The ethical quandary of non-stun animal slaughter

“The law requires that animals killed for food should be stunned. An exception is made for religious reasons, due to Halal and Kosher rules. But while that exception is understandable, argues Jonathan Birch , the high level of non-stun slaughter in the UK is unjustified by the principle of religious freedom . Enjoying this post? Then sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles. We shouldn’t have any illusions about what animal slaughter involves. There is always compromise, because two things matter to the business: treating animals humanely and producing sellable meat. The kind of lethal injection a vet would use when putting down a dog or cat cannot be used, because the meat would be inedible. So the industry uses a variety of imperfect stunning methods, including electrified water baths (for chickens) and bolt guns to the head (for cattle and sheep). UK animal welfare organisations have long argued that whatever one’s views about killing animals for food, it’s much better to stun than not to stun, so it’s right that stunning is legally required. But can exemptions ever be justified? UK law permits “non-stun” slaughter for religious reasons arising from Halal and Kosher rules. This has been a source of simmering controversy ever since the first such exemption was written into Scottish law in 1928 (with England following in 1933). The salience of the issue is rising once again, with the RSPCA , Compassion in World Farming and the British Veterinary Association leading calls for tougher regulations . Two recent petitions, one calling for a complete ban and the other calling for mandatory labelling , have achieved over 100,000 signatures . The first was debated in parliament in June 2025, and the second is yet to be debated. Pressure to act is clearly growing. Prioritising religious harmony Those of us who work in the area of animal welfare policy tend to tie ourselves in knots over the issue, and it’s pretty obvious why. It presents a genuine dilemma. Most of us are broadly liberal on other social issues. We know religious intolerance is one of the most destructive and violent forces anyone can unleash on society. In a country riven by religious hatred, there can’t be real progress on anything, animal welfare included. And we fear that, for some, their interest in banning non-stun slaughter might arise more from religious animus than from a desire to help animals. A 2024 survey by the Food Standards Agency showed that, in a single week, more than half a million animals were killed without stunning, including 29 per cent of all sheep slaughtered. So, for the most part, we devote our energy to solving other welfare problems. There is no shortage of these, to put it mildly. We often highlight the so-called “stunning” of pigs by gassing them with carbon dioxide . They slowly asphyxiate over the course of approximately 60 seconds, and this is done not to meet a religious requirement but for pure efficiency. Campaigners have long said: you cannot in good conscience call this humane. It has never been acceptable, and now the government looks likely to ban it in England, according to the Animal Welfare Strategy published in December. By raising the profile of issues that are not tangled up with religious requirements, we can get much-needed welfare improvements over the line. This leads some to say: you hypocrites! You call for better stunning and yet give religious slaughter a free pass! But it is not hypocritical to value both animal welfare and religious toleration, and to attach higher importance to the latter when the two values conflict. Whether you agree with that principle or not, it’s a principled position flowing from core liberal commitments. Properly limiting the exemption But while we’ve been prioritising other issues, the problem of non-stun slaughter has been getting worse. A 2024 survey by the Food Standards Agency showed that, in a single week, more than half a million animals were killed without stunning, including 29 per cent of all sheep slaughtered. This is approximately 60,000 sheep in the week the survey took place. It’s difficult to explain this as a way of meeting the demand from UK religious communities. There are around 4m Muslims and 270,000 Jews in the whole country; the idea that these communities alone consume around 3m non-stunned sheep a year is not plausible. So what is going on? Most likely, the meat is being exported in substantial quantities. Some will also be finding its way into general domestic consumption, especially through restaurants, takeaways and ready meals. Businesses, if they know a substantial fraction of their customers has a religious requirement, will often source all their meat from a Halal- or Kosher-certified supplier, even if many or most customers have no such requirement. Parliament has revisited the issue from time to time, and the vexed question of exports was explicitly debated in 1981 . A Labour peer, Baron Houghton of Sowerby, tabled in the House of Lords a private member’s bill that would have banned the export of non-stun slaughtered meat. Earl Ferrers, a minister in the Thatcher government, spoke for the government in opposing it (see 4:57pm in the debate transcript ), arguing that voters would wonder: Why had Parliament concluded that religious slaughter was all right if the meat was for consumption in this country but wrong if the meat were going for export? It is, in logic, a non sequitur. In reality and in logic, the religious slaughter should be either acceptable or unacceptable. The ultimate destination of the meat should, I suggest, be immaterial. This is a very poor argument. Ferrers’ position was that only a total ban would be logically consistent, but a total ban would infringe on religious freedom, so the rational response must be to oppose a ban on exports. It is in fact this argument, not Houghton’s, that is logically flawed. There was no non-sequitur in Houghton’s original argument. Far from it: a selective ban on exports has a clear ethical justification. We have a general ban on non-stun slaughter to which we have made an exception on grounds of religious toleration. The purpose of the exception is to promote religious harmony within the jurisdiction. Ethically, the scope of any exception should be linked to the reasons that justify it, and it should be proportionate in light of those reasons. Exporting large volumes of non-stun slaughtered meat does nothing at all to further religious harmony in the UK. If anything, it damages religious harmony by creating a perception that the exception for religious slaughter is being irresponsibly overused. So, it’s granting much too generous a licence, relative to the reasons that justified making an exception. We should remember the tragic irony in all this: religious slaughter rules were the “humane slaughter regulations” of the ancient and Medieval worlds. Ferrers did, in fairness, offer another, more pragmatic reason for blocking the bill: “it is not at all clear that local authorities would have the resources available for enforcing adequately this additional piece of legislation.” Local authorities have no way of knowing whether meat is destined for export or for domestic markets. They can shut down abattoirs for violating welfare laws but not for sending their products to the wrong destinations. An export ban can only be enforced by customs, which means products must be clearly labelled by method of slaughter. Mandatory labelling and traceability are currently missing, and they are a crucial precondition for stopping exports. Yet that hurdle, though real, can be overcome. We do it already for allergens; it’s entirely possible to do it for non-stun meat too. And this would have the added benefit of allowing UK consumers to make better informed choices. A tragic irony We should remember the tragic irony in all this: religious slaughter rules were the “humane slaughter regulations” of the ancient and Medieval worlds. They were designed around worthy goals: trying to ensure the animal has not been abused or injured prior to slaughter and that the slaughter method is the quickest available. They just haven’t been updated to take account of modern stunning technologies. In both the Muslim and Jewish communities, there are many modernisers who can see the old rules are untenable and must change — or be interpreted differently. And many Muslims now accept stunning as long as the stun is in-principle recoverable. More than half of sheep killed by Halal-certified methods are pre-stunned. This means mandatory labelling would help Muslim consumers too, in so far as it would allow those who wish to support stunning to choose pre-stunned Halal. It would, moreover, allow an export ban to exempt pre-stunned Halal meat, shifting economic incentives in favour of stunning. While the Jewish and Muslim communities continue that vitally needed internal debate, liberal-minded animal welfare campaigners should argue for mandatory labelling, traceability and a ban on exports as soon as practically possible. These steps would not limit religious freedom in any way. They would, however, bring the numbers of animals down to a level commensurate with the actual demand from UK religious communities. Enjoyed this post? Sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles. All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Image credit: Ketut Mahendri on Shutterstock The post The ethical quandary of non-stun animal slaughter first appeared on LSE British Politics .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of LSE British Politics and Policy. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy.