Halal Food in Cafe Brava

Pythia

I was in Cafe Brava in the student centre today and noticed they have a Halal meal for sale.
I personally think this is most questionable as Halal food is sold in UCD as the animal welfare element is terrible. Animals suffer much more using this method of slaughter than any other.
I presume they introduced it due to demand.
AFAIK, the SU is in charge of the shops in the student centre. If Coke is banned due to tentative links with bad 'human welfare', shouldn't Halal meat also be banned?
Just wondering what other people's opinions are on this, haven't totally made my mind up on it myself.

Riamfada

Well it is mighty tasty but it is up to the students to approach the Union for them to ban it. Id like to see some sort of activity because it seems the more affluent students are becoming the less activisim is taking place

jimi_t

Pythia wrote:

I was in Cafe Brava in the student centre today and noticed they have a Halal meal for sale.

AFAIK, the SU is in charge of the shops in the student centre. If Coke is banned due to tentative links with bad 'human welfare', shouldn't Halal meat also be banned?

Awful analogy. This is just psuedo-activism against such an easy target, especially when you know it will provoke huge controversy. If you're that concerned about animal welfare why not concentrate on the use of Battery hen meat in chicken nuggets et al., rather than focus on the small provision made by the campus for the large proportion of students who follow the Islamic law.

(Even your point about animal welfare is still a question of open debate, namely;

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm)

themole

I didn't read the link, looked a bit too long for me.

From what i know conventional slaughter used a bolt gun to stun the animal and then it is bled to death.

For halal food the animal is bled to death without stunning.

To me there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. (Mayeb the artical shows this?), from a friend who worked briefly in a slaughter house he maintained that the stun gun was just used to make it easier to cut the animal and that it made no real difference in the amount of suffering caused to the animal. In fact he stun gun itself is rather painful and could possibly be worse than just cutting the animal directly.

If there is something i am missing out, and there quiet possibly is, could someone point it out. Cheers.

HelterSkelter

Pythia wrote:

Animals suffer much more using this method of slaughter than any other.

Can you back this up or is it just your opinion?

Pythia

This wiki article gives details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_ritual_slaughter

Schlemm

Animals do suffer more from halal and other ritual types of slaughter due to the fact that they are not unconscious at the time of slaughter. They cut the common carotids and maybe some other structures such as the trachea, not too sure of the details, and the animal bleeds to death. However they do not cut the intervertebral artery, which lies deep to the common carotid, and also supplies some blood to the brain. So it can take them quite a while to die. In Ireland, ritual slaughter is legal, but it is illegal in Ireland to turn the animal upside down to slit the throat...having them standing up facilitates a faster bleed out time. In some other countries, you can turn the animal upside down.

Something that many consumers are not aware of is the fact that the hindquarters of many animals who are ritually slaughtered are not considered to be halal or koshir etc etc for some reason, I think it's something to do with the blood vessels not being cleaned out because it'd be too expensive. So they will mostly use the forequarter for meat and send the hindquarters into the 'regular' meat pool, and these are used as they are generally the more expensive cuts of meat. Some people do not like the thought of eating such meat and object to this practice.

I've visited abbatoirs in Ireland and they are of a very high standard generally, which seems to be the trend across most of the EU. As somebody already said, it would be better to source meat and eggs from farms that use higher standards, eg, free range rather than battery hens.

scop

I am opposed to this kind of thing in general so the cultural aspect is beside the point, but I do worry that due to the nature of society people will be afraid to oppose halal because of being branded an Islamaphobe. In fact students tend to go for the more abstract issues such as Coke because as a corporation it is easier to justify activism against it. I can't see students doing much about it, but I would register my distaste at the practice.

Stabshauptmann

Pythia wrote:

This wiki article gives details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_ritual_slaughter

after reading that article Im convinced you didnt.

scop

jimi_t wrote:

Awful analogy. This is just psuedo-activism against such an easy target, especially when you know it will provoke huge controversy. If you're that concerned about animal welfare why not concentrate on the use of Battery hen meat in chicken nuggets et al., rather than focus on the small provision made by the campus for the large proportion of students who follow the Islamic law.

What makes you think he can't care about both issues, but that as a UCD issue he felt it necessary to raise here. I am concerned about both with neither higher on the scale. Plus just because the target is Muslims does not mean it is unapproachable. That is a weakness of sorts. You cannot turn a blind eye because an issue may be controversial or that idiots might adopt it for their own ends.

princess-sprkle

i've been a vegan for years, so all kinds of slaughter of animals is horrifiying to me. however, i think its a good idea to provide some options for those who follow a different faith, and complaining about the extra percieved cruelty to animals is just redundant, it doesn't seem to be any more cruel than slaughter methods already used! [i hope that makes sense, i'm not long up from a big nap-damn study!!]

also, a few vegan friendly choices about would be nice too

Stepherunie

Having lived in Israel and spent a large amount of time in the arab nations surrounding Israel it is there faith and their beliefs. Catholics believe one shouldn't eat meat on Fridays, especially Good Friday. The animals are being slaughtered, I don't believe it really does make it that much more cruel, but that's just me.

Pythia wrote:

AFAIK, the SU is in charge of the shops in the student centre. If Coke is banned due to tentative links with bad 'human welfare', shouldn't Halal meat also be banned?

The SU own the Kiosk in the Student Centre, Cafe Brava and the Grind are owned by a separate entity, hence why one notices how Coca Cola products on sale in the grind.

I also think it's great they way that he's adapted his business model so quickly to accomodate the large number of muslim med students there are. It's just a pity that O' Briens in Health Sci aren't as great but I digress with that point.

jimi_t

scop wrote:

What makes you think he can't care about both issues, but that as a UCD issue he felt it necessary to raise here. I am concerned about both with neither higher on the scale.

I'm not sure how the use of meat from battery hens and other intensively (and often cruelly) farmed animals in the same restaurant isn't a UCD issue? I was only making the point that I felt it was pseudo-activism as the OP just happened to see it advertised and rant here, with no apparent previous posts on boards regarding animal welfare matters. (Although my apologies if I missed something)

(Don't mean to be pedantic, but I think the OP is also female?)

scop wrote:

Plus just because the target is Muslims does not mean it is unapproachable. That is a weakness of sorts. You cannot turn a blind eye because an issue may be controversial or that idiots might adopt it for their own ends.

Well firstly, I take serious objection to the comment that my empathy towards a minority group is "...a weakness of sorts".

I wasn't implying that the subject was unapproachable because of religious reasons, just that it was a bit tactless to single out a small, and necessary quality of life provision, made for a highly discriminated against minority group in UCD, to further the animal activist cause - regardless of the political climate.

I'm sorry to be faceitious, but if this was a topic regarding the cultural and religious necessities of Irish Itinerent students in UCD, I feel that the responses might be a little different.

The_Minister

I was talking to a vet student recently who had to view Halal slaughter. She said it was incredibly cruel.

fatal

The_Minister wrote:

it was incredibly cruel.

as opposed to stunning which must feel incredibly good?

The_Minister

fatal wrote:

as opposed to stunning which must feel incredibly good?

I'd rather be stunned when my throat was being slit then awake - with no anaesthetic.

princess-sprkle

fatal wrote:

as opposed to stunning which must feel incredibly good?

exactly, its no more cruel than other ways of slaughter, its not like animals for your [not YOU but you get what i mean!] burger die in a less cruel way than for halal food.

The_Minister

princess-sprkle wrote:

its not like animals for your burger die in a less cruel way than for halal food.

AFAIK it's far more cruel.

fatal

The_Minister wrote:

I'd rather be stunned when my throat was being slit then awake - with no anaesthetic.

Correct me if im wrong someone but when the animal is stunned it remains alive for a few minutes yea?.Im sure that in some cases the animal is being chopped up while its still unconscious(still alive)

Schlemm

Correct me if im wrong someone but when the animal is stunned it remains alive for a few minutes.Im sure that in some cases the animal is being chopped up while its still unconscious(still alive)

Nah I've seen it done, they're alive once they're stunned, but they cut the vena cava very quickly after being stunned and they die mighty fast because they lose a huge amount of blood in a very short space of time. They are also hanging by the hind leg when they're bled out which causes them to bleed out a lot faster.

themole

I was trying to find a clip on youtube which showed the bolt gun being used, this is all i could find. It shows the gun being used on a horse repeatidly.

The point i guess i would like to make is that the bolt gun does not render the animal unconscious and in itself is not all than humane.

delta_bravo

fatal wrote:

Correct me if im wrong someone but when the animal is stunned it remains alive for a few minutes yea?.Im sure that in some cases the animal is being chopped up while its still unconscious(still alive)

Im pretty sure thats a myth. The stun should kill instantly as it goes to the brain

Schlemm

themole wrote:

I was trying to find a clip on youtube which showed the bolt gun being used, this is all i could find. It shows the gun being used on a horse repeatidly.

The point i guess i would like to make is that the bolt gun does not render the animal unconscious and in itself is not all than humane.

They don't actually use the bolt gun on all animals due to differences in anatomy. They use it on cattle, but not on pigs, for example, due to the differences in their skull shape. With cattle, the bolt goes right through the frontal sinus and definitely renders them unconscious if it's done correctly.

A lot of the video clips on the internet and peta websites etc. do not accurately reflect what goes on in abbatoirs in Ireland. It is much better to base your opinion by actually visiting an abbatior rather than seeing an internet clip, many videos posted are very sensationalist and do not accurately reflect normal practice.

fatal

Schlemm wrote:

they lose a huge amount of blood in a very short space of time.

could the same not be said about slaughtering an animal?The neck is cut off and that causes it to bleed alot in a short space of time

fatal

delta_bravo wrote:

Im pretty sure thats a myth. The stun should kill instantly as it goes to the brain

Schlemm wrote:

the bolt goes right through the frontal sinus and definitely renders them unconscious if it's done correctly.

so hence the animal is still alive when its cut up....

Schlemm

fatal wrote:

could the same not be said about slaughtering an animal?The neck is cut off and that causes it to bleed alot in a short space of time

In ritual slaughter they are standing on all 4 legs when they're bled out (in accordance to the rules for ritual slaughter in Ireland) and they are just left to bleed out as is, fully conscious. The caroitds are a much smaller vessel than the vena cava too, so you get a much slower rate of blood loss, and you aren't cutting off the full blood supply to the brain as you are not cutting the intervertebral artey, which means that it takes a while for the animal to die. The neck isn't fully severed in some kinds of ritual slaughter, including halal - they are very particular about which structures they cut.

By contrast, 'normal' slaughter involves the animal being unconscious when bled out, the vena cava is cut when the animals is suspended by the hind leg. Not only are they unconscious, but they also die a lot faster due to much more profuse blood loss.

so hence the animal is still alive when its cut up....

The purpose of the bolt gun is to knock them out, the purpose of bleeding them once they're unconscious is to kill them. They cut the vena cava to bleed them out. So the animal is alive and unconscious when it's bled out...it's dead once it goes down the line in the abbatoir and is skinned/organs removed/etc. If you saw the amount of blood that comes out of them, there's no way they could still be alive. Visit an abbatoir if you're not convinced.

fatal

Schlemm wrote:

The neck isn't fully severed in some kinds of ritual slaughter, including halal - they are very particular about which structures they cut.

dunno who told you that but every halal slaughtering that i've witnessed involved the head being completely severed from the body.The animal is usually tied upside down aswell so that the blood drains out quickly.Whether the blood flows quicker through the vena cava than if the head is cut off I dont know so I cant comment on that

themole

Schlemm wrote:

They don't actually use the bolt gun on all animals due to differences in anatomy. They use it on cattle, but not on pigs, for example, due to the differences in their skull shape. With cattle, the bolt goes right through the frontal sinus and definitely renders them unconscious if it's done correctly.

A lot of the video clips on the internet and peta websites etc. do not accurately reflect what goes on in abbatoirs in Ireland. It is much better to base your opinion by actually visiting an abbatior rather than seeing an internet clip, many videos posted are very sensationalist and do not accurately reflect normal practice.

Fair enough. Since i have not been to an abbatoir in Ireland and am unlikey to do so i will take your word for it as you seem to know what you are talking about.

Are you a vet or do you work with in a slughter house or soemthing?

Schlemm

fatal wrote:

dunno who told you that but every halal slaughtering that i've witnessed involved the head being completely severed from the body.The animal is usually tied upside down aswell so that the blood drains out quickly.Whether the blood flows quicker through the vena cava than if the head is cut off I dont know so I cant comment on that

Depends on what the type of slaughter is...halal and the Jewish slaughter (forget the name of it...shecita or summat) involve throat slitting, while there are other forms that involve total decapitation. In some countries it is legal for the animal to be held upside down during slaughter, but this actually causes bleed out to be slower and therefore death is slower because the blood doesn't drain away from the body as fast, the way the blood vessels are arranged makes bleed out a lot faster when the animal is standing up.

The vena cava is pretty big when compared with the carotids, and the blood literally gushes out when they're bled this way, compared to ritual slaughter.

An interesting place to read about good practices in slaughterhouses is at www.grandin.com Temple Grandin is an autistic woman who works with animals and has designed humane slaughter houses for better animal welfare at slaughter. Her work has made huge advances in this area and she has done some research into humane slaughter too. McDonalds have even hired her to redesign some of their abbatoirs to make them more humane.

InFront

Dhabiha/ halal and kasshhrut (for Jews) slaughter methods are not particularly cruel. I mean that in relative terms, compared to captive bolt stunning, and water elctrocution (for chickens) This is what the scientific literature tells us,
http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2402/PDF/aidaros589-596.pdf (PDF; Page 4)
http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2003/02/article01.shtml.

The much more relevant question in terms of animal welfare, is how the animal is treated on farm, and at the site of slaughter than in the last few minutes. What about the previous one to three (+) years? That is the real issue. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of animals suffer far more cruelty en route to a slaughter house than they do during Halal. If the EEG is anything to go by, certainly they do.

Human feelings should not be allowed dictate which method is more or less cruel.

humbert

Am I reading that wrongly or does it say the animal felt no pain from having it's throat cut.

Also it seems to be the same experiment referenced in both articles done on only one animal per slaughter method? (I only scanned through it)