News & Reports

News & Reports Non-stun slaughter

Government has no plans to end religious slaughter, says minister ‘The Government have no plans at all to ban religious slaughter. My right honourable Friend the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that there is no intention to ban religious slaughter. However, everyone agrees that we need good enforcement of our existing legislation.’ So said George Eustice, parliamentary undersecretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, at the end of a debate in Parliament last week on the issue of nonstun slaughter. The debate, in Westminster Hall on February 23, had been tabled by the Backbench Business Committee after a government e-petition calling for an end to non-stun slaughter on animal welfare grounds, initiated by the BVA and the RSPCA, achieved 100,000 signatures. Opening the debate, Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, noted that the issue of non-stun slaughter was contentious, but hoped that the debate would generate ‘more light than heat’. He referred to a recent YouGov poll commissioned by the RSPCA which, he reported, indicated that 77 per cent of those surveyed agreed that the practice of nonstun slaughter should be banned, with no exceptions. However, the same survey had also indicated that there was a great deal of confusion about non-stun slaughter, with 51 per cent of those surveyed believing that all halal meat was from animals slaughtered without prestunning. In fact, 80 per cent of halal meat came from animals that were stunned before slaughter, he said. Mr Hollobone said: ‘Whatever their views on stun versus non-stun, or on halal, kosher or other methods of slaughter, I hope that most honourable Members agree that the important thing is to label meat products as helpfully as possible, so that consumers can make an informed choice.’ ‘Whatever the views on either side of the debate about how animals should be slaughtered, I hope there is more of a consensus in the House about the need to improve the labelling of meat products.’ MPs speaking in the debate expressed a range of views, with some supporting a ban on non-stun slaughter and others expressing

support for communities to be allowed to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. Presenting the Opposition’s view on the issue, Huw Irranca-Davies, the Labour MP for Ogmore, said that his party’s position was that it would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. However, it supported the exemption in EU and UK law that allowed the production and consumption of kosher and halal meat. It believed that there was merit in labelling meat products to indicate different methods of slaughter, or whether an animal had been stunned, but that this was best debated and agreed at an EU level to ensure a clear and consistent approach across all EU member states.

Role of OVs

Responding to some of the points raised during the debate, Mr Eustice highlighted the role of Official Veterinarians (OVs) in slaughterhouses. It was the job of OVs to enforce existing legislation on welfare at slaughter and, he said, while the UK’s national rules on religious slaughter provided greater protection of animal welfare than contained within the European legislation, the rules did not exempt slaughterhouse operators from their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, or the requirements of other legislation, including that a captive bolt gun should be kept close to the restraining pen in case of any emergency, such as the animal not becoming unconscious due to occlusion of the arteries in its neck. ‘It is the role of the Official Veterinarians in the abattoirs to decide when it may be necessary to go in, as required under the regulations, and use a bolt gun where something goes wrong,’ said Mr Eustice. He reported that he had asked the deputy Chief Veterinary Officer to work with the Food Standards Agency to look again at the matter of how long it took for bovine animals in particular to lose consciousness after their throat had been cut. The aim, he said, was to ‘see whether we can, without changing any laws, ensure that we have consistent application of the existing laws and consistent understanding

of when it is appropriate for an OV to require that post-cut shot to be taken’. Regarding labelling, Mr Eustice said the Government was still waiting for a report from the European Commission. This, he said, ‘has been delayed and delayed’ and was believed to be still some months from publication. However, giving some ‘general pointers’, he noted that there was a very clear legal definition of what ‘stunned’ meant for the purposes of abattoirs. ‘I think that we can be clear that we could have “stunned” or “unstunned” as a form of labelling,’ he said. There were, however, difficulties in labelling meat as ‘halal’ or ‘kosher’.

Call for action

Following the debate, the BVA reiterated its call for the Government to end non-stun slaughter on animal welfare grounds. John Blackwell, the BVA President, commented: ‘It is now clear that the Government can no longer ignore the strength of feeling of MPs and the public on this issue. While the Government clearly agrees with the scientific evidence that slaughter without prestunning allows animals to feel pain and compromises animal welfare, it has yet to take any action to reduce the suffering of the animals involved. This delay to act in the face of overwhelming evidence is completely unacceptable.’ Clearer labelling would give consumers a choice about the meat they bought, said Mr Blackwell, and would help to ensure that the numbers of animals slaughtered without stunning would be limited to those needed to satisfy the needs of the communities concerned. He continued: ‘There has never been more pressure on the Government to take action and improve the welfare of animals slaughtered without prestunning. Whether the Government will end non-stun completely or introduce measures to reduce the amount of animals slaughtered using this method, one thing is very clear: inaction is now no longer a credible option.’ doi: 10.1136/vr.h1165 March 7, 2015 | Veterinary Record | 239

Copyright of Veterinary Record: Journal of the British Veterinary Association is the property of BMJ Publishing Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Government has no plans to end religious slaughter, says minister.

Government has no plans to end religious slaughter, says minister. - PDF Download Free
38KB Sizes 3 Downloads 11 Views