Ive said it before, I'm against halal and kosher. Animals suffering because of economic viability is one thing, suffering because you haven't got the brains to realise things have moved on past living in a desert without refridgeration is quite another.

There has been calls resisting the labelling of halal and kosher meat, as it's believed it will affect the sale of said meat.

I think that's a valid position. Are you a veggie?

Nope. As I say, treating animals badly because of the costs is one thing, treating them badly because it pleases your imaginary friend is quite another....

_________________
My blog: https://stevenplrose.wordpress.com/

I think it's... no different to other meat, to be honest. If the RSPCA thing that's been passed around is to be believed, it's largely in line with existing legislation as it is. As for Kosher, I believe it's more complex - it's not just the slaughter, it's the cuts, what's removed and so on. Could be wrong, of course, it's me.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

More power to your elbow for descrying a fatuous fairyland reason for religious food laws, but I actually think the jury is out on whether meat slaughtered according to halal is done so any more cruelly than by any other method. In fact, I sense that the difference in terms of cruelty to the beast - you are actually killing it, after all - is so negligible as to be unworthy of concern. See also the Guardian article quoted above about what actually takes place in halal slaughterhouses above.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

Couldn't agree more. But I still avoid any battery-farmed foods whenever possible (and in France that means rabbit and a lot of chicken/eggs). Just because you don't need to cause distress.

Had veal this evening, and it is a great pleasure to see the free-range calves we have here. And the purty lickle lambs, but I can't afford agneau.

There have been studies that show slaughter without stunning causes the animal immence suffering. Just because jewish or muslim groups do a bit of handwaving doesn't get rid of that fact.

If it's not against halal rules to stun the animal, then why not introduce rules saying it has to be stunned, as non religious butchers are bound.

Had a chat with the butcher in a local game shop once. He reckoned that he could tell venison that had been killed without warning with a clean shot, as it would hang happily for 2+ weeks without going off. Anything shot twice, or that had been chased before the kill, went off very quickly. It is caused by the adrenaline, he reckoned. Same must apply to non-stunned food.

But 90%+, according to the study linked, do stun. It must be very hard to verify whether one's meat was killed humanely, religious or otherwise, so surely it's a near-moot issue?

As for the against the rules thing; Well, it's like many religious laws - it's not always followed to the letter. Some leaders will say stunning is fine, some won't. What happened, I assume, is that an allowance was made for religious groups, but they appear to use a combination of both laws - stun and then apply the religious procedure (or in the kosher way, vice versa - procedure then stun)

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

Reminding me of the correlation between soft tissue damage in accidents and falls, etc. I read somewhere that people who are knocked out tumble like rag-dolls but if you are awake you tense up and can come out worse.

I think for most Muslims it's like Catholics and contraception. If you're fanatical enough, fine, if not, get on with your life.
Muslims certainly look for Halal, and don't (mostly) eat Haram, but it doesn't do to look too carefully into it.

Not that I'm doubting you, but I've never seen such a study. Could you point one out that says an animal is caused immense (please note spelling, afraid I can't help correcting these mistakes) suffering by not being stunned?

I'm afraid my view is that if you're slaughtering a beast, a marginal difference in the measure of suffering caused is quite frankly irrelevant, given the immense amount of suffering that the act of slaughter itself inevitably entails.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

I don't follow why causing unnecessary suffering to save money is one thing, while doing it because god digs it is another. The suffering is the important bit, surely?

_________________
MY COMMENTS ARE FROM THE HORSES MOUTH AND ARE ALL FACTS

But the process might cause distress.