Do you eat halal meat?

[neil_g]

Have you not seen the huge advertising on TV at the moment? Get a bacon bap from 7am in the morning?
Last time I looked that came from a pig.

Define bacon though (not that subway had good bacon anyway), a lot use "turkey bacon" where they cannot/do not use pork

 

[MWHCVT]

Define bacon though (not that subway had good bacon anyway), a lot use "turkey bacon" where they cannot/do not use pork

Oak smoked, dry cured streaky and done golden crispy, a little bit of me just died as went to heaven....

 

[pitkin2020]

Does that really matter? At the end of the day the animal is killed so you can eat it. Surely any talk of the animal's welfare is reduced to meaningless waffle the moment parts of it enter your mouth.

Of course the end result is the same but there's doing it swiftly to cause the least amount of pain or doing it cruelly. Just because we eat it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it in a semi decent way.

 

[cambsno]

Does that really matter? At the end of the day the animal is killed so you can eat it. Surely any talk of the animal's welfare is reduced to meaningless waffle the moment parts of it enter your mouth.

A lot depends on the life the animal had too. I will normally only buy outdoor pork and free range chicken, would never buy the 'value' ranges. Definitely prefer less of a better quality meat than loads of a cheap battery one. Never, ever buy Danish pork as I believe (maybe wrongly) that they farm in worse conditions. Never buy NZ lamb as don't agree with buying stuff flown round the world when we have better produce here. Never buy foreign strawberries, only buy foreign tomatoes when I can't get English ones and only eat asparagus between April and June!

 

[cambsno]

How strict are religions on all this anyway? Seeing as all lamb (pretty much) is halal, does that mean that Sikhs and Jews never eat it? Is eating 'normal meat' for those groups better or worse than eating halal?

 

[cambsno]

The 'real' outrage is in reality the internet to blame. It's too easy to voice an opinion without thinking, or jump onto the media driven morality bandwagon, without engaging thought.

Now if the people complaining became vegetarian, spent a little longer buying from quality sources, wrote letters to their MP's, the supermarkets etc, then I'd have a little more respect, but lets face it, the majority of people type I'm appalled on the internet somewhere, froth for 10 mins, tell their partner 'that told them' and return to buying frozen meals or nicely cling film wrapped crap, because it's cheap or convenient.

Right I'm off to write a letter to Branson and my MP about the internet and make myself a foil hat.

Does writing to MP's or supermarkets actually do anything? The only thing supermarkets understand is sales, so best to stop using them or buying certain products. Most people are also lazy, hence they buy from tesco rather than farm shops.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

Of course the end result is the same but there's doing it swiftly to cause the least amount of pain or doing it cruelly. Just because we eat it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it in a semi decent way.

I just find it incredibly hypocritical that you claim to be concerned about the welfare of an animal that was specifically reared to end up in your mouth. I guess that care about an animal only goes so far eh!

 

[pitkin2020]

I just find it incredibly hypocritical that you claim to be concerned about the welfare of an animal that was specifically reared to end up in your mouth. I guess that care about an animal only goes so far eh!

How's it hypocritical as you've already stated it was reared for food not as a pet. If there was no call for this food or the by products produced by these animals there would be no call for he animals.

Just because you eat it doesn't mean that how it is reared or slaughtered matters any less.

That being said there is no reason for the animal to be mistreated along the way is it.

I guess by your comment your a vege

 

[Ricardodaforce]

How's it hypocritical as you've already stated it was reared for food not as a pet. If there was no call for this food or the by products produced by these animals there would be no call for he animals.

Just because you eat it doesn't mean that how it is reared or slaughtered matters any less.

That being said there is no reason for the animal to be mistreated along the way is it.

I guess by your comment your a vege

You're wrong. I absolutely love eating meat. I just don't go around pretending that I care about the animal's welfare before I eat its meat or wear its skin on my feet.

 

[pitkin2020]

If you don't care then you've never tasted the difference as it's welfare makes a huge difference taste.

There is no reason for animals to be mistreated whilst being reared for food.
When people say they don't care I believe most people don't want to know rather than don't care far easier to just pretend the meat in the shelf from the supermarket appears magically rather than from the field

 

[Nod]

How strict are religions on all this anyway? Seeing as all lamb (pretty much) is halal, does that mean that Sikhs and Jews never eat it? Is eating 'normal meat' for those groups better or worse than eating halal?

AFAIK, the religious observance of the dietary restrictions is down to the individual. The reason for many of the restrictions is (or at least was) the difficulties in keeping some foods fresh in the warm climate where the Abrahamic religions started (and the problems "off" pork and shellfish in particular can cause!) so some pay a certain amount of lip service to the restrictions (in much the same way that so many "Christians" ignore the 10 commandments when it suits!) As well as the restrictions, Halal involves the saying of a brief prayer as the animal is killed (or just saying the name of god.)

Probably worth looking at Wiki's article on the similarities and differences between Halal and Kosher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws_compared

 

[gramps]

If you don't care then you've never tasted the difference as it's welfare makes a huge difference taste.

There is no reason for animals to be mistreated whilst being reared for food.
When people say they don't care I believe most people don't want to know rather than don't care far easier to just pretend the meat in the shelf from the supermarket appears magically rather than from the field

Sadly, many people really do not care.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

If you don't care then you've never tasted the difference as it's welfare makes a huge difference taste.

There is no reason for animals to be mistreated whilst being reared for food.
When people say they don't care I believe most people don't want to know rather than don't care far easier to just pretend the meat in the shelf from the supermarket appears magically rather than from the field

So your care for its welfare only exists because it directly relates to its taste. That's not real concern at all, it's about enjoying your meal.

 

[JonathanRyan]

I wonder why a 4 year old Daily Mail article has suddenly become news again?

Well, there's an election coming......

 

[neil_g]

Sadly, many people really do not care.

I care more about the life of the animal up to the point of its slaughter.

In the grand scheme of things the final few seconds of the animals life is less of an issue for me.

I mean the end result of those last few seconds is the same. Who's to say whatever method doesn't cause some discomfort even when stunned? Unfortunately you can't ask a dead animal what caused more discomfort being stunned and decapitated vs stunned and throat slit.

Personally I think this Halal "news" has been blown out of proportion by the media using the Muslim card to sell more to the ring wing.

 

[boyfalldown]

I care more about the life of the animal up to the point of its slaughter.

In the grand scheme of things the final few seconds of the animals life is less of an issue for me.

I mean the end result of those last few seconds is the same. Who's to say whatever method doesn't cause some discomfort even when stunned? Unfortunately you can't ask a dead animal what caused more discomfort being stunned and decapitated vs stunned and throat slit.

Personally I think this Halal "news" has been blown out of proportion by the media using the Muslim card to sell more to the ring wing.

what he said

 

[pitkin2020]

So your care for its welfare only exists because it directly relates to its taste. That's not real concern at all, it's about enjoying your meal.

Lol twisting words.
As these animals are bred and kept for food yes of course it relates to taste in this instance also morally there is no need or reason to be cruel or uncaring about the welfare of any animal which is sort if what your implying that I'm saying which isn't the case.

Yes it sorts of the point about enjoying your meal surely that's the whole point of these animals being bred isn't it?? But apart from the taste how can you enjoy it knowing excessive suffering and mistreatment was caused to the animal in the process when there is no reason or need to.

Just because there is need for something doesn't mean it shouldn't be done in a moral way. I'm skint but that doesn't justify me mugging some old ladies because I need money does it.

 

[gramps]

I care more about the life of the animal up to the point of its slaughter.

In the grand scheme of things the final few seconds of the animals life is less of an issue for me.

I mean the end result of those last few seconds is the same. Who's to say whatever method doesn't cause some discomfort even when stunned? Unfortunately you can't ask a dead animal what caused more discomfort being stunned and decapitated vs stunned and throat slit.

Personally I think this Halal "news" has been blown out of proportion by the media using the Muslim card to sell more to the ring wing.

So, do you believe that:-

1. An animal should be slaughtered by the most humane means possible?
2. That consumers should be informed as to the provenance of their food?
3. That a news report is invalid, even if what it reports is correct and current, just because the media want to profit from it?

 

[boyfalldown]

1. That a news report is invalid, even if what it reports is correct and current, just because the media want to profit from it?

In the grand scheme of things the article you linked is from 2010. Hows that current? Now I realise this story has been in other media outlets this week. But seeing as pretty much everywhere mentioned (New Zealand lamb, Pizza Express etc) have been very upfront about this issue how have they been keeping it secret and denying you information about the provenance of food? What do you think the motivation behind this 'story' is?

 

[JonathanRyan]

What do you think the motivation behind this 'story' is?

Aliens*?

----
* by which of course I mean UKIP. Srsly, somebody at UKIP must have a brain.

 

[boyfalldown]

Aliens*?

----
* by which of course I mean UKIP. Srsly, somebody at UKIP must have a brain.

are you sure about that? You'd think so, but if them needing to draw a really useful picture each of what a completed ballot paper should look like isn't enough to convince you they are a bit thick, then the little gem below may do. I suspect they're failing to understand the concept of targeting your message

 

[JonathanRyan]

are you sure about that? You'd think so, but if them needing to draw a really useful picture each of what a completed ballot paper should look like isn't enough to convince you they are a bit thick, then the little gem below may do. I suspect they're failing to understand the concept of targeting your message

Just like halal meat, innit? Cheaper to mail everybody than work out who to send it to.

 

[Nod]

Aliens*?

----
* by which of course I mean UKIP. Srsly, somebody at UKIP must have a brain.

One of them MIGHT have one but whether or not he/she knows how to get it through their ear'ole and use it is probably a completely different matter! Then, of course, at some point he/she will have to extract it and pass it on to the person whose turn it is next.

 

[boyfalldown]

Just like halal meat, innit? Cheaper to mail everybody than work out who to send it to.

not if you attach it to a brick and return it to their free post address

 

[JonathanRyan]

Dunno why we're all laughing at UKIP. IIRC just getting elected as an MEP gets you £1M. No, I don't know who my MEP is either. But not for the first time I'm thinking of standing

 

[boyfalldown]

Dunno why we're all laughing at UKIP. IIRC just getting elected as an MEP gets you £1M. No, I don't know who my MEP is either. But not for the first time I'm thinking of standing

You have to laugh at them else they'd make you cry. And thats never good

 

[gramps]

In the grand scheme of things the article you linked is from 2010. Hows that current? Now I realise this story has been in other media outlets this week. But seeing as pretty much everywhere mentioned (New Zealand lamb, Pizza Express etc) have been very upfront about this issue how have they been keeping it secret and denying you information about the provenance of food? What do you think the motivation behind this 'story' is?

Well the questions were to Neil, but ... in the grand scheme of things, the issues that the report was dealing with in 2010 are still current - if you go into a supermarket today you will not see labeling or other identification of halal meat and the halal slaughtering process has not changed since 2010.
I guess it very much depends on your idea of "upfront" ... would it be "upfront" to put a 'tweet' on Twitter to say you put excess salt and fat in your food products, or a Facebook entry that your products 'may contain nuts', or an advert in a paper that your products were unsuitable for vegetarians but not label the products themselves accordingly?

 

[boyfalldown]

Well the questions were to Neil, but ... in the grand scheme of things, the issues that the report was dealing with in 2010 are still current - if you go into a supermarket today you will not see labeling or other identification of halal meat and the halal slaughtering process has not changed since 2010.
I guess it very much depends on your idea of "upfront" ... would it be "upfront" to put a 'tweet' on Twitter to say you put excess salt and fat in your food products, or a Facebook entry that your products 'may contain nuts', or an advert in a paper that your products were unsuitable for vegetarians but not label the products themselves accordingly?

Its a discussion forum. I had assumed anyone could reply

I suspect you're deliberately confusing this issue. Food suppliers are legally required to list ingredients, which halal meat isn't one, although salt is. You've skipped the question, what do you think the motivation behind that report is?

The slaughter method isn't listed on other meat, are you suggesting the law should change to list it for all? And does eating halal meat actually hurt you in anyway? - To me the fact an arabic prayer was said during slaughter is as relevant as what was on the radio. Hurts animal welfare about the same amount to.

 

[Dale_tem]

I want a similar section on all meat products as you find on Burts crisps....

Bob was Halal slaughtered by Alistair, they both liked long walks on the beach and listening to Linken Park

 

[gramps]

Its a discussion forum. I had assumed anyone could reply

I suspect you're deliberately confusing this issue. Food suppliers are legally required to list ingredients, which halal meat isn't one, although salt is. You've skipped the question, what do you think the motivation behind that report is?

The slaughter method isn't listed on other meat, are you suggesting the law should change to list it for all? And does eating halal meat actually hurt you in anyway? - To me the fact an arabic prayer was said during slaughter is as relevant as what was on the radio. Hurts animal welfare about the same amount to.

Ok of course you can reply, I was in no way excluding you
I'm not confused at all, I realise that certain labeling is a legal requirement, whilst others are purely informative ... stating that meat sold was 'halal' would be in the later, informative.
We live in an age where many people are concerned about what they eat, (I know equally many aren't and if it fits in their mouth they will eat it), some want to know if it's 'organic', others if it's 'free range', still others want to know about animal welfare if it is an animal product, or some other provenance.

For some people halal slaughter would be unacceptable for their perceived view of the animals welfare, for others it would be unacceptable as it has been killed in a form of religious ritual that they would find objectionable.
For most people, they think that they are aware of the 'normal' process of slaughter and the halal process is not what they consider to be the normal way, hence 'different' ... they may or may not have concerns about that.
Just because you or I have no concerns, does not IMO, affect the fact that such a process should be clearly indicated in order for those who do find the process unacceptable to make an informed choice.

For me, it all comes down to, not whether it's a Muslim, Jewish or whatever thing, it's a case of being able to make an informed choice over what you eat and having a clear understanding of the provenance of that product.

 

[pitkin2020]

Its a discussion forum. I had assumed anyone could reply

To me the fact an arabic prayer was said during slaughter is as relevant as what was on the radio.

To you it might be irrelevant but to a devout Christian/catholic/Buddhist etc it could be very well relevant as thy could quite easily feel that they are having someone else's religion, one they do not follow is being forced upon them.

I doubt you would be happy if Tesco told you to get down on the prayer mat an pray to Allah before being allowed in the store would you.

 

[pitkin2020]

Ok of course you can reply, I was in no way excluding you
I'm not confused at all, I realise that certain labeling is a legal requirement, whilst others are purely informative ... stating that meat sold was 'halal' would be in the later, informative.
We live in an age where many people are concerned about what they eat, (I know equally many aren't and if it fits in their mouth they will eat it), some want to know if it's 'organic', others if it's 'free range', still others want to know about animal welfare if it is an animal product, or some other provenance.

For some people halal slaughter would be unacceptable for their perceived view of the animals welfare, for others it would be unacceptable as it has been killed in a form of religious ritual that they would find objectionable.
For most people, they think that they are aware of the 'normal' process of slaughter and the halal process is not what they consider to be the normal way, hence 'different' ... they may or may not have concerns about that.
Just because you or I have no concerns, does not IMO, affect the fact that such a process should be clearly indicated in order for those who do find the process unacceptable to make an informed choice.

For me, it all comes down to, not whether it's a Muslim, Jewish or whatever thing, it's a case of being able to make an informed choice over what you eat and having a clear understanding of the provenance of that product.

Agree but some think it's acceptable not to list how it's slaughtered but the info on how it's generally slaughtered in the uk is available if it differs it should be listed.

You could be eating road kill for all you know lol

 

[gramps]

You could be eating road kill for all you know lol

I'm sure that I've eaten many things in my lifetime that I would have preferred not to had I known ... but it shouldn't be that way.

 

[DorsetDude]

Another one

 

[neil_g]

So, do you believe that:-

1. An animal should be slaughtered by the most humane means possible?
2. That consumers should be informed as to the provenance of their food?
3. That a news report is invalid, even if what it reports is correct and current, just because the media want to profit from it?

1 - i believe death should not be strung out to cause suffering. stunned first is acceptable.
2 - its not like allergy information so not going to kill you if you eat it. if it offends you then ask where the meat came from and how it was despatched.
3 - its not new news, the information is out there if you want it. its the media feeding on the "HOMGZ DEM MOOZLIMZ ARE TAKIN OVA!!11" right wing attitude of the uneducated masses.

 

[JonathanRyan]

1 - i believe death should not be strung out to cause suffering. stunned first is acceptable.

As I mentioned half a thread ago, I heard a proper rabbi say on a proper radio programme that in his opinion stunning was more cruel than not stunning. Personally I thought he was an idiot for other reasons but I guess it shows it's at least arguable.

You could be eating road kill for all you know lol

I've been a veggie for a l-o-n-g time but in the past I've eaten roadkill. Probably the best thing to do with a dead rabbit. (This was in France and I believe the law says that you can't collect it if you were the one to hit it. Bless.)

It's very interesting. I know a bit more about the factory farming industry than I'd like. And of all the dubious things that go on in it, playing Arabic through a tannoy seems one of the least offensive to me. It's almost like the "news" agencies have an agenda here.

 

[gramps]

1 - i believe death should not be strung out to cause suffering. stunned first is acceptable.
2 - its not like allergy information so not going to kill you if you eat it. if it offends you then ask where the meat came from and how it was despatched.
3 - its not new news, the information is out there if you want it. its the media feeding on the "HOMGZ DEM MOOZLIMZ ARE TAKIN OVA!!11" right wing attitude of the uneducated masses.

I assume then that the licensed slaughtering of animals without stunning (true halal) is therefore unacceptable to you.
Problem with "if it offends you then ask" is that you might not know it occurs ... in which case all credit to the media for reminding us
I agree that there is a great deal of 'Muslim-hysteria", which is unfortunate as it clouds the real issue in this and many other instances.

 

[AshleyC]

they had something about this on Countryfile a few weeks back, something to do with keeping the animals conscious so they could hear the prayers being said. Never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. By all means worship whatever fantasy figure you like but that's just plain stupid.

 

[boyfalldown]

To you it might be irrelevant but to a devout Christian/catholic/Buddhist etc it could be very well relevant as thy could quite easily feel that they are having someone else's religion, one they do not follow is being forced upon them.

I'm a catholic. I'm not offended. However I guess the point you're making is people should have the right to chose. This information has been freely available for a long time, so I guess they have, if they're worried. Which kind of comes round to the point - the purpose of this story is what exactly? I'm betting its to cause outrage, and garner the response 'I for one, aren't eating there again'.

I doubt you would be happy if Tesco told you to get down on the prayer mat an pray to Allah before being allowed in the store would you.[/quote]


It's a bit of a trek to the nearest Tesco, but its somewhat of an odd argument. They don't. You know they don't.

 

[neil_g]

I assume then that the licensed slaughtering of animals without stunning (true halal) is therefore unacceptable to you.

assuming it is done right and quickly, like i say i have no problem with what happens in the last few seconds of life.

Problem with "if it offends you then ask" is that you might not know it occurs ...

if you dont know it cant hurt you. if you were deeply religious/offended by it youd already know.

I agree that there is a great deal of 'Muslim-hysteria", which is unfortunate as it clouds the real issue in this and many other instances.

the sooner "we" get over the fact the worlds cultures are becoming very blurred lines the better.