An RSPCA campaign calling for the compulsory stunning of all livestock before slaughter is “deeply flawed” , according to a group that works to protect shechita – the religious slaughter of animals for food in Judaism.
Shechita UK has called on the RSPCA to withdraw its campaign, which, if successful, would effectively outlaw the production of kosher meat in the UK.
In a letter sent on Sunday to the RSPCA’s chief executive, Jo Rowland, a spokesman for the group, Shimon Cohen, condemned the campaign, warning it “inflames public debate, fuels ill-informed prejudice and risks stigmatising a lawful, humane religious practice critical to Jewish life in this country”.
The issue has resurfaced in political debate following the publication last month of the Government’s new animal welfare strategy in England, which promises to stop the use of gas for stunning pigs and ensure humane slaughter for farmed fish, but makes no mention of religious slaughter.
On its website, the RSPCA contends that animals that have not been pre-stunned are “subjected to unnecessary pain, suffering and distress”, feeling pain “during the neck cutting process and up until they lose consciousness”, with cattle experiencing a delay in loss of consciousness of up to two minutes.
According to Jewish law, pre-stunning methods such as a captive bolt to the head or electrocution would leave the animal blemished, therefore rendering if unfit for kosher consumption.
In his letter, Cohen argued that mechanical methods of stunning “inflict pain prior to insensibility and are prone to mis-stuns”.
Shechita conforms “entirely to the accepted legal definition of stunning, namely, causing immediate loss of consciousness through the rapid cessation of cerebral blood flow,” he wrote.
“The latest peer-reviewed scientific studies…show a near-immediate collapse of brain blood flow and rapid loss of consciousness with shechita, refuting long-shouted claims of prolonged suffering.”
In the Lords earlier this month, former Labour MP, now an unaffiliated peer, Baroness Hoey spoke out against “the very cruel and barbaric way millions of animals are killed each year in a non-stun method”.
She asked what steps the Government would take to introduce labelling on meat so that consumers would know whether or not the animal had been stunned.
Labelling carries practical implications for the kosher trade. Since the hindquarters of cattle and sheep contain halachically forbidden parts that are difficult to remove, they are sold on to the general market. In addition, a proportion of animals slaughtered by shechita fail to comply with the strict conditions of Jewish law and are also sold on.
If labelling were to deter general consumers from buying shechita-produced meat, it could hit the commercial viability of kosher operations.
Shechita UK is not against labelling in principle, Cohen said in his letter to the RSPCA, but opposes “only crude ‘stunned’ or ‘non-stunned’ labelling, that is pejorative and misleading.”
Cohen added: “Any meaningful labelling must be holistic, specify actual methods used, including the specific mechanical techniques and mis-stuns, and avoid singling out humane methods of slaughter, such as shechita, in any false binary.”
The RSPCA said it wanted “to work with the Government and religious communities to end the use of non-stun slaughter, which causes serious suffering to animals. In the short term, we would like to see clear labelling on meat products of how all animals are kept and slaughtered”.
While legal exemptions from stunning existed for religious purposes, the animal welfare charity said it understood “that animals slaughtered under these exemptions are likely to be consumed by all members of the community, rather than solely members of specific religious communities, and may also be exported abroad. We believe this is contrary to the legal requirements of the derogation, and results in more animals than necessary being slaughtered in this way.”
The RSPCA wants an “immediate change in the law to bring about clear labelling of meat, so consumers have greater transparency about how the meat they are eating has been kept and slaughtered and also ensure that the existing derogation for slaughter to religious rules is applied only for that particular, domestic religious community.”
Earlier this month, MP Robert Jenrick took a swipe at the government – days before his dramatic move from the Conservatives to Reform UK – claiming in the Telegraph that it was “happy to ban trail hunting but won’t touch non-stun slaughter for halal meat”.
Most British Muslims, in fact, eat meat that has been stunned – 88 per cent, according to figures cited by the RSPCA. However, Islamic law imposes conditions on the use of stunning – the process must not injure the animal or kill it before the actual procedure of slaughter.
Responding to Hoey in the Lords, the Government’s spokeswoman for animal welfare, Baroness Hayman, said it would “prefer” all animals to be stunned before slaughter and was committed to “ensuring that consumers have access to clear information on how their food is produced”.
But she added: “We have to recognise the religious sensitivities around this issue, and we are looking at the best way to move forward regarding food labelling.”
Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Ludford pressed for an assurance that any labelling scheme would be “comprehensive and not discriminatory against religious slaughter of shechita and halal”.
In a letter to Hoey, Shechita UK said it was “extremely important to distinguish between honest, even handed, non-discriminatory labelling and an inadvertent deception of the consumer and an affront to faith communities”.
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.