http://www.mcb.org.uk
The MCB - PO Box 57330, London E1 2WJ - Email:admin@mcb.org.uk Tel:+44 (0) 845 26 26 786 Fax:+44 (0) 207 247 7079
Home l  About Us l  Affiliates l  Committees l  E-Newsletter l  Media l  Audio l  Library l  Email MCB l  Donations l  Jobs l 
Service Providers  l  Projects  l  Events  l  Statistics  l  Funding   l  Links   l  FAQs  l  Shop l  A-Z index l
Sat 25 May 2013   
Why we believe stunning should be banned?

9th June 2003

An MCB Position Statement

  • The method and procedure for slaughter of animals for food is set in the Islamic religious code of practice
  • The fundamental principles of animal welfare are enshrined in this religious code of practice (rearing, grazing, feeding, healthy and injured, prohibition to slaughter in front of other animals, use of sharp knife, severing completely both carotid arteries etc). Many of these principles have been incorporated in UK legislation relatively recently. Naturally we support and fully endorse the inclusion of these principles in the statute books. We would urge Government and all those who promote the concept of animal welfare to ensure that these principles be monitored rigourously to ensure full compliance.
  • Stunning before slaughter, however, is a practice that contravenes the Islamic religious Code of Practice. We are therefore against it.
  • We support measures to ensure that all aspects of current legislation are fully implemented.
  • Current UK legislation allows us to practice this code ( Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 731 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995)
  • There has been no change in respect to the arguments and considerations (Divine law) that led to the legislation in 1995. Hence no change in law is warranted.
  • We are encouraged by the assurance given by Mr Elliot Morley, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, DEFRA1
  • Apart from contravening our religious code, we believe pre-slaughter stunning: -Subjects animals twice to the pain and trauma -Retains blood (consumption of blood is prohibited in Islam) -Is a risk to human health and safety, emerging evidence of increasing the risk of BSE
  • A number of methods of pre-slaughter stunning have been described. Several of these methods have been discontinued or banned by EU or UK initiatives because of evidence emerging that they cause more pain to animals or result in human health hazard.
  • Published scientific studies from Germany (Schultz et al2) show that pre-slaughter stunning causes more pain and suffering to the animal than slaughter without stunning (the Islamic method).
  • This is backed by the description of those who have visited slaughterhouses and were convinced that pre-slaughter stunning is humane (Andrew Tyler, Director of Animal Aid gives a graphic account of the animals in obvious distress despite stunning (see letter in the Times, 17th May 2003)3

    These observations and the emerging scientific evidence strengthen our belief that the Islamic method of slaughter (killing) of animals for food is humane and safe method. We commend that this method be universally adopted. We urge Government to ban stunning both for animal welfare as well as human health reasons.

    Shuja Shafi
    Chairman
    Health and Medical Committee
    MCB

    • 1- The Government is aware of the importance of slaughter practices to religious groups, particularly Jewish and Muslim, and has been working with them over the years on matters of animal welfare. That involvement has been constructive and is much valued. The views of these communities will be fully taken into account once the FAWC recommendations have been received.
    2-
    3- I have personally visited six slaughterhouses and seen, for instance, pigs shackled upside down by one leg, their throats slashed and gushing blood. I’ve seen them slip from their shackles and crash on to the concrete, thrashing desperately and with blood pouring from their throat wound. This is “humane slaughter”.
    Some Extracts from the Press on the issue of Animal Slaughter

    The Times Letters (17th May 2003)

    From the Director of Animal Aid

    Sir, While Animal Aid regards religious slaughter as a vile and merciless way to treat animals, we also have concerns about the way bigots and racists jump on the “ritual” slaughter bandwagon.

    As to conventional British slaughter, I have personally visited six slaughterhouses and seen, for instance, pigs shackled upside down by one leg, their throats slashed and gushing blood. I’ve seen them slip from their shackles and crash on to the concrete, thrashing desperately and with blood pouring from their throat wound. This is “humane slaughter”.

    I don’t believe that stunning is remotely effective. Sending a massive electric shock through an animal’s head merely causes another level of trauma that momentarily freezes them physically. I’ve seen animals kick and writhe while shackled — after stunning — and am convinced they are conscious.

    I have visited the establishment at Bristol University where they have researched stunning and its effectiveness and talked to one of the scientists who has carried out killing experiments. I’m convinced these experts are a long way short of being certain as to whether stunning renders an animal insensible before the knife. There is no pretty way to mass-produce, transport and kill animals in order that we may eat their dead bodies.

    Yours sincerely,
    ANDREW TYLER,
    Directo,r
    Animal Aid,
    The Old Chapel,
    Bradford Street,
    Tonbridge TN9 1AW.
    info@animalaid.org.ku

    From the Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Sir, Your report suggests that the legal right to religious slaughter without prior stunning would be lost if that is the recommendation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s current consideration of the issue.

    FAWC is an independent advisory body to the Government but we do not have to accept all its recommendations. We will carefully consider the report before issuing a response and will wish to consult interested organisations before responding.

    The Government is aware of the importance of slaughter practices to religious groups, particularly Jewish and Muslim, and has been working with them over the years on matters of animal welfare. That involvement has been constructive and is much valued. The views of these communities will be fully taken into account once the FAWC recommendations have been received.

    Yours faithfully,
    ELLIOT MORLEY
    Department for Environment,
    Food and Rural Affairs,
    Nobel House
    17 Smith Square,
    SW1P 3JR.

    May 17 2003

    Pain, cruelty and ritual slaughter

    From Mr Humphrey Pigott, FRCS

    Sir, The defenders of Muslim and Jewish ritual slaughter (reports, May 15) always reassure us it is painless. During my life I have witnessed several people die of acute blood loss in uncontrollable situations. The physiological response induces a feeling of overwhelming terror in the individual.

    Sheep from my flock are given a precise appointment at a local small abbatoir (few remain after the EU regulations), they are stunned and dispatched with no waiting. The old ewes are shot in the pastures they have known all their lives, by the local hunt. If I was offered to be dispatched by a priest after having my neck anaesthetised, I would shoot myself.

    Yours sincerely,

    HUMPHREY PIGOTT Stone House
    Felsham Road
    Cockfield, Bury St Edmunds,
    Suffolk IP30 0HP.
    May 15.

    From the Director of Animal Aid

    Sir, While Animal Aid regards religious slaughter as a vile and merciless way to treat animals, we also have concerns about the way bigots and racists jump on the “ritual” slaughter bandwagon.

    As to conventional British slaughter, I have personally visited six slaughterhouses and seen, for instance, pigs shackled upside down by one leg, their throats slashed and gushing blood. I’ve seen them slip from their shackles and crash on to the concrete, thrashing desperately and with blood pouring from their throat wound. This is “humane slaughter”.

    I don’t believe that stunning is remotely effective. Sending a massive electric shock through an animal’s head merely causes another level of trauma that momentarily freezes them physically. I’ve seen animals kick and writhe while shackled — after stunning — and am convinced they are conscious.

    I have visited the establishment at Bristol University where they have researched stunning and its effectiveness and talked to one of the scientists who has carried out killing experiments. I’m convinced these experts are a long way short of being certain as to whether stunning renders an animal insensible before the knife. There is no pretty way to mass-produce, transport and kill animals in order that we may eat their dead bodies.

    Yours sincerely,
    ANDREW TYLER Director
    Animal Aid
    The Old Chapel
    Bradford Street,
    Tonbridge TN9 1AW.
    info@animalaid.org.u k

    May 15 .

    Interactive websites
    the platform