Vet Times The website for the veterinary profession https://www.vettimes.co.uk

RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER AND ETHICS

Author : Frank Busch

Categories : Vets

Date : April 20, 2009

Frank Busch starts a two-part article considering the ethics involved with religious slaughter by detailing some procedures of Jewish and Muslim faiths

THIS article is a continuation of discussions, including occasional case studies, of animal and veterinary ethics issues.

It is hoped that this series will continue to encourage participation and discussion among colleagues. The author invites contact by email ([email protected]) from readers interested in sharing questions, comments or cases. To read more ethics articles or contribute to debates, visit www.vetsonline.com

Introduction

Ritual slaughter1 is the practice of slaughtering for in a manner, as prescribed by religious dietary laws – for example, Islamic Dhabiha2 (or Zabihah).

In antiquity, and animal was one and the same. For the , the consumption of meat not slaughtered ritually was unthinkable. Therefore, beyond being a tribute to the gods, Greek marked a cultural boundary, separating the Hellenes from the barbarians. It was Christianised into slaughter ceremonies involving Greek Orthodox Christian rituals3.

With the domestication of livestock, the hunt was gradually replaced by the slaughter of livestock, and were consequently transformed to the context of slaughter.

1 / 13 Although religious slaughter has been performed in for centuries, objections to the practices on welfare grounds have been expressed since the 19th century4. Religious slaughter continues to be a controversial and emotive subject, caught between considerations and cultural and human rights issues. Current religious slaughter practices vary considerably, and the rules regarding requirements may be confusing. There is also a clear dichotomy between consumer demand and concern, and consumer understanding and information about religious slaughter methods.

The demand for products from animals slaughtered by religious methods has considerably increased in the past few years and, as a result, their market share is now considerable5 ( meat production in particular). Two main types of religious slaughter need to be considered in this context: the slaughter method for the production of halal meat intended for , and for obtaining kosher meat for Jewish consumers.

Adherence to religious prescriptions is one of the main factors determining avoidance, taboos and specific regulation – particularly with respect to meat. Several impose some food restrictions, such as the prohibition of pork and meat not produced as a result of ritual slaughter in and Islam, and pork and in and Buddhism6. The rejection of specific is derived from human cultures, many of which were established for reasons now unclear to us, and now gains further support from religious sanctions.

Furthermore, food choice and consumption behaviour are imbued with social rules and meaning. This is particularly true for meat because of its association with cultural habits and rituals, both religious and secular7.

Although the dietary laws imposed by may be strict, the amount of people following said laws can be substantial. It was estimated that, for example, 75 per cent of Muslims in the US follow their religious dietary laws, meaning after having emigrated, most Muslims eat halal8 food. Assuming that this percentage can be extrapolated to Muslim immigrants in Europe, this would yield a potential halal food market of about 10 million European consumers. For example, a study has revealed that 84 per cent of Muslims in France always eat halal meat9.

Factors explaining differences in adherence to religious dietary prescriptions pertain, among others, to social structures such as origin, immigration and generation differences10. However, it is not only religious motives that determine halal meat consumption, but also health and social issues, such as religious identity and the degree of acculturation11.

Methods

• Shechita

The is the basic philosophy guiding shechita. Jewish religious law demands that animals

2 / 13 must be alive, healthy and have suffered no injury at the time of slaughter.

This is also the main reason why the Jewish authorities are opposed to the of animals before slaughter – it is their belief that commonly used stunning methods cause injury12 or even . If the stunning leads to an animal’s death outright, it would render the animal neveila13 and, therefore, unfit for kosher consumption. Jewish slaughtermen (shochetim) undergo special training and are subject to licensing and annual examination by the Rabbinical Commission in England and Wales or the Chief Rabbi in Scotland. The shochetim must also hold an official slaughterman’s licence, which is issued by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS)14.

Shechita is performed with a very sharp instrument (a chalaf), which must be perfectly smooth and without even the minutest notch or irregularity15.

In the shechita method, a restrained and fully conscious animal will be subjected to a single, rapid and uninterrupted movement of the chalaf, severing the carotid arteries and jugular veins (along with the and oesophagus), leading to death via cerebral hypoxia16.

A thorough follows, as this is especially important in Jewish law – Jews are forbidden to consume blood (Deuteronomy XII: 23). Jewish authorities argue that because of the omission of a stunning procedure, shechita ensures maximum exsanguination in comparison to conventional slaughter.

There are five Halachic requirements17 that the shochet is obliged to ensure in the performance of shechita.

– Shehiya (delay). There must be no pause in the blade’s motion. The throat must be cut with one rapid and continuous motion from start to finish.

– Derasa (pressing). No upward or downward pressure may be exerted on the knife beyond that which is absolutely required to create the incision. Hacking cuts are specifically forbidden.

– Chalada (digging). The incision must not close back upon itself and cover the surface of the blade, which must be visible at all times. There can be no burrowing of the blade or stabbing actions.

– Hagrama (slipping). The incision must be at the appropriate site to sever the major structures and vessels at the neck, and the cartilaginous cricoid ring, located below the larynx, must be avoided (as must all other bony structures) to avoid damaging the blade.

– Ikkur (tearing). The oesophagus, trachea and blood vessels must be cleanly cut, not torn.

The chalaf must be of a sufficient size and sharpness to accomplish this, and the blade must be

3 / 13 undamaged. Jewish authorities argue that because of the sharpness of the chalaf, the animal does not feel any pain from the cut and, because of the rapid blood loss, they believe it is insensible within three seconds of the cut being made18.

A carcase rejected by the religious authority as treifa (unfit) may be passed as fit for human consumption by the MHS, and sold into the general meat market. In addition, Jews may only eat the hindquarters of cattle if certain blood vessels have been removed, which is known as porging. In the past, this procedure was carried out in the UK and the rear quarters sold as kosher meat. However, this was stopped in the 1930s by the religious authorities and, as a result, the discarded hindquarters are now sold into the general meat market19.

Although shechita and al-Dhabh share several philosophical and practical characteristics, there are many differences – including that the number of animals slaughtered using halal techniques is much larger those killed for kosher food.

The Muslim method of slaughter is influenced to a great extent by the scriptural interpretation of local Islamic authorities and customs, whereas the canonical nature of shechita promotes a greater level of homogeneity in its practice. There is also no Islamic equivalent of the shochet. Al-Dhabh retains the tradition of individual Muslims slaughtering their own livestock20. Halal slaughter must be carried out by a sane and adult Muslim21 who holds an official slaughterman’s licence but, unlike a Jewish slaughterman, he is not licensed by a religious authority.

The most significant difference, however, between halal and kosher slaughter is that many Muslims will now accept meat that has been produced from animals subjected to preslaughter stunning.

• Halal slaughter (al-Dhabh al-halal or Dhabiha)

The rules and specific interdictions respecting the Islamic slaughter of food animals are contained in several chapters of the Qur’an. They are concerned with the humane killing of God’s creatures and not with sacrificial practice per se22. The most basic and definitive characteristic of halal slaughter is the requirement that Allah’s name be pronounced at the moment of slaughter23.

Other requirements may include the practices described here. However, this varies significantly and many of these points may be omitted and frequently depend on local practices24.

– The slaughterman must face the animal in the direction of , and speak the name of Allah either prior to or during the process.

– In the case of animals stunned prior to slaughter, the must be as a direct result of the cutting of the vital structures and subsequent exsanguination (such as prolonged cerebral hypoxia), and not because of the stun itself. Owing to the requirement that animals must be alive at the time of slaughter, headonly electrical stunning is the most common method used.

4 / 13 – The cut should result in a rapid and thorough exsanguination, and must minimise pain. Knives must be kept sharp, but must not be sharpened in front of animals prior to slaughter.

– The animal should be clean and not thirsty at the time of death.

– Animals (but not necessarily fowl) must not be slaughtered in the visual presence of other similarly destined animals.

Again, the precise methodology may vary in detail from location to location, but generally the restrained animal has its carotid arteries and jugular veins severed (along with the trachea and oesophagus) via an incision in the neck made with a sharp knife. In cases where the knife is of a sufficient width, the cut can be performed with the same continuous slicing motion that is mandated by shechita. More often, however, a short, sometimes curved blade is employed, necessitating one or more stab incisions followed by retrograde severance of the major blood vessels of the neck25.

The greater adaptability of aldhabh in relation to shechita has facilitated the everincreasing adoption of pre-slaughter stunning with halal slaughter. In the late 1970s, domestic and international Muslim authorities worked with representatives from New Zealand’s government and industry to develop a method of stunning that would be compatible with the principles set out in the Qur’an. Muslim religious authorities accepted that a stunned animal was still alive and would recover consciousness if no further action was taken, and were content that the meat from an animal electrically stunned before slaughter was halal – providing all the other religious requirements were met26. As a result, head-only electrical stunning was made mandatory for al- dhabh in New Zealand. This practice has spread such that it is now the modus operandi for the halal slaughter of , and calves in Australia and a number of EU nations, and is gradually being made statutorily binding in some jurisdictions (such as )27.

However, within the Muslim community, some argue that stunning results in the animal feeling pain, that more blood is retained within the carcase and that stunning results in chemical changes in the meat, which makes it unhealthy to eat. To these religious authorities, the meat from an animal that has been stunned prior to slaughter is, therefore, haram (unacceptable). They also argue that the rapid loss of blood following religious slaughter results in the animal becoming unconscious before it can feel any pain28.

Restraint techniques

When ritual slaughter is performed without stunning, it becomes necessary to restrain the animal so that its neck can be presented to the knife and held relatively still until the main blood vessels have been severed29. Sheep and calves are small enough to be held manually, or they may be placed in an inverting cradle.

The first holding pen specially designed to improve both the humaneness and efficiency of shechita

5 / 13 and al-Dhabh was developed in the UK in 1927. The Weinberg casting pen consisted of an adjustable enclosure large enough for adult cattle that could be rotated on circular rails about its longitudinal axis. With a 180° turn, the animal became inverted on to its back, thus allowing for easier neck extension and a more rapid incision. This was hailed by many at the time as a great step forward, and became mandatory in the UK for religious slaughter in 195830.

However, the problem of restraint stress and the subsequent stress associated with inverting (particularly if the animal was a large ruminant), and the distress caused via potential suffocation through pressure of the abdominal contents on the thoracic cavity, remained.

The situation improved from 1963 onwards, when an upright slaughter pen31 came into use and, with it, less forceful restraint of both the head and body. With the animal’s body supported ventrally and caudally within the enclosure, and its neck extended by a hydraulic chin lift, the physical force applied to the animal was greatly reduced (see Figure 1).

In the interests of animal welfare, the use of any stressful method of restraint must be eliminated: poorly designed, upright restraining pens will apply excessive pressure to the thoracic and neck areas of cattle.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture’s 1992 decision to uphold its ban on slaughter without stunning was largely driven by its concerns about forceful immobilisation and cattle clamping32. According to , a properly designed and operated upright restraint system will cause minimal stress. In Dr Grandin’s experience, cattle will voluntarily place their heads in a well-designed head restraint device that is properly operated by a trained operator33. Dr Grandin notes that the very best mechanical systems will cause distress if operated by abusive, uncaring people34. Rough handling and the excessive use of electric prods cause many stress problems – but this also applies to the situation regarding conventional slaughter.

• Relevant legislation and ethical questions pertaining to religious slaughter will be discussed in the second part of this article, as will the views of various organisations including the RSPCA, Compassion In World Farming and the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and the Government’s response.

References

1. Ritual slaughter is to be seen in contrast to animal sacrifice, in which the ritual aspect predominates over the food production aspect. Ritual slaughter is practised in various African traditional religions. Zulu slaughter rituals, for example, continue to stir debate and controversy in South Africa. The main focus within this article will revolve primarily around Jewish Shechita and Islamic Dhabiha; in this context, the author prefers to use the term “religious slaughter”. Shechita UK states that “there is no ritual involved in shechita”. 2. The term Dhabiha is often inaccurately used as a synonym for the word halal. But used

6 / 13 in conjunction, “Dhabiha halal” is the term used to describe any meat or food that is permissible as per Islamic law. Zabiha, Zabeeha or Dhabiha (a variant pronunciation of Zabiha or Zabeeha) is a term often used by Muslims in the USA to differentiate meat that has been slaughtered by Muslims as opposed to being slaughtered by Ahlul Kitab (Jews or Christians) or without religious connotation. 3. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter 4 See the DIALREL project at www.dialrel.eu/introduction 5. Bergeaud-Blackler F (2007). New challenges for Islamic ritual slaughter: a European perspective, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33(6): 965-980. 6. Simoons F J (1994). Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances From Prehistory to the Present, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison/London. 7. Fiddes N (1992). Meat: A Natural Symbol, Routledge, London and New York. 8. Bonne K and Verbeke W (2007). Muslim consumer trust in halal meat status and control in : insights from a means-end chain approach, Anthropology of Food 5: 1-24. 9. Bergeaud-Blackler F and Bonne K (2007). D’une consommation occasionnelle à un régime halal: quelles conséquences sur la santé, Migrations Santé 129 (1). 10. See footnote nine. 11 Bonne K, Vermeir I, Bergeaud-Blackler F and Verbeke W (2007). Determinants of halal meat consumption in France, British Food Journal 109 (5): 367-386. 12. This is more obvious in the case of captive-bolt stunning, which will clearly cause considerable brain injury, but this is less obvious and hence disputed with regard to injury caused by electrical stunning. 13. Hebrew: referring to an animal that dies on its own – in effect, an animal that has not been shechted. 14. See www.shechitauk.org/downloads/2008guide.pdf 15. It is the responsibility of the shochet to examine the instrument before each kill to ensure this standard is maintained. 16. There are five specific criteria of an acceptable slaughter method, as identified by the Talmud. Any aberration to the exact method of slaughter (for example, a delay in the cut or tearing of the oesophagus or trachea) will class the entire carcase as unfit for kosher consumption (see footnote 17). 17. Shragge J E and Price M A (2004). Religious slaughter, Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, Elsevier and www.shechitauk.org/downloads/2008guide.pdf 18. See footnote 14. 19. See fact sheet of the Humane Slaughter Association (HSA) at www.hsa.org.uk/Resources/Publications/General/RELIGIOUS%20SLAUGH TER%20may%202007.pdf 20. Shragge et al remark that millions of sheep, goats and calves are slaughtered for the halal market outside licensed abattoirs every year. In many western jurisdictions, such as the (Directive 93/119/EC), it is illegal to market meat from animals killed outside registered establishments. 21. Riaz M N and Chaudry M M (2004). Halal Food Production, CRC Press

7 / 13 22. See footnote 17. 23. See footnote 21. 24. See footnote 17. 25. See footnote 17. 26. In Britain, it is thought that about 90 per cent of halal meat is electrically pre-stunned (see www.newcriminologist.co.uk/article.asp?aid=-1184286880). 27. See footnote 17. 28. See footnote 19. 29. Until the 20th century, the common method of preparing a large animal for either shechita or al-Dhabh was to first cast it to the ground using ropes and/or chains. In a second step, the head would be secured and the neck extended for the cut to be executed. This is still a common method that is performed in the developing world in particular. The “sticking” of animals lying prone on the floor was prohibited in the US in 1906, primarily on hygienic grounds (the carcase becoming unclean via infection through the neck wound – see also footnote 23). 30. See footnote 17. 31. In the US, they were known as ASPCA-Pens (American Society for the Prevention of ) or Cincinnati-Pens. 32. Andersson B, Forslid A, Olsson K and Ronnegard J O (1992). Slaughter of Unstunned Animals: Swedish Board of Agriculture Report: 37. 33. Grandin T (1992): Observations of cattle restraint devices for stunning and slaughtering, Animal Welfare: 1 85-91. 34. Grandin T and Regenstein J M (1994). Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists, Meat Focus International: 115-123.

8 / 13

9 / 13 Figure 1. An example of a restraining pen showing the animal in the correct position for low- stress restraint. Both the forehead and the back should be level, and any excessive pressure of pushers and lifts must be avoided.

Redrawn from GRANDIN AND REGENSTEIN34.

10 / 13

11 / 13

The demand for products from animals slaughtered by religious methods has considerably increased in the past few years.

12 / 13

The demand for products from animals slaughtered by religious methods has considerably increased in the past few years.

Photo: PA PHOTOS.

13 / 13

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)