Do you eat hallal food?

[Lord Bracknell]

Years ago, I met a wine producer in Italy who was exporting Kosher Vino Nobile di Montepulciano to Israel. I asked him what the difference was from his regular product. The answer was straightforward:- The label.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Well I've looked at the website, and it doesn't seem to be against stunning - I think it's pro stunning, is it not? Vets etc are also pro stunning.

So what are you saying?

The website is against animal consumption altogether, and it clearly states that humane slaughter is a myth. If you watched the video, you will have seen animals being abused in a horrific manner when being stunned, even in certified organic farms and abattoirs. Given that the meat industry will continue Animal Aid is campaigning for CCTV to makes sure that welfare standards are adhered too.

There are many many more sources of info on the net should wish to look a bit further.

This August 194,000 cows, 1.2million sheep and 838,000 pigs were slaughtered in the UK alone. If you believe that each of these animals lived a comfortable life and passed through the slaughter process peacefully and without suffering, then I really think you are mistaken. In addition 72.9million broilers hens were despatched in addition to 900,000 turkeys. That is the scale of production that this industry has to process. Source UK govt figures

By all means continue to eat meat, I'm not here to stop you doing that (all of my friends consume animal products one way or another and I still get on with them), but please spare me the crocodile tears over the fate of animals reared for food. You cannot produce food on this scale without suffering.

I really am going to have to leave it here as I do not want this reduced to a circular binfest.

 

[Triggaaar]

The website is against animal consumption altogether

But it accepts that many people want to eat meat, and it encourages that meat be slaughtered in as good a way as possible, right? So given that I don't want to give up all animal products, I would prefer that animals be stunned before they are slaughtered, and the website seems to be ok with that idea.

Given that the meat industry will continue Animal Aid is campaigning for CCTV to makes sure that welfare standards are adhered too.

And I've signed up and written to my MP.

There are many many more sources of info on the net should wish to look a bit further.

I'm not sure I need to, I think stunning animals before slaughter is the best method of slaughter (given that not killing the animal in the first place is not a method of slaughter) and although you sound like you're wanting to disagree, you haven't posted anything to suggest stunning animals is bad.

This August 194,000 cows, 1.2million sheep and 838,000 pigs were slaughtered in the UK alone. If you believe that each of these animals lived a comfortable life and passed through the slaughter process peacefully and without suffering, then I really think you are mistaken.

I don't think that, and haven't suggested I do.

By all means continue to eat meat, I'm not here to stop you doing that (all of my friends consume animal products one way or another and I still get on with them), but please spare me the crocodile tears over the fate of animals reared for food. You cannot produce food on this scale without suffering.

Right, so you're against the website that you told me to look at then? Because that website is concerned about the welfare of the animals that are being slaughtered. Although they would rather we didn't eat meat at all, they accept that we do, so they want to improve the welfare of the animals that are eaten. I'm all for that. But you're not, because you think it's a waste of time.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Never have never will simply because they are filth holes where thay are prepared and for exactly the reasons above .

 

[beorhthelm]

Never have never will simply because they are filth holes where thay are prepared and for exactly the reasons above .

im not entirely convinced you've read any of the reasons above, and just given way to prejudice to anything islam related.

 

[Hotchilidog]

But it accepts that many people want to eat meat, and it encourages that meat be slaughtered in as good a way as possible, right? So given that I don't want to give up all animal products, I would prefer that animals be stunned before they are slaughtered, and the website seems to be ok with that idea.

And I've signed up and written to my MP.

I'm not sure I need to, I think stunning animals before slaughter is the best method of slaughter (given that not killing the animal in the first place is not a method of slaughter) and although you sound like you're wanting to disagree, you haven't posted anything to suggest stunning animals is bad.

I don't think that, and haven't suggested I do.

Right, so you're against the website that you told me to look at then? Because that website is concerned about the welfare of the animals that are being slaughtered. Although they would rather we didn't eat meat at all, they accept that we do, so they want to improve the welfare of the animals that are eaten. I'm all for that. But you're not, because you think it's a waste of time.

Sigh.....

I have not, and neither do Animal Aid suggest that stunning is perfectly fine for the animals. Animals are often incorrectly stunned and suffer terribly, and once again you only have to look at stunning methods to see how difficult it is to get an accurate stun each time, especially when you consider the number of animals that are processed. Stunning is not a panacea for animal welfare, but by making people aware of the issues you would like to think some may find out more and voluntarily review they way they look at animals.

That said you have to deal with the world as it is and not as you wish it were and that is what Animal Aid are doing with their campaign and I appreciate you signing up and writing to your MP, thank you.

The site does acknowledge that people want to eat meat (obviously the vast majority do!), but it quite clearly suggests that if you really want to bring an end to slaughterhouse and food production suffering then you should go vegan and the website along with many others offers help and advice in doing so.

 

[Triggaaar]

I have not, and neither do Animal Aid suggest that stunning is perfectly fine for the animals.

Could you please post a quote and link where Animal Aid suggests that stunning animals before slaughter is a bad idea.

Animals are often incorrectly stunned and suffer terribly

Yes. Hopefully that's an area that can be improved. Are you suggesting, that instead of trying to improve stunning, that we just don't bother with stunning animals, because it's too difficult to do right and causes more pain/distress than not bothering in the first place? I've no problem if that's what your view is, and would be interested to know if you're right. I don't think that's what the Animal Aid website suggests though.

The site does acknowledge that people want to eat meat (obviously the vast majority do!), but it quite clearly suggests that if you really want to bring an end to slaughterhouse and food production suffering then you should go vegan

I understand that and assume you're a vegan, and I think that's really good, it's just not something I'm prepared to do.

 

[looney]

lol, its not analogies, it directly comparable examples of the same practice, requiring one to pay a fee, be inspected and meet certain standards for a certificate. BS or IEE on your electrical items, farm tractor on your food, its just the same. the only difference is one is based on daft religious texts, but there's plenty of equally spurious certification in industry. sorry to hole your argument.

You haven't holed the argument youve side stepped it in your attempts to shoot the messenger.

When you say, " the only difference is one is based on daft religious texts, "

Er yes thats what the thread is about.

 

[looney]

Well wasn't sure what to expect with this thread, it seems to have slid into an animal welfare debate, I gave 6 reasons that people mayo bject, mine has nothing to do with animal welfare.

I am suprised at the poll stating close to 50%wont eat it though althoughIdidn't know what to expect.

To comments like this.....

This. If you think non-halal meat is produced with less cruelty then you are sadly mistaken. It's just another excuse to single out muslims for abuse.

Not really, I'm just singling out ISLAM for critisism as well as asking why others go along with it(fall in line with Sharia law). A lot of dodging and coping out and debating animal welfare here.

But thanks anyway

 

[atfc village]

Are Pringles Halal?

 

[daveinprague]

Are Pringles Halal?

Yes

Just not certified.

Along with vegetables, air and water. Although, I suspect religious bigotry will not extend to boycotting these.

 

[beorhthelm]

You haven't holed the argument youve side stepped it in your attempts to shoot the messenger.

When you say, " the only difference is one is based on daft religious texts, "

Er yes thats what the thread is about.

ah, i see my error now. i thought you were trying to attempt some objective reasons why one shouldnt eat halal food, most of which people have spotted are flawed reasons. what you meant was simple prejudice against halal 'cause its islamic. the fact that halal has to be certified at cost isnt really the objection in point 6, its the fact its certified by muslims thats the objection. likewise issues around slaughter and animal welfare dont really matter, its becaue it muslim's food that this matters more with halal. i get it now. you could have just put in the first line "there are reasons to object to it, mostly that its muslim food" and left it at that.

 

[mothy]

I only eat halal by default. As in I don't choose to, it's just what is served. I don't intentionally avoid it either, but I don't seek to eat it

 

[Phat Baz 68]

im not entirely convinced you've read any of the reasons above, and just given way to prejudice to anything islam related.

I careth not a jot what you think mush ! Think what ya like pal

 

[looney]

ah, i see my error now. i thought you were trying to attempt some objective reasons why one shouldnt eat halal food, most of which people have spotted are flawed reasons. what you meant was simple prejudice against halal 'cause its islamic. the fact that halal has to be certified at cost isnt really the objection in point 6, its the fact its certified by muslims thats the objection. likewise issues around slaughter and animal welfare dont really matter, its becaue it muslim's food that this matters more with halal. i get it now. you could have just put in the first line "there are reasons to object to it, mostly that its muslim food" and left it at that.

No you dont see anything, thats why you are reduced tojust projecting lies and insinuations. The reasons are valid, a couple may be weak, and its ISLAM not muslims, still valid enough for the majority not to endulge in it. But then you have been more keen on shooting the messenger than adressing the message.

Like the laughable claim why dont I objectto other kinds of certification? Thats a bit likeme claiming trigger is amurder and you responding "Other people are murders why are you singling out trigger". Its notjustfaulty logic you are bringing up in this thread your arguments are just plain stupid.

Still that poll kinda stops your kind from blathering on that I'm a fringe crank withideas of a minority.