THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: New EU proposals have steered away from labelling meat from ritually slaughtered animals as Halal or Shechita to avoid causing religious offence, instead opting for the label of "meat from slaughter without stunning".
MEPs on the European Parliament's food safety committee have voted for the clear labels so consumers can see whether meat has been stunned or not before it has been slaughtered.
David Bowles, a spokesman for the RSPCA, welcomed the vote.
"We hope that all the countries in Europe will accept it," he said. "At the moment you can chose whether you want your eggs to be free range or cage-reared, but you don't know how the chickens were killed. We should be told whether our meat has been stunned or not before it has been killed because at the moment we could be eating it without knowing it."
The proposals are expected to be opposed by national governments who are concerned that the issue is too controversial to be included in EU food labelling regulations.
"This is too sensitive a social issue to be dealt with as an add on to food labelling rules," said a European diplomat.
Slaughter without stunning is legal under religious freedom laws in most EU countries despite animal welfare rules that generally ban it as leading to "unacceptable levels of suffering and pain".It has become an issue because a small, but increasing, proportion of Muslim Halal and Jewish Shechita butchers cut the animals' throats while they are still conscious.
Jim Paice, the food and farming minister, has previously signalled that the Government could consider labelling on un-stunned meat as long it is treated as "a welfare issue not a religious one".
However, British officials have indicated that the government will not support the latest call from MEPs. » | Bruno Waterfield, Brussels and Harry Wallop Consumer Affairs Editor | Wednesday, April 20, 2011
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: The EU vote on 'no-stun slaughter' meat: Should consumers know whether or not the animals that they’re eating were stunned before slaughter? I’m in no doubt about this: of course they should. Animal welfare is important, and consumers should have access to this fundamental information about the animal on their plates. » | Pete Wedderburn | Friday, April 15, 2011
