How do you want your chicken slaughtered?

Following a post by John Silver

Post by John Silver
End non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare

I quite agree, I will add a couple of what I hope are facts in case
anybody here shares what seems to be the general public's view.

Kosher slaughter is unstunned.
Helal lamb is stunned nowadays since a compromise was made a while ago
but some small % is still unstunned.
NZ lamb is all helal but is stunned.

will go and sign.

--
Mike... . . . .

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-10 14:02:06 UTC

Following a post by Mike.. . . .

Should there be no ban, or rather end to exemptions, I would at least
want proper labelling and restro menus to declare if unstunned, so
that I may go elsewhere.

Fot the UKIP tendency, this isnt a moslem tail wagging a British dog,
its business finding it easier to just do it all helal and
conveniently not tell us. All the islamophobes also need to note
kosher is the bigger problem.

--
Mike... . . . .

John Silver

2014-05-10 14:38:48 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Mike.. . . .
Should there be no ban, or rather end to exemptions, I would at least
want proper labelling and restro menus to declare if unstunned, so
that I may go elsewhere.
Fot the UKIP tendency, this isnt a moslem tail wagging a British dog,
its business finding it easier to just do it all helal and
conveniently not tell us. All the islamophobes also need to note
kosher is the bigger problem.

Sainsburys had halal certified labeled chickens on show yesterday

John

Jane Gillett

2014-05-11 07:49:16 UTC

Post by John Silver

Sainsburys had halal certified labeled chickens on show yesterday

Did they say whether stunned?

In the final event he customer holds the power. If customers stopped buying
any chickens which did not positively state that the bird was stunned then
businesses would say. However, as a post here says, doing all in one way
without stating which, is cheaper - in NZ case halal it would appear - so
until the customer shows a will not to buy unless specifically described as
stunned, the present situation will continue.

What do you reckon most customers would do?

As a separate issue, IAGTU that industrial stunning processes, as in
chicken processing lines, are not 100% effective and a small percentage
simply pass down the processing line fully conscious; is that correct? Does
anybody have any info? If so simply saying "stunned" is not an adequate
protection although admittedly better than no information.

Jane

Post by John Silver
John

--
Jane Gillett : ***@higherstert.co.uk : Totnes, Devon.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-11 12:38:22 UTC

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by John Silver
Sainsburys had halal certified labeled chickens on show yesterday

Did they say whether stunned?

96% (other figures are available) of helal is stunned, there is no
stunning labelling.

Post by Jane Gillett
In the final event he customer holds the power. If customers stopped buying
any chickens which did not positively state that the bird was stunned then
businesses would say.

but thats all of them and all meat. PM says nothing to do with him
BTW. Wheres my customer power?

Sikhs are very unhappy because these mumbo jumbo ancient food laws are
derived from animal sacrifice and are banned for sikhs.

Post by Jane Gillett
However, as a post here says, doing all in one way
without stating which, is cheaper - in NZ case halal it would appear - so
until the customer shows a will not to buy unless specifically described as
stunned, the present situation will continue.

Not sure how to show I dont want unstunned beyond the petition? OK,
dont buy kosher. But how do I know if the local curry house is using
unstunned helal? I'm not clear where the 4% (or whatever) unstunned
is.

Post by Jane Gillett
What do you reckon most customers would do?
As a separate issue, IAGTU that industrial stunning processes, as in
chicken processing lines, are not 100% effective and a small percentage
simply pass down the processing line fully conscious; is that correct? Does
anybody have any info? If so simply saying "stunned" is not an adequate
protection although admittedly better than no information.

stunning by all acounts isnt perfect, but its better than not trying.
The UK vetinary and animal welfare people all say stunning is better
than non stunned, there are only exceptions made on religious grounds
(jewish scientists say cutting the throat causes instant death - I and
everybody else say thats bolox).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27322350

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it had
contributed to an EU study into the compulsory labelling of halal and
kosher meat and planned to review options for the UK once this is
finalised in the summer.

"We want people to have the information they need to make informed
choices about the food they buy," a spokesman said.

He added: "There are strict laws in place to ensure welfare standards
are met during slaughter.

"Although we would prefer animals to be stunned before slaughter, we
respect the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat in
accordance with their beliefs.

"The government has no intention of banning religious slaughter."

Boooo! Wouldnt it be nice if religion didnt have these set in stone
ideas that cannot change with advances in technology and moral
thinking.

Philip Lymbery, chief executive of Compassion in World Farming, said
the UK should ban the slaughter of animals which have not been
stunned, but he added: "I absolutely think labelling is a great way to
go as an interim step."

Yes!!! Labelling + info on menus.

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-12 06:59:32 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Sikhs are very unhappy because these mumbo jumbo ancient food laws are
derived from animal sacrifice and are banned for sikhs.

I didn't know that.
That could throw a spanner in the works :-)

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-12 09:08:32 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Mike.. . . .
Sikhs are very unhappy because these mumbo jumbo ancient food laws are
derived from animal sacrifice and are banned for sikhs.

I didn't know that.
That could throw a spanner in the works :-)

I imagine nothing will happen, as with Leveson, horsemeat etc. Funny
it broke just before the EU elections, just right for UKIP to pick up
more race fear votes. Can't you see the ukippers "what's the world
coming too? Its our country, not a Muslim country". When of course
they should be asking why companies are too lazy or profit driven to
have two supply chains. Cameron appears to think food labeling is for
the supermarkets to sort out, as "Dave" ate in a Nandos the other day
he should realize the smarkets are not the total picture.

--
Mike... . . . .

Jane Gillett

2014-05-12 13:45:04 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by John Silver
Sainsburys had halal certified labeled chickens on show yesterday

Did they say whether stunned?

96% (other figures are available) of helal is stunned, there is no
stunning labelling.

Thankyou.

Post by Jane Gillett
In the final event he customer holds the power. If customers stopped buying
any chickens which did not positively state that the bird was stunned then
businesses would say.

but thats all of them and all meat. PM says nothing to do with him
BTW. Wheres my customer power?

Only as one individual I'm afraid which won't cut much ice with smkts but
if there was a noteworthy (and moneyworthy) reaction by customers then the
big retailers would take notice, money being their raison d'etre.

Post by Mike.. . . .
Sikhs are very unhappy because these mumbo jumbo ancient food laws are
derived from animal sacrifice and are banned for sikhs.

I look up to Sikhs for this attitude if I understand it correctly.

I'm afraid it means avoiding any food - retail <or restaurant> - for which
you do not have definite evidence that the meat is stunned or more
generally of an acceptable standard of husbandry. It does take a lot off
the menu, maybe most, I admit. It's why i don't buy certain types of meat
where I don't have positive evidence, sometimes through experience, that
the husbandry and slaughter has been to standards I prefer; pork is one
instance. For years I only bought pork and pork products from sources which
we trusted- family and certain known outlets. Takes a lot of items from
both shopping list and restaurant including items like pate. I know it
isn't 100% but it was the best we can do and still eat pork.

stunning by all acounts isnt perfect, but its better than not trying.

Indeed.

Post by Mike.. . . .
The UK vetinary and animal welfare people all say stunning is better
than non stunned, there are only exceptions made on religious grounds
(jewish scientists say cutting the throat causes instant death - I and
everybody else say thats bolox

Not instant AFAIAA but pretty fast done properly if whodunits are to be
believed.

Post by Mike.. . . .
).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27322350
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it had
contributed to an EU study into the compulsory labelling of halal and
kosher meat and planned to review options for the UK once this is
finalised in the summer.

You will be aware that I have some reservations about some aspects of DEFRA
although IME it's been more their policies and top mgt than the "people on
the ground" who we have generally found capable and helpful in the main.
Trouble with most official policies is that they take so long to go through
the various official hoops.

Post by Mike.. . . .
"We want people to have the information they need to make informed
choices about the food they buy," a spokesman said.

Absolutely. One is tempted to say "as in horsemeat?".

Post by Mike.. . . .
He added: "There are strict laws in place to ensure welfare standards
are met during slaughter.

Yes. Thankfully.

Post by Mike.. . . .
"Although we would prefer animals to be stunned before slaughter, we
respect the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat in
accordance with their beliefs.

I'm not sure I do respect those rights in the context of animal suffering.
The problem with countermanding them is that I reckon it would drive
religious slaughter underground and we'd have less control.

Post by Mike.. . . .
"The government has no intention of banning religious slaughter."
Boooo! Wouldnt it be nice if religion didnt have these set in stone
ideas that cannot change with advances in technology and moral
thinking.

Yes but until we have the ability to appreciate (apprec. in the sense of
understand) the universe, which we do not have ATM AFAIK based on our
current senses and currect technology and their limitations, then it's not
easy to maintain any particular "take" on it is in error.

Post by Mike.. . . .
Philip Lymbery, chief executive of Compassion in World Farming, said
the UK should ban the slaughter of animals which have not been
stunned, but he added: "I absolutely think labelling is a great way to
go as an interim step."
Yes!!! Labelling + info on menus.

Yes. Yes.

Jane

--
Jane Gillett : ***@higherstert.co.uk : Totnes, Devon.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-12 19:10:49 UTC

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Not sure how to show I dont want unstunned beyond the petition? OK,
dont buy kosher. But how do I know if the local curry house is using
unstunned helal? I'm not clear where the 4% (or whatever) unstunned
is.

I think buying British meat will give a pretty good level (90%+) of
confidence, High end restros same. The curry house and kebab shop?
Who knows. Lets hope the EU labelling proposals become reality
quickly.

--
Mike... . . . .

Jane Gillett

2014-05-13 08:17:05 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Agreed. We have laws and - important - they are enforced which IAGTU you
cannot rely on anywhere else - even where similar laws are claimed in
Europe which is "nearest" to us.

I know of nothing to make me trust high end resturants particularly
although hopefully they would give you a truthful answer if you asked - and
if the restaurant staff had that info about supplies. However, if you are
out and have to eat <somewhere> then you have to do the best you can. In my
case, I avoid obvious pork and chicken products and leave it at that.

Cheers
jane

--
Jane Gillett : ***@higherstert.co.uk : Totnes, Devon.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-13 10:09:04 UTC

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
I think buying British meat will give a pretty good level (90%+) of
confidence, High end restros same. The curry house and kebab shop?
Who knows. Lets hope the EU labelling proposals become reality
quickly.

Agreed. We have laws and - important - they are enforced which IAGTU you
cannot rely on anywhere else - even where similar laws are claimed in
Europe which is "nearest" to us.

I think you exaggerate the degree to which the rest of Europe ignores
everything, its partly of europhobe mythmaking. The UK isn't the
beacon of purity it likes to think it is and Johnny foreigner often
obeys rules too. Its not a different world across the channel.

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-13 11:11:47 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Agreed. We have laws and - important - they are enforced which IAGTU you
cannot rely on anywhere else - even where similar laws are claimed in
Europe which is "nearest" to us.

Exactly. For example:When were battery chickens banned in the UK? There
were still 500,000 hens in battery cages in the UK in Jan 2012 when the
deadline was crossed (BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16540769).
Austria was way ahead and banned the cages in 2009. Even the "enriched"
cages (which are allowed by EU regs) are being phased out and none may now
be added or built and must be totally phased out by 2020. IAUI the Germans
are somewhere in between.

On the other hand, the fate of veal calves, and many milk cows in Austria
hasn't changed much :-( So a broad brush is the wrong thing to use when
talking about "elsewhere".

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 08:04:01 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Tim C.
On the other hand, the fate of veal calves, and many milk cows in Austria
hasn't changed much :-( So a broad brush is the wrong thing to use when
talking about "elsewhere".

yes, I'm more than happy with Spanish black pigs, (real, large scale)
free range, natural food except specified period of shortage, tightly
controlled. British chicken, Danish pork, Chinese anything, no. EU
fish yes, because there is a fishing policy even though its
inadequate & often been wrong & wasteful, but its a slow move in the
right direction for conservation which *cannot happen* without EU
common policy (remember the Russian factory ships). Far eastern prawns
are a conservation disaster IIRC. Olive oil, Spanish, because their
exports tally with their production. German beer would be fine if I
liked the taste, but it's pure. I still have a problem with talking of
German and pure together.

I don't think I mentioned the war? Phew, got away with it again.

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-15 10:56:09 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
I still have a problem with talking of
German and pure together.

Surely the two go hand in hand?

Post by Mike.. . . .
I don't think I mentioned the war? Phew, got away with it again.

:-)

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 12:34:47 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Mike.. . . .
I still have a problem with talking of
German and pure together.

Surely the two go hand in hand?

they do seem hot on food purity.

--
Mike... . . . .

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 13:47:36 UTC

Following a post by Jane Gillett

as an example
from a a farmer in France, that "As the rules are enforced by the local
mayor and he is an elected official in an agricultural area..."

is that direct experience or "I'm reliably told" which usually isn't?
A myriad stories about the EU fly round. Is there no DEFRA type body
in France?

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-13 06:02:11 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Sikhs are very unhappy because these mumbo jumbo ancient food laws are
derived from animal sacrifice and are banned for sikhs.

I look up to Sikhs for this attitude if I understand it correctly.

+1

I had to look up more about Sikhs. I must admit I knew almost nothing about
them.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Tim C.

2014-05-13 06:05:37 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
"Although we would prefer animals to be stunned before slaughter, we
respect the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat in
accordance with their beliefs.

I'm not sure I do respect those rights in the context of animal suffering.

100% agree,.

Post by Jane Gillett
The problem with countermanding them is that I reckon it would drive
religious slaughter underground and we'd have less control.

Good point, and I can't think of a (sensible) way around it.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-13 10:04:19 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Jane Gillett
I'm not sure I do respect those rights in the context of animal suffering.

100% agree,.

Post by Jane Gillett
The problem with countermanding them is that I reckon it would drive
religious slaughter underground and we'd have less control.

Good point, and I can't think of a (sensible) way around it.

maybe there isn't one, Jane hopes that scientific advances will negate
these beliefs, but in US we see creationists choosing to challenge
science with undisprovable assertions and faked pseudo science to deny
Darwin. We see Islamic fundamentalists willing to kill to stop
education and to stop criticism. BUT Islam here seems to have
compromised in allowing pre stunning, kosher* has not, but at least
that's a small number of animals. Denmark has banned religious
slaughter amid shrieks of antisemitism even though they have not
allowed no-stun for years (while hypocritically having lots of low
welfare pork production at the same time). But I think they have the
right principal, moral enlightenment should not be trumped by
religious tradition and people cannot demand that religion is sacred
and their unprovable baseless beliefs must be respected. But of course
they will. For balance, I know an atheist who has no concept of animal
welfare, believing us as being totally different from animals, maybe
he inherited more from religion than he realises.

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-13 11:15:13 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
For balance, I know an atheist who has no concept of animal
welfare, believing us as being totally different from animals, maybe
he inherited more from religion than he realises.

Religious fanatics don't have a monopoly on stupidity. There are ignorant,
thick atheists too.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-13 11:52:41 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Religious fanatics don't have a monopoly on stupidity. There are ignorant,
thick atheists too.

true, but this chap isn't thick or ignorant, he has what I see as a
blindspot. You only have to conclude animals are too stupid to feel
hurt. If you take little interest in animals you might not notice (or
put down to anthromorhism) things like dolphins saving drowning
people, apes mourning stillborn young (photos Huff post today) or
swans dying of grief when mate dies. I'm destroying my own argument
here I think!

--
Mike... . . . .

Jane Gillett

2014-05-15 07:30:52 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Jane Gillett
I'm not sure I do respect those rights in the context of animal suffering.

100% agree,.

Post by Jane Gillett
The problem with countermanding them is that I reckon it would drive
religious slaughter underground and we'd have less control.

Good point, and I can't think of a (sensible) way around it.

Not quite what I meant but obviously I wasn't clear.

I see no reason to assume that either our senses or our technology are
aware of every aspect of the universe we inhabit so we are, indeed, seeing
the universe as modified by the filter of our limitations ("through a glass
darkly"!) and maybe a very thick filter. Until we see things entirely then
we cannot claim to know any particular belief to be in error - we can only
say that it's not the way things seem to be to us.

And in this context - and in the expectation that it will bring heaps of
dispute down on my head - I think we disagree about the function of
science. To my mind it is NOT a search for truth - it <IS> a study of the
way things behave and not what they <ARE>; we can only define anything in
terms of other things which, in turn, we define in terms of other things
etc etc... Science answers the question:
"In certain specified circumstances, if you do this then you will appear to
get that response" and that is all. It does not tell you what this or that
is and it is dependent on the circumstances. Science gives you a set of
rules by which you can calculate the outcome of a specified action within a
particular environment; nothing more.

In the above context, I don't see the scientific advances in the likely
future persuading religious adherents to change their views. If a body is
beyond any form of awareness or detection, as Gods are, then science will
not be able to address them; and you cannot determine the existence or
otherwise of something whose presence or effects science cannot sense. If
you can narrow down to a specific response to a specific action then
science can study it; toherwise not, i'm afraid. Adherents will continue to
be guided by their religious theory which is determined to a large extent
by the human/sexual/financial/status considerations of their traditional
societies in a positive feedback loop. Bit like FGM but that's another OT
topic.

Post by Mike.. . . .
We see Islamic fundamentalists willing to kill to stop
education and to stop criticism.

"Fundamentalists" of any belief tend to be extreme; I don't see everyday
moslems taking this attitude although I'd be glad to see them speaking out
against. Maybe it's understandable self-protection.

Post by Mike.. . . .
BUT Islam here seems to have
compromised in allowing pre stunning,
:)
: kosher* has not

:(.

Post by Mike.. . . .
but at least
that's a small number of animals. Denmark has banned religious
slaughter amid shrieks of antisemitism even though they have not
allowed no-stun for years (while hypocritically having lots of low
welfare pork production at the same time).

It's why I don't buy Danish bacon or pork. But I feel the same about US pig
meat and I wouldn't buy that either. And I'd only buy UK chicken products
and then only if I have good reason to believe they have been produced by
methods which seem humane to me.

Post by Mike.. . . .
But I think they have the
right principal, moral enlightenment should not be trumped by
religious tradition

To throw a spanner ....
What about religious freedom? Are some aspects of religious belief above
legal requirements? Which?

Post by Mike.. . . .
and people cannot demand that religion is sacred
and their unprovable baseless beliefs must be respected. But of course
they will.

Yep.

Another "religious belief" and equally based as you say. IMV.

Jane

--
Jane Gillett : ***@higherstert.co.uk : Totnes, Devon.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 14:03:52 UTC

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
I see no reason to assume that either our senses or our technology are
aware of every aspect of the universe we inhabit so we are, indeed, seeing
the universe as modified by the filter of our limitations ("through a glass
darkly"!) and maybe a very thick filter. Until we see things entirely then
we cannot claim to know any particular belief to be in error - we can only
say that it's not the way things seem to be to us.

No, we can say there is no evidence for your belief. So it has no more
weight than conjecture. Evolution - evidence, made in 7 days - none &
contradicted by evidence.

Post by Jane Gillett
And in this context - and in the expectation that it will bring heaps of
dispute down on my head - I think we disagree about the function of
science. To my mind it is NOT a search for truth - it <IS> a study of the
way things behave and not what they <ARE>; we can only define anything in
terms of other things which, in turn, we define in terms of other things
"In certain specified circumstances, if you do this then you will appear to
get that response" and that is all. It does not tell you what this or that
is and it is dependent on the circumstances. Science gives you a set of
rules by which you can calculate the outcome of a specified action within a
particular environment; nothing more.

how things behave is what they are. What else is there to know?

Post by Jane Gillett
In the above context, I don't see the scientific advances in the likely
future persuading religious adherents to change their views. If a body is
beyond any form of awareness or detection, as Gods are, then science will
not be able to address them; and you cannot determine the existence or
otherwise of something whose presence or effects science cannot sense. If
you can narrow down to a specific response to a specific action then
science can study it; toherwise not, i'm afraid. Adherents will continue to
be guided by their religious theory which is determined to a large extent
by the human/sexual/financial/status considerations of their traditional
societies in a positive feedback loop. Bit like FGM but that's another OT
topic.

Post by Mike.. . . .
We see Islamic fundamentalists willing to kill to stop
education and to stop criticism.

"Fundamentalists" of any belief tend to be extreme; I don't see everyday
moslems taking this attitude although I'd be glad to see them speaking out
against. Maybe it's understandable self-protection.

there are frequent reports of forced marriages of daughters and honour
killings in communities from sub continent, probably not all muslim,
but don't be to complacent on that.

Post by Mike.. . . .
BUT Islam here seems to have
compromised in allowing pre stunning,
:)
: kosher* has not

:(.

Post by Mike.. . . .
But I think they have the
right principal, moral enlightenment should not be trumped by
religious tradition

To throw a spanner ....
What about religious freedom? Are some aspects of religious belief above
legal requirements? Which?

Not in my book. But kosher gets an exemption to what our democratic
legal system says is wrong

--
Mike... . . . .

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 17:17:04 UTC

Following a post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
"In certain specified circumstances, if you do this then you will appear to
get that response" and that is all. It does not tell you what this or that
is and it is dependent on the circumstances. Science gives you a set of
rules by which you can calculate the outcome of a specified action within a
particular environment; nothing more.

how things behave is what they are. What else is there to know?

I should have said science also tells us what things are made of and
how they came to be there. It also enables us to build things which
are more than the sum of the parts, like a Lamborghini Aventrada or a
space shuttle, the internet, medicines. It cannot yet explain why
(some) people are moved to tears by a Rothco, but who could? (or cares
in my case).

--
Mike... . . . .

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-16 07:45:48 UTC

Following a post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
"Fundamentalists" of any belief tend to be extreme; I don't see everyday
moslems taking this attitude although I'd be glad to see them speaking out
against. Maybe it's understandable self-protection.

there are frequent reports of forced marriages of daughters and honour
killings in communities from sub continent, probably not all muslim,
but don't be to complacent on that.

breaking news on al jazzera:-

A Sudanese judge has sentenced a Christian woman to hang for apostasy,
despite appeals by Western embassies for compassion and respect for
religious freedom.

The case, thought to be the first of its kind to be heard in Sudan,
involves a woman whose Christian name is Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag.

"We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to
Islam," Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa told the woman on Thursday,
addressing her by her father's Muslim name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed
Abdullah.

"I sentence you to be hanged to death."

nice

--
Mike... . . . .

John Silver

2014-05-17 19:34:04 UTC

Post by John Silver

Sainsburys had halal certified labeled chickens on show yesterday

Did they say whether stunned?

I did not pick it up to read
Derek

Post by Jane Gillett
In the final event he customer holds the power. If customers stopped buying
any chickens which did not positively state that the bird was stunned then
businesses would say. However, as a post here says, doing all in one way
without stating which, is cheaper - in NZ case halal it would appear - so
until the customer shows a will not to buy unless specifically described as
stunned, the present situation will continue.
What do you reckon most customers would do?
As a separate issue, IAGTU that industrial stunning processes, as in
chicken processing lines, are not 100% effective and a small percentage
simply pass down the processing line fully conscious; is that correct? Does
anybody have any info? If so simply saying "stunned" is not an adequate
protection although admittedly better than no information.
Jane

Post by John Silver
John

--
John

Alan Holmes

2014-05-10 16:05:41 UTC

Post by John Silver
End non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64331
John

80 years ago when I was just a child my uncle used to chop the heads of our
home reared chickens, which was one of the standard ways of killing them.

Alan

ARW

2014-05-10 16:09:15 UTC

Post by John Silver
End non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64331
John

80 years ago when I was just a child my uncle used to chop the heads of
our home reared chickens, which was one of the standard ways of killing
them.

Indeed.

--
Adam

Ophelia

2014-05-10 16:35:16 UTC

Post by John Silver
End non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64331
John

80 years ago when I was just a child my uncle used to chop the heads of
our home reared chickens, which was one of the standard ways of killing
them.

Indeed.
http://youtu.be/h4GAuuBbb3w

Wow that is an old one:))

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

ARW

2014-05-13 19:17:34 UTC

Post by Ophelia

Post by John Silver
End non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64331
John

80 years ago when I was just a child my uncle used to chop the heads of
our home reared chickens, which was one of the standard ways of killing
them.

Indeed.
http://youtu.be/h4GAuuBbb3w

Wow that is an old one:))

I am younger than Alan by quite a few years. But chopping heads off chickens
was always the way it was done.

--
Adam

Ophelia

2014-05-13 19:40:35 UTC

Post by Ophelia

Post by John Silver
End non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64331
John

80 years ago when I was just a child my uncle used to chop the heads of
our home reared chickens, which was one of the standard ways of killing
them.

Indeed.
http://youtu.be/h4GAuuBbb3w

Wow that is an old one:))

I am younger than Alan by quite a few years. But chopping heads off
chickens was always the way it was done.

That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Tim C.

2014-05-14 05:40:31 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

David B

2014-05-14 07:57:47 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Do you seriously think for one moment the the headless body of a running
chicken can feel pain, or do you mean the head part can feel pain?

Assuming you mean the head part (the only part with the capability of
feeling pain) then what on earth has a running body got to do with it?

D

Tim C.

2014-05-14 14:49:01 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Do you seriously think for one moment the the headless body of a running
chicken can feel pain, or do you mean the head part can feel pain?
Assuming you mean the head part (the only part with the capability of
feeling pain) then what on earth has a running body got to do with it?
D

Probably because the head alone doesn't die straight away either?
It'll possibly be alive until the brain suffocates.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

David B

2014-05-15 08:15:53 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Do you seriously think for one moment the the headless body of a running
chicken can feel pain, or do you mean the head part can feel pain?
Assuming you mean the head part (the only part with the capability of
feeling pain) then what on earth has a running body got to do with it?
D

Probably because the head alone doesn't die straight away either?
It'll possibly be alive until the brain suffocates.

If the body of a chicken laid perfectly still when you chopped it's head off
you wouldn't be saying any of this. What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

You are bonkers, luvvue!

D

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 10:12:46 UTC

Following a post by David B

Post by David B
What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

what tells you it isn't until it dies from oxygen starvation?

--
Mike... . . . .

David B

2014-05-15 13:15:31 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by David B

Post by David B
What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

what tells you it isn't until it dies from oxygen starvation?

Nothing tells me whether it is or isn't alive. The body running around is
not an indication, that's what I was saying. I was replying to the below
comment by Tim C -

Post by David B
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

--
David

Tim C.

2014-05-15 11:02:31 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Do you seriously think for one moment the the headless body of a running
chicken can feel pain, or do you mean the head part can feel pain?
Assuming you mean the head part (the only part with the capability of
feeling pain) then what on earth has a running body got to do with it?
D

Probably because the head alone doesn't die straight away either?
It'll possibly be alive until the brain suffocates.

If the body of a chicken laid perfectly still when you chopped it's head off
you wouldn't be saying any of this.

I don't know about that.
I've dissected enough little animals of various sorts to be a bit bothered
about the point of unconsciousness, which is, to me, more important than
the actual point of death (however it's defined).

Post by David B
What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

What makes you think it's not until the oxygen or atp runs out?

Post by David B
You are bonkers, luvvue!

Probably.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 12:30:20 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Tim C.
about the point of unconsciousness,

IIRC something we know not much about?

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-15 14:52:32 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Tim C.
about the point of unconsciousness,

IIRC something we know not much about?

Yep. I see that as a fundamental problem. I'm happy to have animals
slaughtered as long as *they* aren't *aware* of it. They could either be
dead, unconscious or just distracted (ref. to Douglas Adams about learning
to fly).

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Jane Gillett

2014-05-16 08:01:37 UTC

Post by David B
If the body of a chicken laid perfectly still when you chopped it's head off
you wouldn't be saying any of this.

I'm with you there.

Post by David B
What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

What makes you think it's not until the oxygen or atp runs out?

What is "alive"?

Jane

--
Jane Gillett : ***@higherstert.co.uk : Totnes, Devon.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-16 10:06:20 UTC

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by David B
What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

What makes you think it's not until the oxygen or atp runs out?

What is "alive"?

brain activity?

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-19 07:16:36 UTC

Post by David B
What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

What makes you think it's not until the oxygen or atp runs out?

What is "alive"?

brain activity?

A headless chicken body running about is definitely still alive. It just
can't see where it's going or make many important decisions.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-19 08:56:43 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Jane Gillett
What is "alive"?

brain activity?

A headless chicken body running about is definitely still alive. It just
can't see where it's going or make many important decisions.

For the purposes of animal welfare, if only the brain feels pain or
anxiety then it's beyond suffering even if moving about. The head is
beyond suffering once its brain oxygen runs out, pretty soon then?

What is alive? What is consciousness? Neither have any simple
definition it seems.

Alive
"Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current
understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of
something that exhibits all or most of the following
traits:[36][39][40]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a
constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to
reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells the
basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and
energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic
matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal
organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena
associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A
growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than
simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the
environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution
and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external
factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the
contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to
complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms.
A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a
plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either
asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent
organisms."

I think the headless chicken fails being "alive" on at least response
to stimuli? I'm thinking you measure consciousness as brain activity,
so it fails on that. Maybe.

--
Mike... . . . .
Nigel Farage (ex commodities trader in the city) sits down to tea with an immigrant and a white working class guy, Farage takes 10 of the 12 cakes,
gives the others one each and whispers to the white guy, "watch him, he's after your cake".

Tim C.

2014-05-19 10:31:12 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
For the purposes of animal welfare, if only the brain feels pain or
anxiety then it's beyond suffering even if moving about. The head is
beyond suffering once its brain oxygen runs out, pretty soon then?

I think we all agree (rightly or wrongly) that the seat of conscious
suffering lies in the brain.
The point I was originally trying to make is that each part is still alive
- even the severed head until, as we agree, the oxygen(or whatever) runs
out. Unless it's stunned first it'll still be suffering. Suffering as much
as if it just had it's throat slit and not severed. In the case of a hen,
breaking its neck /might/ deaden the pain from the body. The head may still
be fully aware. That was my picking-bone with the "snap its neck, it's
instant" point of view.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-19 11:04:45 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Tim C.
I think we all agree (rightly or wrongly) that the seat of conscious
suffering lies in the brain.

I think so

Post by Tim C.
The point I was originally trying to make is that each part is still alive
- even the severed head until, as we agree, the oxygen(or whatever) runs
out. Unless it's stunned first it'll still be suffering. Suffering as much
as if it just had it's throat slit and not severed.

I agree on that. Is the body alive? Grey area.

--
Mike... . . . .
UKIP candidate Ferguson in Cambridge calls for death penalty
for politicians who are pro Europe (yes, seriously and he stands by it)

UKIP candidate Forrest "evolution and racism go hand in hand
racism is a natural outcome of evolution, not a misunderstanding of it"

Tim C.

2014-05-19 07:15:23 UTC

Post by David B
If the body of a chicken laid perfectly still when you chopped it's head off
you wouldn't be saying any of this.

I'm with you there.

Post by David B
What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

What makes you think it's not until the oxygen or atp runs out?

What is "alive"?

Wow that's a biggie :-)

It doesn't really matter, in this context, as long as the animal doesn't
suffer.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

ARW

2014-05-19 19:49:30 UTC

Post by David B
If the body of a chicken laid perfectly still when you chopped it's head off
you wouldn't be saying any of this.

I'm with you there.

Post by David B
What on earth makes you think that the
head is still alive.

What makes you think it's not until the oxygen or atp runs out?

What is "alive"?

Wow that's a biggie :-)
It doesn't really matter, in this context, as long as the animal doesn't
suffer.

Or tastes nice.

--
Adam

Ophelia

2014-05-14 10:19:31 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Running around but not conscious.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Tim C.

2014-05-14 14:49:42 UTC

Post by Ophelia

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Running around but not conscious.

But still alive.
It's head might still be conscious.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Ophelia

2014-05-14 15:06:42 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Running around but not conscious.

But still alive.
It's head might still be conscious.

You'm bonkers, luvvie!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Tim C.

2014-05-15 11:04:27 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Running around but not conscious.

But still alive.
It's head might still be conscious.

You'm bonkers, luvvie!

Why? A finger isn't dead when it gets cut off. Many have been successfully
sewn back on and are living a happy life in suburbia.
What's significantly (and relevantly) different to that and a head?

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 12:34:00 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Tim C.
. Many have been successfully
sewn back on and are living a happy life in suburbia.

I hope you have stats to prove more people cut off fingers in suburbia
rather than urbia or even ruria.

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-15 14:53:10 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Tim C.
. Many have been successfully
sewn back on and are living a happy life in suburbia.

I hope you have stats to prove more people cut off fingers in suburbia
rather than urbia or even ruria.

Of course. If you want them, just google :-)

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-15 15:41:05 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Mike.. . . .
I hope you have stats to prove more people cut off fingers in suburbia
rather than urbia or even ruria.

Of course. If you want them, just google :-)

I will take your word for it, obviously inner city knife fights and
rural farm accidents are outweighed by afternoon tea incidents
#middleclassproblems

--
Mike... . . . .

ARW

2014-05-15 18:00:13 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Running around but not conscious.

But still alive.
It's head might still be conscious.

You'm bonkers, luvvie!

Why? A finger isn't dead when it gets cut off. Many have been successfully
sewn back on and are living a happy life in suburbia.
What's significantly (and relevantly) different to that and a head?

A finger is not life form and has no brain.

John Wayne Bobbitt - now that probably is life threatening as that is where
most men keep their brains

--
Adam

Tim C.

2014-05-16 06:24:12 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Running around but not conscious.

But still alive.
It's head might still be conscious.

You'm bonkers, luvvie!

Why? A finger isn't dead when it gets cut off. Many have been successfully
sewn back on and are living a happy life in suburbia.
What's significantly (and relevantly) different to that and a head?

A finger is not life form and has no brain.

<Yoda voice on> life form, a part of , it is <Yoda voice off>.

Since when does is having a brain a prerequisite for being alive?

Post by ARW
John Wayne Bobbitt - now that probably is life threatening as that is where
most men keep their brains

:-)

The body of a headless chicken that is still running around is still alive,
right? If you feed and water them they stay alive longer. Why should the
head die suddenly and the body not?

What is the relevant difference between the whole chicken body without a
head and a finger, or arm or a donor heart, kidney, liver). They are often
still very much alive, without a brain (ok, the life is artificially
extended in the case of donor organs but they are still alive) for some
time after the separation.

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

David B

2014-05-16 07:47:40 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Running around but not conscious.

But still alive.
It's head might still be conscious.

You'm bonkers, luvvie!

Why? A finger isn't dead when it gets cut off. Many have been successfully
sewn back on and are living a happy life in suburbia.
What's significantly (and relevantly) different to that and a head?

A finger is not life form and has no brain.

<Yoda voice on> life form, a part of , it is <Yoda voice off>.
Since when does is having a brain a prerequisite for being alive?

Post by ARW
John Wayne Bobbitt - now that probably is life threatening as that is where
most men keep their brains

:-)
The body of a headless chicken that is still running around is still alive,
right? If you feed and water them they stay alive longer. Why should the
head die suddenly and the body not?
What is the relevant difference between the whole chicken body without a
head and a finger, or arm or a donor heart, kidney, liver). They are often
still very much alive, without a brain (ok, the life is artificially
extended in the case of donor organs but they are still alive) for some
time after the separation.

Without a brain it feels no pain.

--
David

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-16 10:13:30 UTC

Following a post by David B

Post by Tim C.
What is the relevant difference between the whole chicken body without a
head and a finger, or arm or a donor heart, kidney, liver). They are often
still very much alive, without a brain (ok, the life is artificially
extended in the case of donor organs but they are still alive) for some
time after the separation.

Without a brain it feels no pain.

we will run into real problems if we use the octopus as our example.

--
Mike... . . . .

David B

2014-05-16 10:21:11 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by David B

Without a brain it feels no pain.

we will run into real problems if we use the octopus as our example.

Ssssssssssssshhhhhhh :o)

--
David

ARW

2014-05-16 18:13:42 UTC

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by David B

Without a brain it feels no pain.

we will run into real problems if we use the octopus as our example.

But is it able to become calamari?

--
Adam

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-17 09:11:14 UTC

Following a post by ARW

Post by Mike.. . . .
we will run into real problems if we use the octopus as our example.

But is it able to become calamari?

it would need extra legs. (A nonapus was found recently, but before
the catcher realized its rarity it was a tasty stew).

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-19 07:21:37 UTC

Post by David B
Without a brain it feels no pain.

we will run into real problems if we use the octopus as our example.

Damn! I wish I'd thought of that :-)

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Tim C.

2014-05-19 07:20:41 UTC

Post by Ophelia
That is still the way we dispatch birds. It is instant.

Until they stop running around, you mean?

Running around but not conscious.

But still alive.
It's head might still be conscious.

You'm bonkers, luvvie!

Why? A finger isn't dead when it gets cut off. Many have been successfully
sewn back on and are living a happy life in suburbia.
What's significantly (and relevantly) different to that and a head?

A finger is not life form and has no brain.

<Yoda voice on> life form, a part of , it is <Yoda voice off>.
Since when does is having a brain a prerequisite for being alive?

Post by ARW
John Wayne Bobbitt - now that probably is life threatening as that is where
most men keep their brains

:-)
The body of a headless chicken that is still running around is still alive,
right? If you feed and water them they stay alive longer. Why should the
head die suddenly and the body not?
What is the relevant difference between the whole chicken body without a
head and a finger, or arm or a donor heart, kidney, liver). They are often
still very much alive, without a brain (ok, the life is artificially
extended in the case of donor organs but they are still alive) for some
time after the separation.

Without a brain it feels no pain.

That's not really answering the question.
Severed fingers don't feel pain, neither do - if what you say is correct -
headless chicken bodies.
So what's the difference?

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-16 10:11:16 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

and which half is the "immortal soul" in?

--
Mike... . . . .

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-16 10:25:33 UTC

Following a post by Tim C.

Post by Tim C.
Since when does is having a brain a prerequisite for being alive?

Its not, just look at TV talent shows or UKIP supporters.

I would tend to define alive as in a state where life support
functions are present, basic brain activity, heart function,
breathing.

A freshly cut off appendage is not "alive", it just has not decayed to
a point it cannot be reconnected to a life support system?

--
Mike... . . . .

Tim C.

2014-05-19 07:22:24 UTC

Post by Tim C.
Since when does is having a brain a prerequisite for being alive?

Its not, just look at TV talent shows or UKIP supporters

Very good :)

--
Tim C. Linz, Austria.

Janet

2014-05-16 17:49:33 UTC

You're confusing "viable" with "alive".

A donor organ removed from the body, preserved and transported between
hospitals to be implanted, is as dead as the previous owner; but unlike
him/her the organ is still viable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3088735/

Janet.

Mike.. . . .

2014-05-14 09:27:08 UTC

Following a post by ARW

Post by ARW
I am younger than Alan by quite a few years. But chopping heads off chickens
was always the way it was done.

because its quick, unlike cutting the throat, which isn't.

--
Mike... . . . .

Ophelia

2014-05-10 16:35:24 UTC

Post by John Silver
End non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64331
John

80 years ago when I was just a child my uncle used to chop the heads of
our home reared chickens, which was one of the standard ways of killing
them.

Yes, that is how we do it! Fast and clean!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

John Silver

2014-05-10 19:47:38 UTC