According to a comment by the former president of the British Veterinary Association (BVA) in this week’s Veterinary Record, slaughtering animals for commercial meat supply without stunning them first should be banned, or at the very least be curbed.

Data suggests that killings in this way have progressively risen over the past decade, even though UK and EU legislation has made allowances by permitting animals to be slaughtered by slitting their throats without being stunned first in order to meet the religious dietary requirements for Jews and Muslims, as long as it does not cause “unnecessary suffering.”

However, Professor Bill Reilly argues that it does cause suffering. He refers to findings of both the former Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) and the EU funded Dialrel Project. Both encouraged a dialogue amongst 11 countries regarding issues on religious slaughter, and the FAWC concluded: “such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress” before an animal lost consciousness, stating the practice was “unacceptable.” Similar conclusions were drawn at the Dialrel Project, which were based on the fact of the throat containing numerous nerve endings.

Professor Reilly states that films on YouTube can easily verify these findings. He states, they: “clearly demonstrate the pain and distress of obviously still sentient animals after non-stun slaughter.”

About 2 million animals are slaughtered without stunning for the orthodox Jewish community (Schecita) most of which is poultry, whilst 25% of the entire UK meat market in the UK is Halal meat. According to anecdotal evidence, nearly half of the lambs destined for slaughter are killed without being stunned first.

Professor Reilly believes that the increase in slaughtering without prior stunning may also be due to commercial factors, given that these figures far exceed the percentage of religious communities. He points out that abattoirs without stunning facilities may be cheaper and have a marketing advantage. He believes that, “much of the meat from non-stunned animals ends up on the secular market,” yet if they knew where the meat came from, “most consumers would choose not to eat such meat.”

He declares:

”In my view, the current situation is not acceptable and, if we cannot eliminate non-stunning, we need to keep it to the minimum. This means restricting the use of Halal and Kosher meat to those communities that require it for their religious beliefs, and where possible, convincing them of the acceptability of the stunned alternatives.”

He continues saying that similar principles could be applied to slaughtering animals without prior stunning as are applied for using animals in medical research, i.e. to replace, reduce, and refine.

He underlines that a tolerant society must respect different religious beliefs and that the challenge is to reconcile these beliefs with animal welfare. He states that the key in succeeding is ongoing dialogue, which has been successfully achieved in New Zealand. The country has a large Halal export market that requires that all animals are to be stunned first.

Professor Reilly says:

”I do not believe that there is any scientifically robust evidence to support the contention that non-stun slaughter has the welfare of the animal at its core.”

He concludes by saying that now is the time for UK vets to take a stand on the issue in view of the forthcoming EU directive on the protection of animals at the time of killing.

Written By Petra Rattue