reports
International Halal SME Directory : 2011 - 2012
interview
Most of those people supporting stunning believe that they are addressing the animal welfare issue. But whether this is true is not clear, because the data and the research is so poorly done.
ing to be sure it is going to work properly? And finally, the original question remains, how do you assure the Muslim consumers that the animal is really alive at the time of slaughter if it had been stunned? Most of those people supporting stunning believe that they are addressing the animal welfare issue. But whether this is true is not clear, because the data and the research is so poorly done. So it is unclear whether, in fact, stunned or unstunned slaughter is better from the point of view of the animal. What is very clear is that if you are going to do unstunned slaughter, you need to pay attention to a greater number of details of how you handle the animals both before and during slaughter. Also you need to have your knife extremely sharp, and you have to use it properly, and this requires training. The process is also slower and more personal. Given there are no concrete scientific evidence to date support either stands, as a subject matter expert, which is better for the animal from your personal opinion? REGENSTEIN: I believe from the animal’s point of view, when done right - and the doing it right is critical - that unstunned slaughter is actually better. Part of that is based on a concept that has not been proven; it is still a hypothesis - that when you use a razor- sharp knife you don’t feel it. Think about those cuts, such as when shaving, which you simply didn’t realize you cut yourself. At the same time, such cuts lead to an endorphin rush, which is sometimes referred to in another context as a runner’s “high”, which is actually quite euphoric. If you look at an animal expiring after it has been properly killed without stunning, it just quietly expires, showing none of the signs of aversive behaviours to suggest that it feels anything negative. I think that is a critical piece of information. It isn’t how long it takes for the animal to become
unconscious, which is one of parameters Western animal welfare scientists are emphasising. It is the quality of the death that counts. It is also the idea of the respect shown to the animal by having a religious person saying a prayer, and killing it with compassion and kindness, as opposed to the animal having its head banged or electrocuted by a worker who is just counting how many animals he has to kill until he can go on his break. But the data on endorphins is not clear yet although the observations of the calm death have been made by the top animal welfare scientist in the world, Dr. Temple Grandin, an autistic professor at Colorado State University. Therefore, there is a good case to be made that religious stunning is at least equal to, and possibly better, when done right, than non-religious slaughter.
Animals killed by hunting can often go through a period of tremendous pain. Even if done well, the animals know something is wrong, and often are very stressed as they run away and eventually die. So, one has to question whether the people in Europe are being sincere in trying to stop religious slaughter when they still allow hunting.
What is interesting is the fact that most Europeans countries still allow hunting, which from the animal’s point of view, gives a much lower quality of death. Animals killed by hunting can often go through a period of tremendous pain. Even if done well, the animals know something is wrong, and often are very stressed as they run away and eventually die. So, one has to question whether the people in Europe are being sincere in trying to stop religious slaughter when they still allow hunting. In fact, let’s look at regular slaughter. There are three allowed types of regular slaughter – mechanical stunning, electrical stunning and gas stunning. And in some animal, they allow all three formats to be used. Now, if they are all being used, are they equally humane, and how do you decide? Shouldn’t only one be best? And yet they are singling out unstunned slaughter without any solid data. There is a clear disconnect here. It appears to be disrespect for the Muslims and Jewish religions. It appears to be more about a political agenda than about animal welfare. It is not about the humaneness of the slaughter.
55
