"Victory" In Campaign To "Save" Shechita In Europe

The European Council of Ministers approved a draft of new food information regulation. The draft did not include amendment 205, which called for all meat products derived from animals slaughtered by shechitah to be labelled "meat from slaughter without stunning".

European victory in save shechitah campaign
By Robyn Rosen • The Jewish Chronicle

The campaign to save the slaughter of kosher meat in the UK has passed another hurdle after European ministers today passed draft legislation which will not introduce controversial labelling.

This morning, the European Council of Ministers approved a draft of new food information regulation. The draft did not include amendment 205, which called for all meat products derived from animals slaughtered by shechitah to be labelled "meat from slaughter without stunning".

Campaign group Shechita UK said the amendment was “discriminatory” and could cause kosher prices to rocket because buyers from the non-kosher market, which consumes 70 per cent of shechitah-slaughtered meat, might be put off by the labelling.

The European Parliament had voted in support of the amendment in June but the Council’s decision means that when the bill returns to the Parliament for a second reading in March, it will not include the amendment.

But campaigners may face another battle if the amendment is reintroduced at the second reading.

Shechita UK director Shimon Cohen said: “While we are very pleased with today's outcome of the Council meeting, there is still much work to do to ensure that new laws are not introduced next year which discriminate against shechitah.

“The European Commission is beginning a new consultation next year on animal welfare labelling, and we are continuing to work in Brussels with the European Jewish Congress to explain to the European food authorities the humane nature of shechitah.

“Our campaign is far from over, but we are making satisfactory progress, given the assault on shechitah that was launched earlier this year by some members of the European Parliament.”

Comments

[ah-pee-chorus]

this is a huge defeat for morality. to begin with once it has been ascertained by experts in the fields of animal physiology, veterinary medicine etc. , that an animals pain and suffering is minimized by stunning prior to slaughter, there is no excuse for permitting slaughter without it. shechita in its current form should be outlawed by all civilized countries. and dont worry, as soon as the jobs of all the mashgichim are threatened and kosher meat becomes unavailable or prohibitively expensive, the "gedolim" will get off their butts and utilize one of the available halachic methods to consider stunning permissible. they can even pretend that it had nothing to do with the threat of a shechita ban and claim they had been concerned with this problem long ago. they might even claim that not only is stunning permissible but preferred under halacha due to their tremendous concern for the mitzvah of not causing unnecessary harm to living things.
but what is more disturbing is that shechita defenders are against having their meat labeled for what it is: "labelled "meat from slaughter without stunning". if they really believed that this method is the most humane then why not be proud to have all know this ? and if they fear that sales will drop as a result , then they are acknowledging that many of their consumers are unaware of the lack of stunning and might be repulsed to find that out. they are instead fighting for the right to keep this secret and thereby continue to keep their customers in the dark. that is an additional layer of ethical bankruptcy added to the cruelty to animals they wish to be left alone to perpetrate. SHAME ON THEM!

[Teddy]

Shame. Not just that I would not mind that kind of stuff, but I would like to know where my food comes from, just bought a jar of tropical honey because that had at least the decency to tell it did not come from outside the European Union. "Shechted by a progressive shochet"is something to be supported.
But why HIDE it? ASHAMED of being Jewish? Or is it something even worse?

[Teddy]

Oops, my jar of tropical honey came of from outside the European Union, of course.

[yidandahalf]

Anyone buying meat has the right to know how that animal was processed - by religious slaughter or by slaughter regulated by the laws everyone else has to follow. It is unacceptable and unconscionable that such labelling is not imposed. If the fresser faction thinks that this issue will go away, they are wrong. For far too long every filth has been hidden away behind the "sanctity of religion". This is a corrupted interpretation of separation of Church and State. The Europeans pander and bend over for every demand by the Islamists. Here we have the Jews riding along on their wake.

[Robert Wisler]

Just as the Israeli rabbis prohibit renting apartments to non-Jews in Israel, the gentile nations are perfectly justified in not allowing Jews to perform acts which they consider cruel to animals.

Since the Israeli rabbis have reintroduced racism into that country and justified it Biblically, there should be absolutely no reason that European countries should have to bend over backwards to allow Jews any leeway in animal cruelty laws.

[yidandahalf]

I see the hechsher lekkers are hot to trot tonight. Fressed them selves til they passed out I guess. No one is posting,nu?

[PishPosh]

Just to present the Muslim and nay side of the stunnig argument

AN UP-TO-DATE

ASSESSMENT OF

Types of Stunning and drawbacks

1.The captive bolt pistol
used commonly for cattle, calves and goats. It is the shooting, by a gun or pistol in the forehead (mechanical method) by a blank cartridge or compressed air. It could be penetrating or non-penetrating (percussion stunning). It breaks the skull, shatters and destroys the brain. A rod of steel is introduced in the skull hole to smash, cut and destroy the brain [pithing:now to be prohibited in UK and Europe by January 2001]. All this occurs before the real slaughtering cut is made. Recently, a new method by which a steel needle to penetrate the skull and brain and in which air is injected to cause intercranial pressure has been developed.

Problems, harm and results of this method have been reported in different scientific and Government reports, as follows:

* Improper stunning (failure of stunning leading to re-stunning and double shots (FAWC 1982 and 1984);
* Paralysis of the animal while still conscious (FAWC 1982 and 1984);
* ‘Depressed skull fracture’ and considerable damage to the brain (FAWC 1984);
* Brain contamination (Blackmore 1979);
* Blood splash (extranvasation of blood from vessels Into muscle and meat with some clotting of the blood) (Blackmore 1979);
* Brain hemorrhage (Blackmore 1979);
* Bruising and injuries from the heavy fall of the animal after the shot;
* Death reported by Lawton (1971); Temple Grandin (1980) stated that tests on sheep and calves indicated that penetrating captive bolt stunning actually kills the animal;
* Damage or harm to the meat. Marple (1977) stated ‘Captive bolts should be discontinued in view of theirdetrimental effect on meat quality. (Quoted by Biala 1983)

We know that this method is still widely practiced, especially in the UK!

2. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
it is done by moving the animal through a room which contains a mixture of CO2 and air (about 65/70% CO2 by volume). It is used only for pigs. It is a form of chemical strangulation. CO2 is a harmful gas to be inside the body.

Problems and harm reported include;

* Considerable, unacceptable stress (violent excitation, general agitation and convulsions).
* ‘CO2 stunning is more stressful than either properly applied electrical or captive bolt stunning’ (Temple Grandin 1980).
* Suffocation, strangulation and death to the animal before the cut; death was reported by Glen (1971).
* Toxic effect of the gas on the blood and physiology.
* It is definitely a cruel way for the animal and I would like to quote here also from FAWC (1984) when they discussed pain; ‘It is doubtful whether the animal feels pain or is even conscious’. This method has been banned in Holland and many other European countries

3. Electrical Stunning
could be to head and brain only or to head and back or to the legs, and there are three varieties:

a. Low Voltage Electrical Stunning by a pair of scissors-like tongs with circular or rectangular electrodes which are usually immersed in a saline solution then applied to the side of the head. Voltage is not less than 75 volts (50 Hz mains frequency) for not less than seven seconds.

Problem and harm with this method include:

* It is cruel, by giving an electric shock directly, with no anesthesia;
* paralysis while the animal is conscious (pain);
* doubt about the effect and feeling of pain;
* unreliable: missed shots and re-stunning;

Recovery of the animal usually occurs within 30-40 seconds. Electric stunning only induces paralysis, not unconsciousness, leaving the animal helpless but completely conscious to pain. (E.H. Callow from his book ‘Food Hygiene)

Some scientists and physiologists have expressed serious misgivings; some are of the opinion that the animal is merely paralyzed by the electric current and so prevented from making a sound or a movement while fully conscious and experiences great pain as the current passes through its body. Such views are shared by the following Professors and Scientists:

a) Prof. A.C. Ivey (North Western University of America)

b) Prof. M.J. Hertz, of France

c) Prof. Roos & Koopmans, Holland.

Stunning does not first involve passing an electric current through the animal’s body. The magnitude of the current passed must be adequate; voltage of higher rating could lead to bone fractures. Voltage of lower rating produces electric convulsions without inducing unconsciousness. A lower voltage rating needs longer application and this being a matter of judgment, the human element could lead to failure. The variations in the sizes of animals and their individual resistance to the current are also important considerations.

Let me quote the following petition of Meat Packers in Denmark to the Danish Government:-

“Stunning with electricity causes extravasation in the meat, sanguinary intestines and fractures in the spinal column, pelvis, shoulder blades, through the shock. The blood in the meat makes it more susceptible to putrefaction and has detrimental effect on taste.”

b. High Voltage Electric Stunning by using an electric shock of 300-400 volts, commonly used for pigs and sheep.

Problems and harm with this method:

* It is very cruel by giving a high electric shock (electrocution to a conscious animal).

As a doctor, I have been practicing for more than 10 years and giving electric shocks (‘stunning’) (Electro-Convulsive Therapy - ECT) to patients (WITH MENTAL ILLNES) but only after a general anaesthetic. The Medical Council would strike my name from the Register if I should ever dare to give ECT without anaesthesia because it is very cruel to do so. I wonder, is it not cruel to do this to an animal too? Although the voltage used in ECT is smaller than that used for animals, is it not still cruel?

“Electric stunning of calves by the ‘head only’ method is inhumane in all circumstances”. (Blackmore 1982);

*

Ventricular fibrillation, cardiac inhibition, cardiac disfunction, cardiac arrest and death; “Head to back stunning induced a cardiac arrest in all the sheep”. (Gregory and Wotton, 1984);
* Bone-shattering;
* Stress: “>From a physiological standpoint, the stunned animal is more highly stressed”. (Althen 1977 quoted by Temple Grandin 1980);
* High level of blood splashing in the carcass (Gilbert, Blackmore, and Warrington); “Electric stunning raised the blood pressure by 31/2 times”
* Pain and sensation;

I would like to quote, ‘It is difficult to determine the sensitivity of an animal to pain during the first few seconds of stunning while the electric current is applied.’ (FAWC 1984)

I also quote Baldwin 1971 (quoted by Biala 1983): “The question whether the animal is suffering pain during the period of consciousness in not so readily appropriate to objective experimental investigation”.

c. Electrified Water Bath for Poultry Stunning ‘The birds are suspended on the shackle (upside down) then the head is intended to come into contact with the water and the passage of an electric shock through the brain’. (FAWC 1982)

Problems and harm with this method:

* A very cruel way to give the electric shock, especially in this uncomfortable position;
* Drowning and suffocation resulting in death.
* It was well-documented that some birds were taken, still alive to the scalding tank (to remove the skin and feathers) (Heath et al 1983). “One-third of the birds are dead (mitah) in the stunner and one-third are not stunned”. (FAWC 1982).
* Death from the stunner;

“A substantial number were killed as a result of the shock from the stunner”. (24% dead in UK, MAFF 1999, 17 to 37% in USA) In this report, they emphasized, clearly, eight reasons why stunning may not be satisfactory (please see the report for details)].

*

Paralysis by failure of stunning.
* With regard to pain, apart from the above suffering, the FAWC reported “a substantial number maystill be sensitive to pain”.

I would like conclude this aspect of pain by quoting from the same poultry report of the FAWC;

“The physiological aspects of the stunning of poultry are not well understood and criteria for establishing insensitivity to pain, suitable for use in working condition, may well be unreliable”.

Conclusion

As we have seen in all these methods of slaughtering today, the following are prevalent and are taken from 36 scientific studies and research papers:*

*

Stress to the animal (in at least 7 studies)
* Death before sticking (in at least 7 studies)
* Harmful effects in the quality of the meat (in at least 4 studies)
* Internal hemorrhage, blood splash, speckle, salt and pepper hemorrhage as a result of stunning (in at least 8 studies)
* Pain (shown in at least 10 scientific studies) which throws doubt on the ability to measure pain in the animal and hints that the animal may be suffering pain in the different methods of slaughter used.
* EEG (Electro-encephalograph): there are at least 7 studies which throw doubt on thevalidity of this measure that the animal is conscious or has lost consciousness.

We still do not understand Stunning; what it does exactly and how it stuns the animal (even in ECT for the human, we also do not know what it does and how it works). We are still unable to define pain and sensation of the animal (and we will be unlikely to do so) and to understand the loss of consciousness and its relation to pain.

I would like to quote Gregory and Wotton (1985): ‘There is as yet no unequivocable scientific evidence which shows how electrical stunning stuns an animal’.

Also, they said,’ There is no information on the brain (glucose and oxygen thresholds) required to support consciousness and memory retention respectively.’

Many scientists opposed to the use of stunning: Van der Wal –78, Wernberg –79, Mcloughlin –71, Pollard –73, winstanley –81, and Marple –77, etc.

With regard to Pain. I would like to quote from the FAWC Report (1985), ‘There is a lack of scientific evidence to indicate at what stage in the process of losing consciousness the ability to feel pain ceases.’

More research should be undertaken to establish:

*

Signs which indicate that the animal is completely insensible,
* To what extent reflex actions and movements post-stunning and sticking indicate an awareness of pain.’ (FAWC 1985)

I also quote Baldwin 1971, (quoted by Biala1983):”The question whether thr animal is suffering pain during the period of consciousness is not so readily appropriate to objective experimental investigation”.

On the 3rd April 1985, The Guardian stated, in an article ‘Second Opinion’ about “Pain; by any other definition”, ‘The Government stated in its White Paper (Cmnd 8883) about measuring pain in an animal. ‘there is, and can be, no definition of the term’.

The Times newspaper similarly has mentioned, on the 3rd September 1984, in an article entitled “Animals and experiments, Government’s Bill will lead to new guidelines on pain” How can anyone know the extent of the pain an animal is suffering? ... There is no means of measuring pain ... a measurement of pain in not possible.’(with all this ignorance… How can any one be sure … and accuse us of inflicting pain to the animal and be cruel!)

It is clearly, beyond any doubt, the least to say that the assumption of stunning is questionable, and it is quite unfair for the RSPCA, FAWC and others to attack Muslims (and Jews), criticizing their slaughtering methods, and to recommend new laws, enforcing stunning, which have no scientific basis and are unreliable, owing to the problems, harm and cruelty resulting from its practice. (People in glass houses should not throw stones!) It would be useful to hear the Christian viewpoint and why they have changed methods. What is the psychology behind this misconception and misunderstanding?

It is mistaken to identify the cut on the animal with oneself, thinking it is causing pain.

I would like to quote Ray & Scott from their book ‘The Humane Emergency of Farm Animals’ (UFAW):

‘So far as actual physical suffering is concerned, men often identify themselves with the animal they kill and assess pain in terms of their own feeling. To some extent, at least, this attitude is justified but, whereas man is invariably conscious of the inevitability and significance of death, animals usually lack such apprehension unless they are badly handled and feel menaced”

“ Human feelings, however, should as far as possible not be allowed to influence the use of the most humane techniques”.

In addition, we are insulting a dumb creature which cannot express it’s feelings or sensations by speech, etc.They are,as reported by Rebecca Hall in her book, ‘Voiceless Victims’.

Meat industries are always keen to stun as many animals as possible in the least possible time and so commercial interests have often been the overriding factor

I would like to conclude, that an up-to-date assessment of the Islamic (or religious) method of slaughter shows, beyond doubt, that the Divine method is the only humane method which is free from side-effects and secondary effects on the animal and the consumer and which matches almost all the criteria for the best method of slaughter and is to be recommended.

We obviously would recommend more research and study to be done on the religious methods of slaughter (e.g. the effect of cutting the trachea and oesophagus on the animal during slaughter). We also need research into the effect of restraining. Transporting and using chemicals and drugs on the animals as far as the meat quality and health are concerned. Also, we need to study the psychological effect of the present methods on the slaughter-man himself.

[yidandahalf]

Religious slaughter, as it is done now, is mostly on a factory farm model, with profit as the bottomline. There is no window to treat animals humanely in such a sytstem. Therefore no matter what the drawbacks to stunning are, they pale in comparison to a point of non-existence to religious slaughter methods today. Your arguement, though perhaps well intended, is not realisitic or valuable. The VAST majority of religious slaughter product is consumed by non-Jews and Muslims who are UNAWARE they are buying and eating meat from animals slaughtered by methods not allowed by law to anyone else. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AND A SHANDA.