European Parliament Committee Backs Labeling Kosher And Halal Meat As Killed Without Stunning

"I think it has been a breakthrough vote once again for people who consider animal welfare as a very high priority, and this is why we put these amendments down in a food information regulation. It is essential the public knows what they are buying. And if they are buying meat from animals that has been slaughtered by the halal or shechita method then they should know that. They have a right to know and see on the label that the animal was not pre-stunned before slaughter.”

 

MEPs Back Meat Labelling Plan
by Justin Cohen • Totally Jewish

A European Parliament committee has backed a proposal for meat to be labelled as "from slaughter without stunning".

In a major blow for shechita activists who continued campaigning against the move until hours before Pesach, the controversial amendment to the European food information regulations was passed by 34 votes to 28 when it came before the environment, public health and food safety committee on Tuesday.

It is the same measure that was struck out by the Council of Ministers last year following a concerted campaign in which Shechita UK played a prominent role. But the proposal was re-tabled in March.

Shechita UK has always maintained that the amendment discriminates against kosher meat. And it is feared such a move, if passed into law later this year, would lead to a massive hike in kosher prices as the vast majority of shechita meat goes to non-kosher consumers who may decide to opt for products without labels. The practise could then eventually become untenable.

London MEP Marina Yannakoudakis, who opposed the amendment, said: "I was very disappointed in the vote. I can understand that people are concerned about methods of slaughter, but this is not the platform on which to discuss it. Animal welfare needs to be debated in its own right and including it in this Directive puts one group at a disadvantage. I will continue to campaign for the withdrawal of this amendment at plenary."

The Conservative politician added: "We plan to bring it up at our group meeting and try to get a group line on it, so the European Conservatives and Reformists can vote against the amendment as a group."

While Shechita UK has yet to respond to this week's vote because of Pesach, its campaign is now likely to focus on the next stage of the legislative process - a plenary of the European Parliament - this summer. Julie Girling, another British Conservative MEP who voted against the amendment, expressed disappointment at its success.

But she added: "The vote was quite close so it is possible that it will not be successful in the plenary vote. If the amendment passes through plenary it will still have to be agreed by Council so there’s a long way to go."

Conservative MEP Struan Stevenson, who backed the amendment,, said: "There is every possibility that the European Council of Ministers may once again try to reject what the Parliament has asked for.

"However, because we are at second reading it is the last chance saloon for the Council and it means they have to find the compromise with the parliament and with the European commission."

He added" "I think it has been a breakthrough vote once again for people who consider animal welfare as a very high priority, and this is why we put these amendments down in a food information regulation. It is essential the public knows what they are buying.

"And if they are buying meat from animals that has been slaughtered by the halal or shechita method then they should know that. They have a right to know and see on the label that the animal was not pre-stunned before slaughter.”

Shechita UK maintains that shechita is a humane method of slaughter.

Comments

[anuran]

I approve. Telling the truth is always a good thing.

[Yechiel]

People also have the right to know that many individuals who post and comment on this site are mentally unstable. "Telling the truth is always a good thing"...

[ah-pee-chorus]

very nice. short of banning slaughter done without stunning, this is at least a step in the right direction. people who fear transparency do so because they know what theyre doing cant be justified with open debate and increased public knowledge.
consumers have a right to know if their chickens are raised 'free range', 'free roaming' , if their food is grown organically, and if their meat was obtained through non-stun slaughter. its really quite simple. if the kosher crowd doesnt like it, thats too bad. make your rules permit it or suffer the consequences. dont pawn off the majority of your meat to a non jewish public that is unaware of the inhumane slaughter you demand.

[al Farabi]

Well said APC. When will we get the message? If we don't change our perverted practices from within, then we will be shown the error of our ways from without - very simple.

[Barry]

Meat from shechita is sold to non Jews as a form of dumping trade policy so as to maintain the kashrus industry. It is a form of predatory pricing which mainly shafts local Jews and the gentiles know it.

There is no proposal to ban the import of kosher meat eg from Israel or the USA. The problem however for Shechita UK is if that happens it will be Israeli Rabbis or American Rabbis who will be shafting the UK's Jews. That is not cricket! If anyone is going to shaft the Jews of the UK it should be the Britain's rabbis.

[ah-pee-chorus]

People also have the right to know that many individuals who post and comment on this site are mentally unstable.
Posted by: Yechiel

thank you for your honesty in coming forward, yechiel.

[the usual chaim]

"Meat from shechita is sold to non Jews as a form of dumping trade policy so as to maintain the kashrus industry. It is a form of predatory pricing which mainly shafts local Jews and the gentiles know it."

- no, it doesnt "shaft" local jews, the issue is not meat that is sold as "kosher" and priced differentially between jews and gentiles. the issue is that in kosher slaughter many animals turn out to be unnacceptable b/c they have invalidating physical blemishes. also there are cuts that preparing them kosher is too labor intensive and, therefore, too expnsive. such animals/cuts are sold off to non-jewish meat producers for sale as rgular meat. it is this meat that really poses an economic threat to kashrut (not meat actually sold as kosher) b/c if jews could not sell it to gentiles the cost of kosher meat would sky rocket b/c all the revenue these sales bring in would b lost and the difference would be carried over onto the cost of kosher meat, making it prohibitively expensive.

[ah-pee-chorus]

another issue is that the butchers need to become more adept at their trade which would enable them to use the vast majority of the cow including the hind portion. i understand all that is necessary is to cut away the sciatic nerve which while labor intensive, can be done. this would obviate the need to sell such a high percentage of the meat to non-kosher consumers. of course the meat from animals deemed treife would still remain.

[the usual chaim]

a-pee : that would solve part of th problem, but

1) that meat would still be prohibitivly xpnsive b/c of the labor.

2) it would not at all solve the issue of the need to sell off blemished animals, which is significant

[Joe in Australia]

"Truth" shouldn't be used as an excuse to promote bigotry. A standard technique used by bigots and antisemites, for instance, is to refer to a race or religion when it's not relevant to the context: "Goldman Sachs, a bank founded by Jews, was accused of profiting from the financial crisis." I don't think the fact that that statement is true changes the fact that it's an incitement to bigotry.

This proposed law is frankly aimed at shechita: halal meat doesn't enter the general market to a significant extent. I don't believe that it's genuinely intended to promote animal welfare, for two reasons. Firstly, shechita is not intrinsically crueler than other forms of slaughter. Secondly, and more significantly, there aren't similar laws that say things like "This meat comes from animals raised in industrial feed lots" or "this chicken was de-beaked in order to stop it committing suicide". It doesn't even force producers to say "this animal was 'stunned' by a captive bolt technique that isn't especially effective and, when it does work, smashes bone and brain tissue into the animal's bloodstream".

This law isn't part of a coherent scheme to protect animal welfare. It imposes a burden on a minute part of the meat-processing industry: the part used by Jews. I have no hesitation in saying that it's discriminatory in effect, if not by design.

[Shmarya]

You're wrong, Joe. It is mostly aimed at halal meat, which does enter the general market in Europe in large quantities.

[Max in IL]

What is more inhumane, shechita or killing a born-alive baby which survived an attempted abortion (which Obama supported when he was a state legislator in IL?

[Joe in Australia]

What is more irritating, someone who hijacks any discussion to rant about their own little hobbyhorse or .... Forgive me: I can't think of anything more irritating at present.

Shmarya - do you mean that Halal meat enters the general market in the sense that it ends up in major supermarkets, or that it's purchased by businesses catering to Muslims but which also serve the general public? If it's the latter then surely any labels are superfluous.

[Shmarya]

The former.

[Neo-Conservaguy]

I wonder if not being able to as easily sell the hind quarters of slaughtered animals would prompt a resurgence of nikkur achoraim? It could bring back some some tasty products that aren't generally available in the modern kosher world.

[Canuck]

Why does the regulation require meat to be labelled "from slaughter without stunning", and not also "from slaughter with stunning?" That would at least be a fair imposition of a burdensome new regulation.

[Barry]

The Usual Chaim, to state that primary reason for the sale of meat from shechita to non-Jews has nothing to do with maximizing profits is akin to arguing that the primary motive for the Hollywood film industry is to entertain audiences and nothing to do with to making profits.

All religions are structured so as to financially support their clergy. Judaism is no different. Jews have been psychologically indoctrinated to eat only what their rabbis have allowed them to eat. This is good for the rabbis who get a big cut of the profits by selling hechshering (a major tax on Jews) and good for food producers who get a captive market. This allows for price fixing and other predatory economic practices which are generally banned but allowed in the name of religious freedom. The custom of rejecting achoraim and non glatt meat is of financial benefit to the kashrus industry. The maskilim know it and the gentiles know it. Unfortunately for the Kashrus industry their business model of economic dumping has in the last 100 years or so hit snag in that goyim have begun to put animal welfare on the agenda and may close their market to Jews in a manner that rabbis have sought for millenia to close the Jewish market to non Jews.

The Usual Chaim, you have ignored the second part of my post. You may be correct in stating that labelling meat would destroy the European shechita industry but then you state incorrectly that kosher meat would become prohibitively expensive. You ignore my point about the alternative of importation of kosher meat from Israel and the Americas which would leave prices relatively as they are. Any collapse of the local shechita industry will primarily impact that industry and the local rabbinate who use shechita as it's main basket tax. It will not greatly effect the price of kosher meat for the consumer since importation will remain. The goyim are not stupid. They know this. Rather then lose their main source of income to foreign hechshering, the European rabbis will suddenly discover that stunning animals (immediately after the cut) is permissible if not preferable especially if it allows for the continuance of dumping most meat from shechita on the goyishe market.

[Shlomo]

Maybe as a result of this law we will stop our new found obsession with glatt kosher and we may even remember how to remove the sciatic nerve.
Personally I avoid eating meat

[the usual chaim]

barry. i hear you. i still dont agree that the dumping primarily is about increasing profit rather than making the industry economically viable at all, if as you say, the rules would, in fact, destroy the european shchita industry. howver, you are correct that foriegn imports would be possible and would not undergo a significant price change.

i do hope, hope that you are also right that the rabbis will "discover" a heter for stunning.

[seymour]

if the rabbies believe that shichta is more humane since g-d said so. (of course is does not say anywhere in the torah how to do shichtha is is all made up)

A scientific experiment should settle the matter in the rebbies favor since they can never be wrong.

[phil]

Your right Shmarya,

It is aimed at the dumping of Halal meat on to the general market.

The only problem is that this amendment fails to do this. Most Halal meat in Europe IS stunned so while the label will say "non-stunned" meat rather than Halal or Kosher meat, most Halal meat won't have the label.

Bottom line is that while the target is Muslims, those that end up shot are Jews.

[Barry]

The more an item costs the less it will sell so it is sometimes makes more sense to sell a lot of items at a lower price then fewer items at a higher price especially as the cost of producing many items is pro rata less then the cost of producing fewer items.

That is the problem the Kashrus industry faces. It make more economic sense to slaughter 100 animals and sell 80% of the meat produced as achoraim or non glatt to gentiles because the volume of meat produced helps keep production costs pro rata for each beast far lower then slaughtering 20 beasts even if the non-Glatt meat and nikur achoraim became fashionable. Furthermore why would someone wish to buy non Glatt meat produced locally if imported Glatt meat is cheaper. The local rabbis will scream that Jews have a duty to support their local shechita but in the end of the day the great Jewish housewife will go to the local (non Jewish) supermarket and buy the cheaper imported packaged meat.

The extra pro rata production costs of fewer sales would mean a higher sale price which would result in even fewer sales which would result in extra pro rata productions costs etc in a vicious circle.

The kosher eating market is just to small to make local kashrus economically viable without selling most meat produced to the non kosher market. The financial benefit in producing this extra volume of trade has on lowering production costs is greater then the financial burden of subsidising that sale to non Jews. It is classic economic dumping.

The main problem that the shechita lobby has in Europe is not that their arguments that shechita is humane are weak. The main problem is that they are compromised by the financial interest they have in having the system continue as it is which undermines any scientific argument that they have in the same manner as the tobacco industry were undermined in their arguments against the dangers of smoking because of their financial interests. The goyim are not stupid. The Jews in Europe have no option but to accept that the business model for local shechita is no longer tenable because of the recent change in attitude by non Jewish Europeans to animal welfare and that importation of kosher meat from Israel and the Americas (or other jurisdictions which do not have the same regard for animal welfare as the Europeans) may be the only option available to them. Neither does it help to suggest that concern for animal welfare is only found amongst antisemites.

[British Jew]

The problem is not the labelling, it is the selective labelling, as Canuck points out.

[Yechiel]

To all amei ha'aratzim: Nikkur Ahoraim is is more than just removing the sciatic nerve. Anyone heard of Helev?

APC: sorry I touched a raw nerve...

[Joe in Australia]

Yechiel: butchers in Australia used to perform nikkur. You don't end up with nice cuts of meat; once the forbidden bits are removed you've turned the most expensive (non-kosher) parts of the animal into something you can only use for kebabs, or goulash.

I'm surprised to hear that supermarkets in Europe end up with halal mat. I was under the impression that halal meat was more expensive. If it's cheap enough to turn up (unmarked) in regular supermarkets it might be worth finding out why this is the case.

[Barry]

Nikkur is economically non viable for the simple reason that the average Jewish housewife (as opposed to the farfrumpt)was not particular about these issurim to the extant that butchers soon learnt that only meat which was was subject to a token nikkur would sell at a profit.