangers from www.responsibletechnology.org