Label religious slaughtered meat – UK minister
Meat that has been slaughtered in a religious way should be clearly labelled, according to the UK Food and Farming minister.
His comments came as the European Parliament prepared to debate the highly controversial issue, with a late amendment to a food labelling bill being described by a leading Jewish organisation as “the 21st century equivalent of the yellow star, but on our food”.
Being angry at such a biased move is an understatement.
Jim Paice, the food and farming minister, has told The Daily Telegraph that he would like to introduce a labelling system that allows consumers to see whether meat has been stunned or not before it has been slaughtered.
Failure to stun is legal under religious freedom laws. A relatively small, but increasing, proportion of Halal slaughterings and all Shechita – the Jewish method – slit the animals’ throats while they are still conscious.
Vets and animal welfare campaigners say that refusal to stun an animal before it its throat is cut leads to “unacceptable levels of suffering and pain”. Mr Paice said: “We think this is a welfare issue not a religious one.”
A recent study by the European Union has indicated that at least a quarter of million animals are slaughtered without being stunned in Britain each year. Meat industry insiders believe the figure is at least half a million.
This week Struan Stevenson, a Conservative MEP, has tabled an amendment to a European Parliament food labelling bill which proposes that meat should carry the following label “This product comes from an animal slaughtered by the Halal method” or “This product comes from an animal slaughtered by the Shechita method”.
This puts him at loggerheads with Mr Paice and The Depart of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which believes that the labelling issue should avoid religious references and only make clear whether it has not been stunned.
Mr Paice said: “We are not going ban slaughter without stunning. I believe in an ideal world it shouldn’t happen, we don’t particularly like it, but we are prepared to tolerate it on religious grounds. But consumers have a right to be informed.
“Once you start using religious terms, you invite all sorts of challenge and of course the term Halal doesn’t make clear whether it has been stunned or not.”
Last year it emerged that a number of outlets, from Waitrose to Domino’s Pizza, were selling Halal meat. All New Zealand lamb, for instance, is automatically Halal. All the supermarkets declared that the meat, though not labelled, had come from abattoirs that had stunned the animals before slaughter.
However, the issue is complicated by the fact that under Shechita, the back legs of animals are not kosher, meaning these cuts of meat – slaughtered without stunning – are then sold off to the general market, ending up in butchers’ shops and catering outlets.
Shimon Cohen of Shechita UK, which represents the Jewish community, said the European proposal was “the 21st century equivalent of the yellow star, but on our food”.
In a letter to Mr Stevenson, he said: “If you were labelling every other form of slaughter, religious and secular, including stunning methods and incidences of mis-stunning then we would accept that this was a fairer form of labelling. But as your amendment stands, it is discrimination of the most direct kind.”
Mr Stevenson said: “I am deeply offended when anyone who says I am being anti-Jewish. My concerns are entirely from an animal welfare perspective because the vast majority of kosher meat is sold on to the non kosher market and just as you label the meat (as kosher) so the main market deserves to know what it is buying.”
By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor, The Daily Telegraph
About admin
We are a group of passionate enthusiasts keen to trigger even the smallest of change for a better tomorrow. Email us at info@hmedia.my.
Pingback: Halal Media
Pingback: HalalSME
Pingback: Halal Media
Oh for heaven’s sake! Discrimination my aunt fanny. If people who already wear their religion like a badge anyway (special little hats or skull caps, black hats and beards and curly sideburns, hijab, niqab, burqua, separate toilets, special prayer rooms and so on and so on)are afraid of being held accountable for the way they insist on their food being prepared and certain bits “unclean” or whatever, they need to get with the programme and allow the rest of us, the majority, the right to informed choice if we are not supportive of their slaughter methods. This is mainly (for many) an animal welfare issue, but those who practise other faiths devoutly should be accorded the same amount of respect in being allowed to know whether prayers to deities to whom they do not show their allegience are being uttered over the food they eat. It’s time the rest of us became as precious as they are and stood up for ourselves long and loud.
You know Tania, God did not create everybody similar nor equal. Some want only good clean food, some couldn’t care less. Some prefer to cover up only for their spouses, some prefer to expose everything publicly. And some have higher IQ than others, allowing them to see and understand why God has created variances in this world and accept these differences as God’s grand masterplan. Read: http://halalmedia.my/seeking-guidance-from-the-book-of-haram
If you accept this, then you would understand that nobody should ever be forced “to get with the programme” and allow the majority to rule over the minorities, let alone dictate their lifestyle choices over others. That would simply be evil and unjustified, don’t you agree?