comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Redd Foxx (U19849)
posted 5 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 9 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by Penguin (U13630)
posted 42 minutes ago
'posted 15 hours, 29 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullshīt,none of my friends or family would touch halal or kosher meat,none. You might not care what you eat but don't speak for the rest of us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you and they are vegetarian or vegan I call BS on your claim.

Supermarket meats often kosher and halal anyway just not labelled. Especially kosher as the whole animal isn't eaten

Takeaways buy what's cheaper too. So most of the Chinese, Thai places around me buy from the halal butchers/market. They use mainly chicken thigh meat and its cheaper.

Beside halal/kosher is better meat and if your argument is animal rights based then it is less cruel too

I would though like to hear why you are anti this meat

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is Halal meat better for you?

The RSPCA claim slaughtering unstunned animal is cruel,so where you get it's less cruel from God only knows. You do know majority of animals slaughtered for Halal meat is stunned?

I am a veggie,and my family only buy their meat from M&S where they label their meat. They also only buy British meat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly M and S confirmed in 2014 they sell meat from halal abbatoirs from new Zealand and its not labelled halal

Also Kosher is same as halal and M and S have no issues with using that, so eve your British meat in M and S maybe Kosher cuts

Secondly stunning is not allowed in true halal and althouugh some people eat it they shouldnt, muslims obviously. I dont even buy from ''halal'' shops who allow stunning

Thirdly the RSPCA are talking bubbles because stunning is known to cause more distress to the animal than non stunning, There is even a vegan organisation whose name slips my mind who say all slaughter is wrong but halal is best if done properly

and last halal meat is better because if done properly there would be no issues with say mad cow disease etc. Basically no stunning and proper slaughter takes away some of the disease associated

worth noting that when asking for labelling the letter that was written to food authourity said that people had teh right to know if their food was killed using

''captive bolt shooting, gassing, electrocution, drowning, trapping, clubbing or any of the other approved methods''

note the approved methods and yeah halal is the problem

comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 10 minutes ago
You need to do some research

The overwhelming majority of animals killed using halal methods are stunned before killing; around 80 per cent, according to the British Veterinary Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You are right to a degree mate, however its not halal if stunned according to exact laws of dhabiya (halal slaughter)

Organisations like the HFA allow it but most of us muslims dont class them as a legit authority and if I wet into a shop and saw their label in the butchers section i would not buy it

HMC and such organisations are the label I would look for, now some supermarkets say they only use stunned halal meat, yet you find HMC labelled meat in there and HMC dont allow stunning so someone is lying and I have seen the HMC process and they are not

Just want to say as well that no one seems to worry about Kosher meat, yet its killed in the same way as halal

Exactly

When I worked in West Africa, before the meat is slaughtered, they would say a prayer then commence slaughter.

These were Christians though and no one was intimidated by this, Muslims do the same thing.

Outrage

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 1 minute ago
Exactly

When I worked in West Africa, before the meat is slaughtered, they would say a prayer then commence slaughter.

These were Christians though and no one was intimidated by this, Muslims do the same thing.

Outrage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Halal slaughter says to say the name of God over the animal before slaughter

People say its a prayer but its not

yet the

Fox-Why are you dismissing the RSPCA and Veterinary Association?

All M&S meat apart from New Zealand Lamb in non-Halal. My family don't eat lamb.

As it happens, lamb is my favourite of the meats commonly available. Pork is probably least favourite.

Redd Foxx, alluding to your higher level of understanding here - is there a link between religious slaughter and reduced uric acid in the meat?

Also there is absolutely no difference in the methods of slaughter halal or kosher.

I would say that Kosher meat has a much reduced chance of being stunned.

I don't know what people expect to happen when they eat halal or kosher meat.

comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 17 minutes ago
Fox-Why are you dismissing the RSPCA and Veterinary Association?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

because what they say is incorrect with regards to stunning

comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 15 minutes ago
All M&S meat apart from New Zealand Lamb in non-Halal. My family don't eat lamb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

what bout kosher? its the same process and true jewish law says stunning is not permissable

comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)

posted 15 minutes ago

All M&S meat apart from New Zealand Lamb in non-Halal. My family don't eat lamb.

-----------------
You've independently verified this? if so are you also satisfied that its non-kosher too?

comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 7 minutes ago
Redd Foxx, alluding to your higher level of understanding here - is there a link between religious slaughter and reduced uric acid in the meat?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No expert o this but I did read claims that there is reduced uric acid in meats that are halal or kosher slaughtered due to teh blood being drained

Some chefs who recommended kosher meat a while back because it is salted so in essence pre brined saving time. I heard some say this has an effect on reduced uric acid but am not sure how the science works if I am honest

comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)

posted 15 minutes ago

All M&S meat apart from New Zealand Lamb in non-Halal. My family don't eat lamb.

-----------------
You've independently verified this? if so are you also satisfied that its non-kosher too?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

verification means very little. For example Morrisons sell HMC certified meats and sandwiches etc but if i remember correctly they also said they use only stunned halal meat. HMC dont allow stunning

comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 17 minutes ago
Redd Foxx, alluding to your higher level of understanding here - is there a link between religious slaughter and reduced uric acid in the meat?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

just remembered as well that uric acid is said to cause certain problems including increased risk of heart attack, apparently cows for example can extract most o fteh uric acid from teh blood pork doesnt. So if cows do 98% pigs do 2%

again just what i came across not sure of teh science here

This is just another example of how multiculturalism has improved the UK, up until a couple of years ago your average Joe didn't give a sh-t how the animal on their plate was killed.

Now they're seeking guidance from professional bodies to find dead animals whose method of demise best fits their own ethical stance.

comment by Redd Foxx (U19849)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 17 minutes ago
Fox-Why are you dismissing the RSPCA and Veterinary Association?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

because what they say is incorrect with regards to stunning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe what favours your religion,me I couldn't give a shįts what blessing is said before the slaughter, as long as the animal doesn't suffer.

comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by Redd Foxx (U19849)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 17 minutes ago
Fox-Why are you dismissing the RSPCA and Veterinary Association?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

because what they say is incorrect with regards to stunning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe what favours your religion,me I couldn't give a shįts what blessing is said before the slaughter, as long as the animal doesn't suffer.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not even close pal. Two studies were carried out over this issue

first one was in germany 1978, second one was by the French in 2005

Both concluded that when done properly halal slaughter causes less suffering than stunning etc

They concluded that once stunned an animal is still so to the human eye it looks like it is not suffering but when hooked upto electrodes etc the pulse and heart rate show they are suffering moreso than a straight cut to the throat where it is over before the animal even realises

The farming lobby who were all for stunning due to less cruelty were found to not care really but stunning allows for a bigger volume of slaughtered animals so they were in it for that

I am sure some will persist with the ''you favour your religion'' argument but bring the facts not the emotion

Scientifically the non religious methods all paralyse an animal and the suffering can not be measured just by looking, but on studying show the animal is in terror and pain but unable to move

religiously the process of slitting the throat also paralyses the animal and this is scientifically proven too, and despite the movements the terror is not there as ecg etc studies show

what the recent studies did, which rspca etc cite to show their findings eg new zealand 2009, was anaesthetised animals when doing studies which gave false results

In fairness, you probably need to read this:

https://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232719611043&mode=prd

Obviously the RSPCA will have presented a study to suit their case, but there is a case no the less.

The significant para probably being:

"Recent research undertaken in New Zealand (Gibson et al.,
2009) has provided further evidence of the welfare problems
associated with neck cutting of conscious animals. The work
showed that brain signals in calves indicate that they do
appear to feel pain when slaughtered without pre-stunning. A
pain signal lasting for up to 2 minutes was detected following
throat cutting. The researchers also showed that when the
animals are concussed through stunning, brain signals
corresponding to pain disappear. "

Although the talk of "brain signals" makes it read like a child wrote it. Without reading the studies, it's hard to be sure of the conclusions reached by the guys actually performing the study.

http://www.grandin.com/ritual/slaughter.without.stunning.causes.pain.html

Tell me something Fox,what do the RSPCA and the Veterinary Association gain by insisting animals are stunned before slaughter, if it's less humane? And why are you choosing to dismiss what the experts in this country say and choose to believe so called evidence which is more than 30 years old? Are you an expert on animal anatomy? Have you ever seen supervet? Some of surgery that guy does is ground breaking,we know a lot more now than we did 11 years ago on how an animals body works.

Is the goal not to kill the animal?

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 8 minutes ago
Is the goal not to kill the animal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without it suffering yes.