The National Secular Society has called for a review of religious exemptions to animal welfare laws, after a new Government animal welfare strategy failed to mention them.
Writing to Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Emma Renolds, the NSS said it was “difficult to understand” the strategy’s failure to mention non-stun slaughter, given its stated aim of preventing animals suffering avoidably and reliance on scientific evidence.
The law requires animals to be stunned before slaughter to minimise their pain, suffering and distress. The only exemption is for Jewish and Muslim communities to meet kosher and halal religious dietary preferences.
Despite consensus amongst animal welfare experts that it is more humane to stun an animal prior to slaughter, the Animal Welfare Strategy fails to mention religious exemptions which allow non-stun slaughter.
In its letter, the NSS noted that the Government’s own advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, the RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming and the British Veterinary Association have all supported ending non-stun slaughter to improve animal welfare at the time of death.
The NSS also pointed out that it was “plainly incoherent” for the strategy to recommend phasing out CO2 stunning with “as short a transition as possible” to spare pigs avoidable pain, whilst simultaneously continuing to permit non-stun slaughter of cattle, sheep, goats and poultry.
Government guidance on religious slaughter says meat from animals slaughtered without stunning “must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims”. Yet in practice, meat from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning is widely sold through the general food supply and purchased by consumers who may be unaware of how the animal was killed.
The NSS said the reality of non-stun meat consumption “calls into question the justification for maintaining the exemption at its current scale” and “further weakens the case for permitting a practice that causes avoidable suffering”.
There is demonstrable public support for reviewing religious exemptions to animal welfare laws. Seventy per cent of the British public believe stunning animals before slaughter is more ethical, and 72% believe food produced using religious non-stun slaughter methods should be clearly labelled.
The Animal Welfare Strategy notes that consumers do not currently have sufficient information to make informed decisions on the animal welfare standards of the food that they purchase.
The NSS welcomed the Government’s commitment to improving the availability of such information, calling for the introduction of a requirement that all meat slaughtered without stunning is accurately labelled.
Today, Kate Hoey raised an oral question in the House of Lords on ensuring meat labelling states whether the animal was stunned before being killed.
Hoey expressed her disappointment that non-stun slaughter was not included in the animal welfare strategy, and called for an end to the “very barbaric” practice. She asked that the Government commit to a legal requirement for labelling on non-stun meat, including in schools and hospitals, while the practice remains legal.
Responding to Hoey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sue Hayman said that whilst the Government would “prefer” all animals to be stunned, “we do have to recognise the religious sensitivities around this issue”.
Hayman said the Government will “continue working with stakeholders” on the issue of labelling.
Other peers also criticised religious slaughter, including Labour peer David Watts who called it a “very cruel practice”.
NSS: Review of non-stun slaughter “essential” to animal welfare credibility
National Secular Society spokesperson Jack Rivington said: “The evidence is clear – stunning an animal prior to slaughter is more humane. Yet despite its stated commitment to scientific rigour and improving animal welfare, the Government’s new strategy makes no mention of non-stun slaughter whatsoever.
“If this new strategy is to have any credibility, it is essential that exemptions to animal welfare laws be reviewed.”