DOCSLIB.ORG

Killing and Stunning Final Report Part I Red Meat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Killing and Stunning Final Report Part I Red Meat I European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection Study on the stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses and their economic, social and environmental consequences Assignment 3 of the Framework Contract for evaluation and evaluation related services - Lot 3: Food Chain (awarded through tender n o 2004/S 243-208899) Final Report Part I: Red Meat Submitted by: Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) Civic Consulting - Agra CEAS Consulting - Bureau van Dijk - Arcadia International Project Leader: Civic Consulting Part I prepared by: Civic Consulting European Commission DG SANCO Rue de la Loi 200 1049 Brussels 25.06.2007 Contact for this assignment: Dr Frank Alleweldt Civic Consulting Alleweldt & Kara GbR Study on the stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses and their economic, social and environmental consequences Final Report Part I: Red Meat Prepared by the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) Civic Consulting – Agra CEAS Consulting – Bureau van Dijk – Arcadia International – Project Leader: Civic Consulting Food Chain Evaluation Consortium c/o Civic Consulting Potsdamer Strasse 150 D-10783 Berlin-Germany Telephone: +49-30-2196-2297 Fax: +49-30-2196-2298 E-mail: [email protected] Expert Team Civic Consulting : Dr Frank Alleweldt (Team leader) Dr Senda Kara Ms Kristen Schubert Prof Dr Reinhard Fries Mr Robin Großpietsch Agra CEAS Consulting : Mr Conrad Caspari Dr Dylan Bradley Dr Remi Gauthier Van Dijk Management Consultants: Ms Laurence van Nieuwenhuyse Mr Anastasio Sofias fcec Food Chain Evaluation Consortium Civic Consulting – Bureau van Dijk – Arcadia International – Agra CEAS Study on stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses: Final Report - Part I: Red meat DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. THE EU RED MEAT SECTOR...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. P RESENTATION OF THE RED MEAT SECTOR WITHIN THE EU.......................................................................... 4 2.1.1. Red meat production ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.2. Slaughter industry ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2. C OMPETITIVE POSITION OF THE EU RED MEAT SECTOR ................................................................................ 7 2.2.1. Overview of the import tariff instrument .............................................................................................. 7 2.2.2. Evolution of EU-15 imports and comparison with quotas ................................................................... 8 2.2.3. Possible impacts of trade liberalisation ............................................................................................... 9 2.2.4. Conclusions concerning ‘vulnerability’ of sector............................................................................... 10 3. THE SLAUGHTER CHAIN FOR RED MEAT PRODUCTION .............................................................. 11 3.1. S TUNNING /KILLING METHODS USED IN THE EU.......................................................................................... 11 3.1.1. Cattle.................................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1.2. Pigs..................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.3. Sheep .................................................................................................................................................. 16 3.2. P RODUCTION COSTS OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES IN THE EU ............................................................................. 19 3.3. R ELATIONSHIP OF PRODUCTION COSTS TO THE PRICE OF MEAT ................................................................... 21 4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SLAUGHTER PRACTICES ........................................................ 23 4.1. D ESIGN OF RESTRAINING AND STUNNING /KILLING EQUIPMENTS ................................................................ 23 4.1.1. Current practices................................................................................................................................ 23 4.1.2. Economic consequences..................................................................................................................... 28 4.1.3. Social consequences........................................................................................................................... 30 4.1.4. Environmental consequences ............................................................................................................. 31 4.2. C OMPETENCE OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE OPERATORS ....................................................................................... 32 4.2.1. Current practices................................................................................................................................ 32 4.2.2. Economic consequences..................................................................................................................... 34 Food Chain Evaluation Consortium iii Study on stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses: Final Report - Part I: Red meat DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) 4.2.3. Social consequences........................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.4. Environmental consequences ............................................................................................................. 36 4.3. A NIMAL WELFARE OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES .......................................................................................... 37 4.3.1. Current practices................................................................................................................................ 37 4.3.2. Economic consequences..................................................................................................................... 40 4.3.3. Social consequences........................................................................................................................... 41 4.3.4. Environmental consequences ............................................................................................................. 41 4.4. U SE OF ELECTRICAL STUNNING OR KILLING ................................................................................................ 42 4.4.1. Current practices................................................................................................................................ 42 4.4.2. Economic consequences..................................................................................................................... 44 4.4.3. Social consequences........................................................................................................................... 45 4.4.4. Environmental consequences ............................................................................................................. 46 5. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 47 ANNEX 1: SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES AND TABLES ANNEX 2: METHODOLOGY ANNEX 3: DESCRIPTION OF MEAT QUALITY CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ANIMAL HANDLING ANNEX 4: TYPOLOGY OF STUNNING/BLEEDING METHODS USED IN THE EU ANNEX 5: FINAL QUESTIONNAIRES TO STAKEHOLDERS ANNEX 6: RESULTS OF SURVEYS ANNEX 7: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT REPLIED TO SURVEYS Food Chain Evaluation Consortium iv Study on stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses: Final Report - Part I: Red meat DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) List of Figures Figure 1: Assessment of costs of technology by slaughterhouse operators .......................................... 28 Figure 2: EU output value of animal products over time ...................................................................... 54 Figure 3: Gross internal EU production (2005)..................................................................................... 55 Figure 4: Gross human consumption of red meat (1995-2002)............................................................. 56 Figure 5: Slaughterings by MS (2004).................................................................................................. 56 Figure 6: Net exports for EU-15 cattle meat products .......................................................................... 61 Figure 7: Net exports for EU-15 pig meat products.............................................................................. 62 Figure 8: Net exports for EU-15 sheep and goat products .................................................................... 63 Figure 9: Technologies implemented by respondents........................................................................... 64 Figure 10: Highest ranking design measures as most beneficial for animal welfare
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Backyard Farming and Slaughtering 2 Keeping Tradition Safe
    Backyard farming and slaughtering 2 Keeping tradition safe FOOD SAFETY TECHNICAL TOOLKIT FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Backyard farming and slaughtering – Keeping tradition safe Backyard farming and slaughtering 2 Keeping tradition safe FOOD SAFETY TECHNICAL TOOLKIT FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Bangkok, 2021 FAO. 2021. Backyard farming and slaughtering – Keeping tradition safe. Food safety technical toolkit for Asia and the Pacific No. 2. Bangkok. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. © FAO, 2021 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO license (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this license, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non- commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious and Non-Religious Slaughter
    Religious and Non-Religious Slaughter Joe M. Regenstein Professor of Food Science Head: Cornell Kosher and Halal Food Initiative Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-7201, USA [email protected] American Meat Institute Animal Welfare Conference March 26, 2010 Kansas City, MO Dialog on Religious Slaughter A European Union project of the Health and Consumer Policy Commission The Importance of Religious Slaughter Obtaining meat by means of religious slaughter is an integral part of being an observant Jew or Muslim for many practitioners of these religions. Although some Jews and Muslims may opt for a vegetarian diet, and some are observant of food laws to varying degrees, major religious events and many other meals often center around a meal involving meat. The loss of the right to slaughter meat is viewed as a direct attack on the religion –as highlighted by Nazi Germany’s first restrictions on Jews being the prohibition of religious slaughter. Responsibilities The scientific/engineering community needs to work together with the Jewish and Muslim Communities to make sure that the animal welfare during religious slaughter is done in the best possible way consistent with religious requirements as determined by the local religious leadership. Religious diversity both within a religious community and of other religious communities deserves to be respected as their needs are protected by the European Union. The religious community needs to organize themselves and then take on responsibility for assuring the best possible religious slaughter procedures are used. The Bottom Line 1. The animal welfare of religious slaughter needs to be improved consistent with and respectful of all religious rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Ritual Slaughter
    Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter (2005 Third Year Paper) Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8852091 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter Ronit Gurtman Class of 2005 April 2005 Combined Course and Third-Year Work Abstract The laws pertaining to shehitah, Jewish ritual slaughter, are explored. The laws derive from the oral law, stemming from the prohibition to eat the flesh of live animals, in combination with the general Biblical obligation for humane treatment of animals. The first part of this paper is an exposition of the origins of shehitah, and the laws for correctly carrying out the process. The second part of this paper addresses the history of the practice of these laws in select European countries and the United States. This history includes a discussion of anti-shehitah campaigns and legislation through modern times. 2 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 2 Part I: The Laws of Shehitah ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth Behind the Labels: Farm Animal Welfare Standards and Labeling Practices a Farm Sanctuary Report Table of Contents
    The Truth Behind the Labels: Farm Animal Welfare Standards and Labeling Practices A Farm Sanctuary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7 3. Assessing Animal Welfare ............................................................................................................................ 9 4. Assessing Standards Programs ................................................................................................................. 11 5. Product Labeling and Marketing Claims .................................................................................................... 13 6. Industry Quality Assurance Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 21 7. Third-Party Certification Standards ............................................................................................................ 36 8. Assessment of Welfare Standards Programs ............................................................................................. 44 9. Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 50 10. Appendices ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Practice of Animal Sacrifice and Religious Discrimination in The
    religions Article The “Abhorrent” Practice of Animal Sacrifice and Religious Discrimination in the Global South Danielle N. Boaz Africana Studies Department, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Garinger 133, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, USA; [email protected] Received: 31 January 2019; Accepted: 26 February 2019; Published: 6 March 2019 Abstract: In September 2018, the majority Buddhist government of Sri Lanka approved draft legislation banning animal sacrifice at Hindu Temples. The Cabinet referred to these sacrifices as a “primitive” practice that can cause physical and mental harm to society. Similarly, the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil is presently evaluating the constitutionality of a proposed bill banning animal sacrifice in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Proponents of this bill argue that animal rights supersede the religious freedom of the adherents of Afro-Brazilian faiths who perform these sacrifices. They further contend that the practice of animal sacrifice poses a threat to public health. Through the evaluation of these cases, this article will consider the relationship between animal sacrifice and religious freedom in the Global South. Using Brazil and Sri Lanka as examples, it will explore how laws and litigation protecting animal welfare can often be a guise for racial discrimination and religious intolerance. Keywords: Brazil; Sri Lanka; religious freedom; animal sacrifice; religious intolerance Introduction In September of 2014, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in India wrote a 110-page decision banning the practice of animal sacrifice in the jurisdiction. The Justices described these ritual slaughters as “abhorrent and dastardly,” and argued that new rites “which are based on reasoning and scientific temper” should supplant “superstitions” that have no place “in the modern era of reasoning.” (Sharma et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Techniques of the Sacrifice
    Andm Univcrdy Seminary Stndics, Vol. 44, No. 1,13-49. Copyright 43 2006 Andrews University Press. THE TECHNIQUES OF THE SACRIFICE OF ANIMALS IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA: NEW INSIGHTS THROUGH COMPARISON, PART 1' JOANNSCURLOCK ELMHURSTCOLLEGE Elmhurst, Illinois There is an understandable desire among followers of religions that are monotheistic and that claim descent from ancient Israelite religion to see that religion as unique and completely at odds with its surroundrng polytheistic competitors. Most would not deny that there are at least a few elements of Israelite religion that are paralleled in neighboring cultures, as, e.g., the Hittites: 'I would like to thank the following persons who read and commented on earlier drafts of this article: R. Bed, M. Hilgert, S. Holloway, R. Jas, B. Levine and M. Murrin. Abbreviations follow those given in W. von Soden, AWches Han&rterbuch, 3 301s. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965-1981); and M. Jursa and M. Weszeli, "Register Assyriologie," AfO 40-41 (1993/94): 343-369, with the exception of the following: (a) series: D. 0.Edzard, Gnda and His Dynarg, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopommia: Early Periods (RIME) 311 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997); S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrin Treatzes and Lq&y Oaths, State Archives of Assyria (SAA) 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988); A. Livingstone, Court Poety and Literq Misceubnea, SAA 3 (Helsinki Helsinki University Press, 1989); I. Starr,QnerieJ to the Sungod, SAA 4 (Helsinki Helsinki University Press, 1990); T. Kwasrnan and S. Parpola, Lga/ Trama~~lom$the RoyaiCoz& ofNineveh, Part 1, SAA 6 (Helsinki Helsinki University Press, 1991); F.
    [Show full text]
  • Kosher Slaughter, State Regulation of Religious Organizations, and the European Court of Human Rights
    4-18 COHEN 06-12-09.DOC 6/15/2009 6:03 PM KOSHER SLAUGHTER, STATE REGULATION OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JONATHAN COHEN I. Introduction On May 6, 2009, the European Parliament passed a legislative resolution regarding the regulation of animal slaughter in the European Union. The resolution addressed a proposal made by the European Commission in September 2008. The Commission’s proposal had also been referred to the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), and the latter produced an opinion in its regard on February 25, 2009. The European Parliament’s new resolution is an important milestone in the European debate surrounding the slaughter of animals in general and the regulation of ritual slaughter in particular. Against the background of this resolution, we may now assess the unfolding of recent developments in the debate over ritual slaughter in Europe, and highlight a number of issues that have recently been afforded little attention. To begin, we note that kosher and halal (Muslim) slaughter methods have been allowed by European Union rules, and that the exemption from stunning animals prior to slaughter has been tolerated at the European level.1 A study that was commissioned by LL.B.; Ph.D. Associate Professor in Talmud and Halakhic Literature, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati; Director, Hebrew Union College-University of Cincinnati Center for the Study of Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems. 1 The issue of stunning is briefly addressed below. The first European directive on the issue of animal slaughter was enacted in 1974 (74/577/EEC).
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Protections for Farm Animals at Slaughter
    LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS AT SLAUGHTER The meat-packing industry in the United States expanded tremendously during the first half of the 20th century. However, as packing houses expanded to take in more and more animals, they retained primitive methods of handling and stunning animals in preparation for slaughter. An editorial entitled “Still the Jungle” in the June 18, 1956 issue of the New Republic described the slaughtering procedure: Cattle, like horses, are slugged on the head with iron mallets. The first blow frequently fails to stun them – as they stumble, electric shocks force them to their knees so that they may be struck again and again. Calves, hogs, and lambs are strung up (conscious) by chains tied to their hind legs. When the chains slip or legs are disjointed and broken, they crash from high conveyor lines to slaughter house floors. The throats of the calves are severed by sawing motions; lambs are knifed behind an ear and slowly bleed to death; hogs with slit throats frequently pass still squealing into scalding vats. While cruel methods of slaughter were regularly used in meat-packing houses in the U.S., progress was being made with both the passage of humane legislation and the development of humane stunning equipment in other parts of the world. In 1955, Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota introduced the first humane slaughter bill in the U.S. Congress. The American Meat Institute called it “premature,” although its introduction was 82 years behind Switzerland and at least 20 years behind other countries adopting such legislation. History of the Federal Humane Slaughter Law The specific aim of the first humane slaughter bill was to outlaw the practices of shackling and hoisting conscious animals and the use of manually operated sledgehammers for stunning.
    [Show full text]
  • Tony Yengeni's Ritual Slaughter
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Wits Institutional Repository on DSPACE TONY YENGENI’S RITUAL SLAUGHTER: ANIMAL ANTI-CRUELTY VS. CULTURE. Kevin Gary Behrens A Research Report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts. Johannesburg, 2008 ABSTRACT In this research report I address the question: “Are acts of the ritual slaughter of animals, of the kind recently engaged in by the Yengeni family, morally justifiable?” Using the Yengeni incident as a springboard for my discussion, I focus on the moral question of the relative weight of two competing ethical claims. I weigh the claim that we have an obligation not to cause animals unnecessary pain against the claim by cultures that traditional practices, such as the one under discussion, are morally justifiable on the basis of the moral goods obtained through cultural identification and participation. I attempt to show that claims justifying practices on the basis of culture are not strong enough to outweigh the prima facie wrong of causing non-human animals unnecessary pain. i DECLARATION I declare that this is my own unaided work. It is submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any other degree or examination in any other university. Kevin Gary Behrens 15 th day of February, 2008. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful, insightful and laborious assistance of my supervisor for this project, Dr Brian Penrose, as well as that of Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • How We Mistreat the Animals We Eat
    How We Mistreat the Animals We Eat The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation How We Mistreat the Animals We Eat (2001 Third Year Paper) Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8889477 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA How We Mistreat the Animals We Eat1 Samantha J. Haas ID #20505583 Food and Drug Law Final Paper 1Battered Birds and Crated Herds, How We Treat the Animals We Eat 4 (MBK Publishing 1996). 1 Despite enormous strides in recent decades in the field of animal rights and animal welfare, very little has been accomplished with respect to preventing the systematic abuse and institutionalized cruelty towards animals raised for food and food production. With the dominion of man over nonhuman animals (\animals")2 dating back to ancient times, perhaps there is nothing truly novel about the manner in which our society treats farm animals. Perhaps current husbandry practices merely represent the extension of longstanding beliefs and traditions. With the advent of industrialized agriculture and its attendant inhumane treatment towards farm animals, however, the issue of the manner in which we treat the animals we eat has come to a head. Laws protecting animals from abuse ostensibly exist at both state and federal levels, indicating broad support for animal protection and societal concern for kind treatment of animals, and yet, this concern generally does not extend to how our food gets to the dinner table.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate Over Regulation of Ritual Slaughter in the Western World
    Rovinsky: The Cutting Edge: The Debate Over Regulation of Ritual Slaughter +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 45 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 79 2014 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jun 10 14:22:02 2015 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0886-3210 Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 2014 1 California Western International Law Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1 [2014], Art. 3 THE CUTTING EDGE: THE DEBATE OVER REGULATION OF RITUAL SLAUGHTER IN THE WESTERN WORLD JEREMY A. ROVINSKY* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. ........80 II. BACKGROUND OF RITUAL SLAUGHTER ..................... 82 A. Religious Origins and Requirements of Ritual Slaughter .................................. 82 B. Underlying Philosophical Justifications for Kosher Slaughter .................................. 84 1. The Rationalefor Eating Meat in Jewish Thought........84 2. Human Responsibilities to Animals.................. 86 3. Judaism and Vegetarianism...................87 C. Arguments againstRitual Slaughter................ 88 III. LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WESTERN WORLD RELATING TO RITUAL SLAUGHTER REGULATION ...................... 91 A. Early CulturalHostility toward Ritual Slaughter...........91 1. Switzerland ....................... 91 2. Norway and Sweden ................... 91 B. General Acceptance ofRitual Slaughter.............92 1. Germany and Poland .......................... 92 2. The United States ..................... ..... 94 * Dean, National Juris University & General Counsel, National Paralegal College. BA, American University, JD, The George Washington University.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Ritual Exemptions: Sacrificing Animal Rights for Ideology
    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 24 Number 4 Growth Management and the Article 14 Environment in the 1990s 6-1-1991 Religious Ritual Exemptions: Sacrificing Animal Rights for Ideology Tali H. Shaddow Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Tali H. Shaddow, Religious Ritual Exemptions: Sacrificing Animal Rights for Ideology, 24 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1367 (1991). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol24/iss4/14 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RELIGIOUS RITUAL EXEMPTIONS: SACRIFICING ANIMAL RIGHTS FOR IDEOLOGY Time and time again people cry "sentimentality," and say in the time of world upheaval there are more important things to think about. But what kind of a civilization is it which does not recog- nize any values besides the materialisticones? I think the quali- ties of a civilization are evident in the treatment of the weak and powerless. I. INTRODUCTION In 1958, Congress passed the Humane Slaughter Act,2 (the Humane Slaughter Act or the Act), thereby implementing a public policy that the slaughtering of livestock be carried out by humane methods only.3 Spe- cifically, the Act required that
    [Show full text]