Proof of pain leads to calls for ban on ritual slaughter

A study proving Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughtering animals are painful has led to renewed calls for a ban in Britain

LAST UPDATED 6:23 PM, OCTOBER 16, 2009

Scientists are used to being attacked by anti-vivisectionists for causing unnecessary suffering to animals in the course of research. But a new study into the pain felt by dying animals has animal rights groups on side – and has led to renewed calls for Islamic and Jewish slaughter rituals to be brought into line with secular practices.

UK law requires that all livestock be stunned prior to slaughter – with the exception of those animals intended for consumption by members of certain religions. Islamic halal and Jewish kashrut law require that animals are slaughtered by having their throat cut – a relatively slow means of death. The Sikh ritual – chatka – is much quicker when done correctly, involving a clean sword strike to the neck.

Practitioners of ritual slaughter say the animal must be alive to facilitate the draining of blood – and that throat slitting is humane.

But the new research suggests otherwise. Dr Craig Johnson and his colleagues at New Zealand's Massey University reproduced the Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughter in calves. The calves were first anaesthetised so although their pain responses could be detected, they wouldn't actually feel anything. They were then subjected to a neck incision. A pain response was detected for up to two minutes following the cut, although calves normally fall unconscious after 10 to 30 seconds.

The team then stunned the calves five seconds after cutting their throats: the pain signal detected by electroencephalography ceased immediately.

Johnson told the New Scientist he thought this work was "the best evidence yet that [ritual slaughter] is painful". However, he observed that the religious community "is adamant animals don't experience any pain so the results might surprise them".

The findings have earned Johnson the inaugural Humane Slaughter Award from the Humane Slaughter Association. Dr James Kirkwood, the charity’s chief executive, said: "This work provides significant support for the value of stunning animals prior to slaughter to prevent pain and distress."

Adam Rutherford, an editor of Nature, wrote on the Guardian website: "It suggests that the anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed. This special indulgence to religious practices should be replaced with the evidence-based approaches to which the rest of us are subject."

Some European countries, such as Sweden, require all animals to be stunned before slaughter with no exception for religions. But such a ban in Britain would be hugely controversial – and would draw inevitable comparisons with the ban on kashrut enacted by Nazi Germany in 1933.

Johnson thinks the way forward is best exemplified by Muslims in New Zealand, who use a reversible form of electrical stunning that animals can recover from if they are not immediately slaughtered. This proves the animal is alive when killed and is therefore halal.

LAST UPDATED 6:23 PM, OCTOBER 16, 2009

More news stories

Add to:

Comments

Hide comments

At long last the suffering of these poor creatures has been proven. Now what will be done to bring these horrific practices to an end?

Posted by Manny Goldstein at 7:28pm on October 16, 2009

At long last??!!....Umpteen studies prove that ritual slaughter is the most humane way vs 1.. ONE.. that says otherwise??!! Way to stand up for science Manny Goldstein

Posted by eric legere at 10:57am on October 19, 2009

Brilliant. This is the 21st century people. There is NO place for ritual slaughter of ANY living being in civilized society. It's primitive and appalling. The humane thing would be to let them live, and honor the wonder of their existence.

Posted by Brian Redman at 2:41pm on October 19, 2009

When in Rome behave in a way acceptable to the Romans. (Not necessarily like the Romans, just acceptable). We do not, ordinarily, permit slaughter in these ritual ways because they are cruel and so not acceptable to us. I think we should no more allow people to claim exemption from our laws on religious grounds than we should because they believe in fairies. And ritual slaughter should convince any rational person I am right.

Posted by TomNightingale at 8:29pm on October 19, 2009

Cruelty to animals has no place in 21st century Britain. If people want to engage in this horrific practices then they can go and do it somewhere else but not in my country please. Would Jesus have condoned cruelty to animals? I think not.

Posted by crazydiamond at 10:13am on October 20, 2009

Was Jesus a vegetarian?

Posted by Claudias at 11:16am on October 20, 2009

I do not enjoy eating meat so I do not eat it. I am very thankful to all my meat eating ancestors. If it were not for them the human brain would be half the size it is now. I do believe all commercial chickens have their throats cut in these modern times. It is against Jewish Religious Law to cause animals unnecessary pain. The butcher is extremely well trained. The Animal is cut with an extremely sharp knife across the jugular vain. To test the sharpness of the knife a feather is dropped on to it and must be cut just by the force of gravity. Also one animal is not allowed to see another slaughtered. When I saw cows being killed in the foot and mouth crisis this care was not taken. If you want to get rid of the Jews just ban us from eating ritually slaughtered meat. We will have to go and live in Israel, the only problem is, it is getting a bit crowded out there as it is such a small country; it is only the size of Yorkshire. In the majority of the world animals do not die comfortably. Just a few interesting points. The Nazi's banned hunting animals with dogs, only humans. And Hitler was a vegetarian but he did like lampshades made out of human flesh.

Posted by PHILIP LEAMAN at 12:36pm on October 20, 2009

So so sad, religious fear and superstition. I guess as long as fearful humans are alive on this planet there will be this vicious, grossly immoral, depraved, ritual, with humans seeking to get in to touch with their fantasy character who is supposed to alleviate their fear of death. Show me your gods who you claim this ritual is necessary to summons! Where is the fire and brimstone from your gods you stone age morons! Every time your scripture is not fulfilled you move your dates and manipulate to keep control of the masses who blindly follow you. Sad, sad, sad!

Posted by Dee at 7:01pm on October 20, 2009

Most other civilised countries have banned this barbaric way of killing animals, yet Britain has bowed to the pressure of it's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants by letting them practice their barbaric practices in the name of religion, why does this not surprise me. If it were anyone else but these two groups there would have been no give in the law regarding animal cruelty, but hey MPs have to be politically correct even if the animals have to suffer, I also notice the RSPCA haven't said much on the subject.

Posted by Stephen at 9:32pm on October 20, 2009

Were I to emigrate to muslim or jewish countries I would be expected to follow their laws and their customs. In the UK we grant the freedom for other cultures and religions to operate as if they were in their countries of origin, or where their religion has its origins. This is where in my own opinion we are very wrong. This almost total freedom to allow some citizens of the UK, whether born here or who have emigrated here, to carry out what the majority of British citizens consider barbaric and unatural practices, is what feeds the pro facist Nazi parties like the BNP with support. When in Rome comes to mind strongly here. I cannot parade through streets in muslim countries or probably even jewish ones proudly proclaiming that Atheism or Christianity is a truth to be followed and that muslim, jewish or hindu faiths are evil. Well not without being stoned tried flogged or excuted. I cannot insist that country must change its actual laws to my own laws. I cannot insist that its female population is allowed to wear western style dress and have western style freedoms without fear of male and governmental persecution. So I value my country with all its faults, and like me it has many. If you cannot value my country in the same way, then you are saying it is not your country and that you are only here because you want to destroy its customs and culture in the same way that facist parties do, by installing your own. So if my country is not your country take your abhorrent practices, your alien ways and repressive customs and religious beliefs to a country that agrees with you. Leave my country and those, whatever race, who want to be British citzens and who want to live a quiet peaceful life, following our ancient and British ways. I am not a British Christian. a British Muslim, a British Facist, a British Conservative, a British Labourite. I am just British and if you cannot be just British following British laws and customs, oh and yes our English language then go away and live in a part of the world that accepts your views customs and laws and leave me and my country in peace.

Posted by Femina at 9:36am on October 21, 2009

Philip Leaman - just to correct you, Hitler wasnt a vegetarian. This is a common misconception. On the topic, the sooner ANY exceptions made on the basis of religion are outlawed, the better. Religion must have no say whatsoever in how laws are made. None.

Posted by Helen Clegg at 10:20am on October 21, 2009

Here here to all posters except eric legere who is wrong that 'umpteen studies have shown ritual slaughter is the most humane way', they have all been conducted by Muslims and Jews. Cite just one SCIENTIFIC study that claims this. I agree totally with Femina. We have been bounced into accepting this barbarity - after centuries of campaigning for animal welfare resulting in better protections for animals than most countries have - by the politically correct multiculturalist chatterati, who in the process have rubbished British culture to the point that the only people with the guts to publicly defend it are the far right. Our schools and prisons ONLY serve halal/kosher meat now, just in case a Muslim or Jew accidentally eats non halal/kosher. Were we asked? I doubt most people even know this is the case and would be disgusted if they did. And let's remember that this barbaric practice is a cultural anachronism from desert dwelling tribes whose grasp or science is scant to non existant. The belief that blood is sinful [haram] or harmful is a ludicrous, undeveloped nonsense from a time before refrigeration, furthermore, all the blood does not drain from the body of an animal killed in this way, the flow stops when the heart does, leaving plenty of blood to 'taint' any flesh. So even the justification for it is ignorant, self deceiving and stupid. And Claudious, you don't have to be a vegetarian to oppose cruelty to animals, and although I am, I know many people who eat meat who are disgusted at wanton cruelty. Many people who work in animal welfare charities are meat eaters, and this is not hypocrisy. We have a duty of care to animals that are eaten, which is why farmers are prosecuted for ill treatment or neglect. The picture says it all; three grown men holding down a small mammal and slitting its throat. Abuse? Yes.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 11:05am on October 21, 2009

I sincerely hope that halal and kosher slaughter is banned. Having witnessed videos released by PeTA and the like, I am firmly convinced that these practices are in no way humane, as the adherents of this barbarity suggest.

Posted by Beverley Kerry at 1:02pm on October 21, 2009

In answer to Manny Goldstein, Manny, science is not infallible, they often get it wrong, and if you don't believe it just look at the science books that are gathering dust in our world museums, if these books were laid end to end they would circle world several times, so what's my point, my point is, that in their day these science books were believed by people like you to be factual, today however scientist would not touch them with a barge pole. If however people are slaughtering animals in the back gardens in down town London, then this should be stopped on public health grounds and not because idiots in white coats.

Posted by Alex at 5:52pm on October 21, 2009

crazydiamond: "Would Jesus have condoned cruelty to animals?" Every indication is that he did. As a knowledgeable and presumably observant Jew, he must have brought sacrifices to the Temple. Femina: "I cannot parade through streets in muslim countries or probably even Jewish ones proudly proclaiming that Atheism or Christianity is a truth to be followed and that muslim, Jewish or Hindu faiths are evil." I can't address the issue for lands under Islamic control, but in Israel non-believers (e.g., Moslems, Paulists, Hindus) can, and do express themselves freely. You want pig and lobster and other prohibited foods you can - unfortunately - get all you want in Israel and no one will arrest you. Beverley Kerry: I trust you watched the PETA films of animal slaughter where it's a bullet to the head that _may_ kill (but often does not). PETA are the folks who were were insensed because an Arab loaded a donkey with explosives to kill Jewish civilians - PITA worried about the animal, not the people. Now, questions not addressed in the article (and maybe not the study). 1: Were any observant Jews or Muslims invited to participate? Their comments would be interesting to read. Were the test animals slaughtered by skilled ritual slaughters? What became of the animals after slaughter; were they eaten or discarded (total waste of life). 2. How painful was the stunning. We know cutting the jugular is briefly painful (the cut usually sends the victim - Islamists also use this method on humans) into shock/unconciousness, but being "stunned" by electric shock (apparently the method used) also is painful; perhaps less intense, but longer lasting. 3. According to several rabbis knowledgeable in slaughtering, if when a stunned animal's jugular is cut, blood spurts from the wound (arterial flow), the animal still could be kosher, stunned or not; that issue was not addressed in the study (possibly because no ritual slaughters or rabbis/imans were present ?). Caveat: I am an observant Jew who gave up meat some time ago both for health and because of slaughtering (by any method). BTW, are fowl also stunned before slaughter in the UK? For the animal, the bottom line is the dinner table for most of you. If you will give up meat then the market will dry up, ranchers will stop raising beef cattle, and slaughtering - with or without stunning - will cease. It's in your hands (or stomachs). As an afterword: No one was sickened with "Mad Cow Disease" from kosher meat - because animals must be healthy before slaughter and they must show no signs of disease on organ inspection. How many were sickened by UK-inspected (non-kosher) beef? Two sides to all coins.

Posted by Yohanon Glenn at 8:30pm on October 21, 2009