27 July 2021
AperTO - Archivio Istituzionale Open Access dell'Università di Torino
Meat from cattle slaughtered without stunning sold in the conventional market without appropriate labelling: A case study in Italy / D'Amico, Priscilla; Vitelli, Nicolò; Goga, Beniamino Cenci; Nucera, Daniele; Pedonesea, Francesca; Guidia, Alessandra; Andrea Armani,. - In: MEAT SCIENCE. - ISSN 0309-1740. - 134(2017), pp. 1-6.
Original Citation:
Meat from cattle slaughtered without stunning sold in the conventional market without appropriate labelling: A case study in Italy
Published version:
DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.07.011
Terms of use:
Open Access
(Article begins on next page)
Anyone can freely access the full text of works made available as "Open Access". Works made available under a Creative Commons license can be used according to the terms and conditions of said license. Use of all other works requires consent of the right holder (author or publisher) if not exempted from copyright protection by the applicable law.
Availability:
This is the author's manuscript
Manuscript number MEATSCI_2017_304
Title Meat from cattle slaughtered without stunning sold in the conventional market without appropriate labelling: a case study in Italy
Article type Research paper
Abstract
In the European Union, slaughter without stunning is allowed for religious slaughter to obtain halal and kosher meat. However, carcasses considered not fit for consumption for people of Islamic or Jewish faith are sold to regular market without any specific labelling on the slaughtering procedure. . This survey, conducted in Tuscany in 2016, aimed to quantify the carcasses rejected in relation to the type of religious slaughter. 656 bovines were slaughtered without stunning: 538 (82%) for halal and 118 (18%) for kosher. All carcasses slaughtered by the Islamic procedure (dhabiha) were considered halal, while 77.1% of carcasses slaughtered by the Jewish procedure (shechita) did not pass the approval. Carcasses were rejected after chest cavity inspection (50%) and after the lungs control (50%). This study provides an important insight in this field and postulates how to amalgamate the concepts of freedom of religion, as enshrined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, with consumer rights and animal welfare.
Keywords ritual slaughter, stunning, labelling, unwitting, purchases, kosher, halal Taxonomy Socio-Economic Aspect of Animal Production, Beef Cattle, Animal Production
Ethics
Corresponding Author Andrea Armani Corresponding Author's
Institution
University of Pisa
Order of Authors Priscilla D'amico, Nicolò Vitelli, Beniamino Cenci Goga, Daniele Nucera, Francesca Pedonese, Alessandra Guidi, Andrea Armani
Suggested reviewers Haluk Anl, Pavel Bystricky, Giancarlo Bozzo
Submission Files Included in this PDF File Name [File Type]
cover letter.docx [Cover Letter]
Answers to reviewer 21-06-17.docx [Response to Reviewers] New Highlights 21-06-17.docx [Highlights]
MEATSCI_2017_304_R1 D'Amico, Meat from religious slaughter 21-06-17.docx [Manuscript File]
To view all the submission files, including those not included in the PDF, click on the manuscript title on your EVISE Homepage, then click 'Download zip file'.
Master in Sanità pubblica veterinaria e igiene degli alimenti Università degli Studi di Perugia
Fax: 075 585 7976 – Tel: 7935 – email: beniamino.cencigoga@unipg.it
Perugia, March, 30th 2017 D.L. Hopkins
Editor, Meat Science
New South Wales - Department of Primary Industries - Centre for Red Meat and Sheep Development
PO Box 129, Cowra, NSW - Australia 2794
Dear Prof. Hopkins,
Please find enclosed the manuscript of the paper “Meat from religious slaughter sold to general
meat market: a case study in Italy” edited by Dr. Andrea ARMANI and other collaborators.
This paper one of a series of papers based on the results of the follow-up of the EC funded project DIALREL involving partners in 11 countries and of a more recent DG SANTE tender. These projects aimed to address issues relating to religious slaughter by encouraging dialogue between stakeholders and interested parties as well as gathering and dissemination of information. This paper, in particular, deals with the issue of meat from religious slaughter sold to general meat market.
According to Jewish and Islamic dietary precepts, animals stunned before slaughter are not eligible for the consumption of their believers. In order to respect these principles, in the European Union and in many countries worldwide an exception is applied. This exception allows for animals to be slaughtered without being stunned first, provided that it takes place in a licensed slaughterhouse.
Animals and their meat, in order to be accepted, not only have to be slaughtered in accordance with specific technical provisions but must meet a series of requirements set by Jewish and Islamic dietary laws. Due to very strict Jewish doctrine, according to data currently available, only about 20-25% of the animals slaughtered by Jewish ritual are then classified as suitable (kosher). With regard to the Islamic ritual, the percentage of accepted carcasses (halal) is significantly higher, between 80% and 100%. Meat discarded by religious slaughterers, if suitable for human consumption (i.e. if it has passed the veterinary inspection), are commonly sold on general marked, such as butchers, supermarkets, restaurants, catering and canteens, without being labeled as such. In recent decades, ritual slaughter have been a source of great debate, especially for the growing popular interest in animal welfare. Beyond the ethical implications relative to this practice (which will not be discussed in this paper), one of the biggest concern arisen among European consumers, is the impossibility to recognize not stunned meats when purchasing. This is because, to date, in the EU, the labeling of meats from not stunned animals is not regulated. This survey was conducted in a small licensed slaughterhouse, located in Italy (Tuscany), from January 2016 to December 2016 and was especially aimed to assess the carcasses rejection rate after Jewish and Islamic slaughtering and quantify the amount of meat from not stunned animals that enters the general trade.
Università degli Studi di Perugia
Fax: 075 585 7976 – Tel: 7935 – email: beniamino.cencigoga@unipg.it
Figures from this study could be useful to complete and supplement existing data in this area and stimulate debate on how to settle freedom of religion with consumer rights and animal welfare.
We consider the paper very innovative because it is one of the first attempt to quantify the meat rejection rate for current methods of Halal and Shechita slaughter.
The paper is part of the work coordinated by our younger colleague Dr. Andrea ARMANI (corresponding author).
Looking forward to hearing from you, sincerely,
Beniamino Cenci Goga
Dear Editor,
We are sending you back the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Meat from cattle slaughtered without stunning sold in the conventional market without appropriate labelling: a case study in Italy”. Thank you for considering the manuscript for publication after revision. The manuscript has been implemented according the suggestions of the reviewer.
Reviewer 1
Lines 29-30- I am still not satisfied with your claim that some Halal slaughtered animals are considered unfit for Muslim consumption and passed on to the conventional market? You have stated that 'However, carcasses considered not fit for consumption for people of Islamic or Jewish faith are sold to regular market without any specific labelling on the slaughtering procedure'. With regard to Shechita slaughter, we all know that the hindquarters (if unporged) are considered unacceptable for Jews but there is no Islamic rule banning the consumption of any part of the carcass from animals slaughtered without stunning (As shown by your results). The DG Sanco (2015) project looked at information required by consumers on labels, did they give any data on the rejection rate of slaughter without stunning for halal? If yes, you will need to cite the original source of such information. You quoted 20% of Halal meat rejected, can you please look at this again? I cannot seem to find this figure in the report (DG Sanco). Can you please indicate the page number or cut and paste it for confirmation? Nonetheless, even if they stated that in the report, it was an error and I do not think you should repeat the same mistake.
As reported at page 60 in Study on information to consumers on the stunning of animals: Final Report DG SANTE Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain)
“The Conference of European Rabbis explained that the requirements for Kosher go beyond the meat being fit for human consumption and up to two out of three red meat carcases can ultimately be rejected depending on the strictness of the rabbinical authorities (the hindquarters are also not considered to be Kosher (Barclay, 2012)). The Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe confirmed that this is also the case for Halal meat, but here the rejection rate is around one-fifth.” Considering the reference source, we believe this statement is valid. Therefore, we decided to maintain the sentence in the manuscript.
Line 62- Delete ',' and replace with 'and' between 'authorities' and 'meat' and delete 'and worshippers' between 'certifiers' and 'accept' Done
Lines 63-64- Please delete 'and animals can return to their state of normal living consciousness' and replace with 'that is, animals are able to make full recovery after stunning if neck incision is not performed'. Done
Line 259-Please delete 'particular' between 'A' and 'head-only'. Done
Line 260- Please delete 'called' between ',' and 'Jarvis' and insert 'The' there. Done
Line 261-262- Please modify this sentence-The Jarvis Beef Stunner used in NZ does not incorporate a cardiac arrest cycle. The one described by Wotton and Weaver (2009) is the modified version which is accepted within the EU. The NZ system induces a stun and uses electro-immobilisation post-stun which makes it illegal in Europe due to the electro-immobilisation element. Again, Mpanhanga and Wotton (2015) are talking about the EU version and not the NZ version. Your statement started with a head-only system but the one you described includes a cardiac arrest cycle (Head-to-body.
However, as the original method of the Jarvis Beef Stunner requires the application of a post-stun, low-voltage electro-immobilisation to control post-stun convulsions, violating the EU animal welfare provisions, it was subsequently modified for the European market by introducing an additional current application to cause a cardiac arrest in the animal (Weaver and Wotton, 2009). The Jarvis Beef Stunner applied in EU is a head-to-body electrical stunning and induces stun, cardiac arrest and spinal discharge by three consecutive cycles, with considerable welfare advantage (Weaver and Wotton, 2009) over the head-only electrical stunning method, designed in New Zealand.
Highlights
Second bullet point -Please replace 'rituals' with 'methods of slaughter' between 'Islamic' and 'respectively'
Third bullet point- Please replace 'Meats' with 'Meat' and replace 'slaughters' with 'slaughter' between 'ritual' and 'were'
Fourth bullet point- Insert 'the' between 'In' and 'EU' and replace 'unstunned meats' with 'meat from animals slaughtered without stunning'
Fifth bullet point-Replace 'unaware' with 'unintentional' and insert 'of meat from animals slaughtered without any form of stunning' after 'purchases'
Highlights have been modified except for the fifth. In fact, the proposed change would have excessively increased the numbers of characters (more than 150 instead of 85 as requested by the journal).
Highlights
· This survey aimed to quantify the carcasses rejected during ritual slaughtering · 77% and 0% of animals were discarded during Jewish and Islamic methods of
slaughter rituals, respectively
· Meats rejected during ritual slaughters were sold on regular commercial channels · In the EU, the labelling and identification of meat from animals slaughtered without
stunningunstunned meats is not mandatory
· Mandatory stunning after cutting is a possible solution to avoid unintentionalunaware
1 1 Meat from cattle slaughtered without stunning sold in the conventional market without appropriate 2 labelling: a case study in Italy
3
4 Priscilla D’amico1#, Nicolò Vitelli1#, Beniamino Cenci Goga2, Daniele Nucera3, Francesca 5 Pedonese1, Alessandra Guidi1, Andrea Armani1*
6 7
8 1Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Pisa, Viale delle Piagge 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy;
9 2 Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo, 4, 06126 Perugia,
10 Italy;
11 3Department of Agriculture, Forest and Food Science, University of Turin, Largo Braccini 2,
12 10095, Grugliasco - Torino (Italy); 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 # These authors have equally contributed to this work. 21
22
23 *Corresponding author:
24 Tel.: +39 0502210207
25 fax: +39 0502210213
26 E-mail address: andrea.armani@unipi.it (A. Armani)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
2 27 Abstract
28 In the European Union, slaughter without stunning is allowed for religious slaughter to obtain halal
29 and kosher meat. However, carcasses considered not fit for consumption for people of Islamic or
30 Jewish faith are sold to regular market without any specific labelling on the slaughtering procedure.
31 This survey, conducted in Tuscany in 2016, aimed to quantify the carcasses rejected in relation to the
32 type of religious slaughter. 656 bovines were slaughtered without stunning: 538 (82%) for halal and
33 118 (18%) for kosher. All carcasses slaughtered by the Islamic procedure (dhabiha) were considered
34 halal, while 77.1% of carcasses slaughtered by the Jewish procedure (shechita) did not pass the
35 approval. Carcasses were rejected after chest cavity inspection (50%) and after the lungs control
36 (50%). This study provides an important insight in this field and postulates how to amalgamate the
37 concepts of freedom of religion, as enshrined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, with
38 consumer rights and animal welfare.
39
40 Key words: ritual slaughter, stunning, labelling, unwitting purchases, kosher, halal
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
3
42 1. INTRODUCTION
43 As concerns animal slaughter at the European level, Article 4 Paragraph 1 of Council Regulation
44 (EC) n. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires that, prior to slaughter,
45 animals must be rendered unconscious through the application of a stunning method. Stunning is
46 usually applied through electrical, mechanical or gaseous means (approved by Council Regulation
47 (EC) No 1099/2009) and causes immediate loss of consciousness, making animals insensible to pain
48 until death supervenes through exsanguination. However, Par. 4 of the same Article allows slaughter
49 without stunning for particular religious’ rites, provided that they take place in a licensed
50 slaughterhouse (Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009). This derogation is designed to respect freedom of
51 religion and the right to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, as
52 enshrined in Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU) (European
53 Commission, 2017).
54 There are many ritual slaughter methods around the world but Islamic and Jewish are the most
55 commercially relevant. Religious slaughter is performed by Muslims and Jewish in order to obtain
56 halal and kosher foods, respectively. According to dietary precepts of these religions, animals that
57 are not conscious, healthy and whole at the time of killing are not eligible for the consumption of
58 worshippers (Downing, 2015). Accordingly, both these communities interpret the stunning of animals
59 as not compliant with their religious dietary precepts. However, it should be pointed out that some
60 Muslim authorities, and meat certifiers and worshippers accept certain pre-slaughter stunning
61 methods provided they are reversible that is, animals are able to make full recovery after stunning if 62 neck incision is not performedand animals can return to their state of normal living consciousness 63 (Needham, 2012). According to recent data from the EU Dialrel project, in the EU, about 65% of
64 cattle abattoirs, 50% of small ruminants abattoirs and 50% of poultry abattoirs carry out pre-slaughter
65 stunning and, on average, 84% of cattle, 81% of small ruminants and 88% of poultry are stunned
66 before or after neck cut (Needham, 2012; Velarde et al., 2014).The global volume and value of trade
67 in halal and kosher meat is vast and it has been increasing especially after the rise of Islamic
120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175
4 68 communities around the world (Lada et al., 2009). The global and European market for halal food is
69 estimated to be worth around 547 and 77 billion dollars a year respectively (Lever et al., 2010). It
70 should be stated, however, that halal and kosher products are not consumed just for religious reasons.
71 According to the UK Halal Food Authority, while Muslims account for around 3% of the UK
72 population, halal meat makes up about 25% of the domestic meat market (Lever & Puig de la
73 Bellacasa, 2010). In addition, a 2009 survey (Mintel, 2009) showed that in the United States only a
74 low percentage (14%) of consumers purchased kosher food following Jewish precepts. Most of them
75 claimed to prefer kosher products for reasons related to food quality and safety (Mintel, 2009).
76 Dhabiha and shechita have apparently a similar procedure (slaughter without stunning) but differ
77 in some aspects (Farouk et al., 2014; Bozzo et al., 2017). In both procedures, operators who actually
78 carry out the slaughter must be authorized by their respective religious authority (Velarde et al., 2014;
79 Farouk et al., 2014). The Jewish slaughterer, named shochet, in order to be licensed must be a
80 practicing worshipper and have attended a specific training course on ritual slaughtering. For Muslim
81 procedures, slaughtering must be done by a sane (mentally competent) adult Muslim (Pozzi et al.,
82 2015). At European level, religious slaughterers must be authorized by the competent local authority
83 that attests their ability and experience and issues them a license (Ferrari & Bottoni 2010).
84 Aside the peculiarities concerning the operator, dhabiha does ask for other particular requirements
85 for its execution: there aren’t parts of the animal to be considered forbidden, except blood, and a post
86 mortem inspection is not required (Anil, 2012; Farouk et al., 2014). On the contrary, shechita is 87 characterized by several and specific dispositions (Bozzo et al., 2017). In particular, the cut of the
88 throat is a very important procedure and the shochet has to avoid the occurrence of one of the “five
89 forbidden techniques” (Table 1) that disqualify a kosher cut and renders animals not-kosher and
90 unsuitable (treif) (Roosen, 2004; Hayes et al., 2015; Pozzi et al., 2015).
Forbidden
technique Description Examples
Pressing Hacking or pressing instead of sliding, occurrence of forward and backward movements.
The shochet pushes the knife into the animal's throat against the force of gravity or positions the animal improperly so that its head presses down on the blade as it expires.
178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236
5
Pausing Hesitation during the incision The shochet stops the slaughtering process after cutting the trachea or oesophagus but before completing the cut.
Piercing Cutting above the large ring in the trachea or below upper lobe of the lung (when injected with air) Tearing Tearing the oesophagus or the
trachea. It may happen if there is a nick in the knife.
The shochet performs the cut by using a knife with an imperfection on the blade, such as a scratch or nick, that causes a section of blade to be lower than the surface of the blade. It may occur in heavy birds if not correctly restrained.
Digging The knife is not visible along all
the shechita. The shochet cuts the animal's throat so deeply that the entire width of the knife disappears in the wound; knife is too short so that the end disappears in the wound or is buried by fur or hide. It may be caused even by a foreign object fall over the knife so the shochet loses sight of the incision.
91
92 Table 1. The “five forbidden techniques” to be avoided during the shechita (Hayes et al., 2015; Pozzi et al., 93 2015).
94 After slaughter, the shochet carries out post-mortem inspection (bedikah) of the carcasses to detect
95 alterations, especially of the rib cage (pleura), lungs and liver (Farouk et al., 2014; Hayes et al., 2015;
96 Bozzo et al., 2017). During the bedikah, the shochet blows the lungs with air (this only applies to
97 mammals). If signs of disease are found, the animal cannot be considered suitable for consumption
98 (Hayes et al., 2015; Bozzo et al., 2017). Depending on the lesions found in the lungs and liver, the
99 carcasses can be classified as chalak or glatt (top-quality), kosher (medium-quality) or treif
100 (unsuitable) (Bozzo et al., 2017).
101 After a kosher animal is properly slaughtered and inspected, it still cannot be consumed until
102 certain large blood vessels, the chelev (a forbidden fat known as ‘Tallow’ or ‘Suet’) (Leviticus 7:25)
103 and the gid hanashe (the sciatic nerve) are removed from the carcass (Gurtman, 2005). The removal
104 of these parts is called nikkur (tunnelling or deveining in English) and the operator that performs it
105 menakker (porger) (Farouk et al., 2014: Bozzo et al., 2017). Nikkur in the forequarters is significantly
106 easy; the operator has just to remove the blood vessels because the front half of the animal has a low
107 chelev content and does not contain the sciatic nerve (Blech, 2009; Lytton, 2013). On the contrary,
108 nikkur in the hindquarters is very complicated and it requires highly trained operators (Blech, 2009;
109 Anil, 2012; Lytton, 2013). While in Israel nikkur in hindquarters is a routinely practice, it is
110 uncommon and limited in countries abroad (Anil, 2012). This is because skilled operators are difficult
111 to find outside of Israeli borders and the removal process is time consuming and not very
cost-238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293
6 112 effective (Anil, 2012). Therefore, Jewish communities outside of Israeli borders prefer to directly
113 avoid hindquarters, which are systematically rejected by the shochet, even those from carcasses
114 deemed kosher at the end of the shechita (Blech, 2009; Anil, 2012; Lytton, 2013). All carcasses
115 rejected by the shochet as well as all hindquarters are usually sold to non-kosher markets, giving rise
116 to a series of commercial and ethical disputes (Lever et al., 2010; Havinga, 2010; Needham, 2012;
117 DG SANTE, 2015). Concerns have emerged because such meats are marketed on regular commercial
118 channels without being properly labelled as coming from animals slaughtered without stunning (DG
119 SANTE, 2015). Therefore, unwitting consumers may purchase them (Lever et al., 2010; Havinga,
120 2010; Needham, 2012). However, in recent years, the attention of EU consumers towards animal
121 welfare has significantly increased and consumers do not only ask for safe and quality foods but also
122 that they come from animals ethically farmed and slaughtered (Salamano et al., 2013). Therefore, the
123 lack of information on the use (or not) of a stunning method might adversely affect informed
124 purchasing decisions of consumers.
125 According to the most recent data, at European level, about 2.1 million cattle (8.5% of the total
126 cattle slaughtered in EU) are slaughtered without stunning annually; however, figures vary according
127 to the local consistency of Jewish and Muslim population (Needham, 2012). Currently, it is estimated
128 that 19 million (3.8% of the EU population) and 1.4 million (0.2%) of Muslims and Jews respectively
129 live in EU (Lugo and Cooperman, 2011; Lipka, 2015). In France, which is considered to have the
130 largest Muslim community in EU, about 40% of calves, 25% of cattle and 54% of ovine are
131 slaughtered without stunning each year (Needham, 2012). In Italy, considering that the percentage of
132 Muslims and Jews over the total population (2.3% Muslims and 0.04% Jews) (ISMU, 2016; Della
133 Pergola, 2017) is significantly below the European average (6% Muslims and 0.2% Jews) (Lipka,
134 2015; Hackett, 2016), the number of ritual-slaughtered animals is not as high as in other Member
135 States. In 2010, Cenci-Goga et al. estimated that in Italy dhabiha accounts for 4.27% of cattle, 5.47%
136 of small ruminants and 1.31% of poultry, while shechita is practiced for 0.43% of cattle and 4.16%
137 of small ruminants and for almost no poultry.
296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354
7 138 This study was performed at a small throughput slaughterhouse in Italy (Tuscany) and aimed at
139 assessing the percentage of cattle rejected in the course of ritual slaughter. Our study quantified the
140 amount of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning that enter the regular trade. Figures from
141 this study could be useful to complete and supplement existing data in this sector and discuss further
142 issues related to the labelling of meats, especially given the current lack of specific requirements at
143 EU level.
144 2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
145 This survey was conducted in a small licensed slaughterhouse (authorized to carry out ritual killing
146 of animals by the Local Health Authority), located in Italy (Tuscany), from January to December
147 2016. In this period, the following data were collected:
148 -) number of slaughtered animals and information regarding gender and age (commercial category);
149 -) number of animals slaughtered by each religious procedure;
150 -) information regarding the immobilization method;
151 -) number of animals stunned by post-cut stunning;
152 -) number of carcasses accepted/rejected by each procedure (in the case of shechita the total number
153 of carcasses rejected from kosher certification due to the occurrence of a prohibited technique or the
154 detection of abnormalities of the carcass were registered);
155 -) commercial destination of the rejected carcasses.
156 A statistical analysis was performed to explore rejection rate differences according to slaughtering
157 age by means of Χ2test for a 3x2 contingency. After the assessment of the overall significance 158 (P<0,05) k-1 Χ2tests (where k is the number of age category groups) were performed in order to assess 159 which age class was different. Analyses were performed using EPI info 6TM (https://www.cdc.gov). 160 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
161 Slaughter without stunning is allowed in most EU Member States. It was banned in Norway,
162 Switzerland and Sweden (Anil, 2012; Needham, 2012). In Latvia, slaughter without stunning is
163 allowed only if “immediate” post-cut stunning is applied (Needham, 2012). In 2011, the Dutch
356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411
8 164 parliament voted in favour of banning slaughter without stunning but following complaints of the
165 Jewish community, the Senate granted exemption from stunning in ritual slaughter provided there is
166 a close veterinary supervision and animals die within 40 seconds (Needham, 2012). In Italy, slaughter
167 without stunning is allowed in all Regions except the Liguria where derogation was halted in 2016
168 (Regione Liguria, 2016).
169 During the study period, 656 cattle (about 27% of the animals slaughtered annually in the plant
170 under investigation) were slaughtered by religious rite without stunning (neither before nor after the
171 neck cut). Of these, 538 (82%) by dhabiha and 118 (18%) by shechita (Table 2). All animals
172 (Limousine breed), came from local farms and they were all “Adult Cattle” with an average age of
173 14 months (Tab 2). With regard to the selection of animals, while the Muslim operators did not
174 express any preference about gender, the shochet specifically requested only male cattle. This
175 preference is due to a higher meat yield of male carcasses with respect to female ones.
Dhabiha Shechita
Number of animals slaughtered 538 118
Sex No preference
(male and female)
All male
Breed Limousine Limousine
Mean age 14 months 14 months
Commercial category “Vitellone” (Adult Cattle) “Vitellone” (Adult Cattle)
Use of the rotary pen 0% 0%
Post-cut stunning 0% 0%
Rejected carcasses 0% 77.1%
176 Table 2. Numbers and characteristics of animals slaughtered according to ritual.
177 At the end of the slaughter, carcasses accepted by the religious slaughterer were usually marked
178 with a halal or kosher stamp. Even though in EU religious stamps are not a legal requirement they
179 are usually applied by operators as a means of certification and warranty for the faithful.
180 3.1 Slaughtering operations: similarities and differences between Jews and Muslims
181 There are a number of ways animals destined for halal and kosher slaughters are restrained,
182 including casting with a rope, hoisting by a hind leg, restraint in a straddled conveyor or restraining
183 (V-shaped) conveyor, inversion in a rotary pen (Facomia and Weinberg are the most common
184 worldwide) and restraint whilst standing upright (Grandin & Regenstein, 1994; Farouk et al., 2014;
414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472
9 185 Pozzi et al., 2015). Worldwide, in the opinion of both the Muslim and Jewish communities, the use
186 of rotating devices is preferred while head restraints (irrespective of the position) should be avoided
187 as they can seriously affect the performance of the cut and the bleeding efficiency (Pozzi et al., 2015).
188 In a report on the welfare aspects of animal stunning, scientists of the European Food Safety Authority
189 (EFSA) favoured restraining animals in an upright position in case of slaughter without stunning
190 (European Commission, 2016). This is due to the behaviour of animals that fidget and get very
191 stressed when inverted. The inverted position is particularly unnatural, uncomfortable and painful for
192 cattle because it generates high abdominal pressure, especially if the animal is inverted for a long
193 time (European Commission, 2016). On the other hand, upright position for slaughter without
194 stunning makes the cutting more difficult for the operator (European Commission, 2016). At
195 European level, the use of rotating pens is widespread (on overage, more than 78% of the animals
196 subjected to ritual slaughter are killed in a rotating pen) although there are considerable variations
197 depending on the Member State (European Commission, 2016). In France, for example, 98% of
198 animals are slaughtered in an inverted position while in other EU countries rotating devices are not
199 in use (Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia) or banned (in UK the upright position is mandatory)
200 (European Commission, 2016).
201 During this study, in both Islamic and Jewish methods of slaughter, animals were restrained in the
202 same restraint used for regular slaughter (with stunning) and sticking was performed in the upright
203 position. To facilitate the cut of the throat and the exposure of the ventral surface of the neck towards
204 the operator, the animal's head was immobilized and placed in traction upwards by mechanical
205 devices. Although the slaughterhouse was equipped with a cattle rotational trap, in 100% of the cases
206 Jewish and Muslim operators preferred to avoid its use. Overall, findings of this survey confirm a
207 previous study conducted in Italy, where the rotating pens are permitted but rarely used. Cenci-Goga
208 et al. (2010) reported that cattle are mainly slaughtered in upright position while small ruminants on
209 the floor or on a table, restrained on their back or side.
474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529
10 210 From a comparison of the two methods of slaughter, a stricter procedure for the Jewish slaughter
211 is observed. As also observed by other authors (Farouk et al., 2014; Bozzo et al., 2017), Jews make a
212 strict selection of the animals, require detailed arrangements on the technical execution and carry out
213 a post mortem inspection of the viscera and exclude certain portions of the carcass systematically.
214 Islamic procedure is generally more flexible (Farouk et al., 2014). One of the main differences
215 between the two methods of slaughter regards the knife used. In fact, Jewish precepts requires that
216 the knife used for slaughtering (chalef) must be perfectly sharp so that trachea, oesophagus, carotid
217 arteries and jugular veins can be cut in one swift action (Bozzo et al., 2017). So that the blade is as
218 smooth as possible and the cut is made in a single movement, the shochet sharpens the knife several
219 times on a slate stone before slaughtering each animal. Also in this study, the shochet tested the knife
220 for any imperfection, nicks or unevenness by lightly passing the edge of the index or pointer fingernail
221 along the cutting edge or by moving the edge of the knife back and forth on the edge of the fingernail.
222 Beyond this, in general, the appropriateness of the knife is pivotal in terms of animal welfare and
223 bleeding efficiency. In fact, a blunt or imperfect knife can, determine an inadequate cut resulting in a
224 slow-down of the bleeding, a delay in loss of consciousness and above all in deep suffering of animals
225 (Grandin & Regenstein, 1994).
226 Muslims and Jews have contrasting positions about the possible use of stunning (Salamano et al.,
227 2013). Available data show that while a very high percentage (80-90%) of animals slaughtered by
228 shechita are not subject to stunning, those slaughtered by dhabiha are subjected to stunning in most
229 of the cases (Salamano et al., 2013; Farouk et al., 2014). Worldwide, many Muslim communities
230 voluntarily apply stunning as long as it is reversible and the animal's physical integrity is maintained
231 (Velarde et al., 2014; Pozzi et al., 2015). In 2011, according to a study of the UK Food Standards
232 Agency (FSA), 43,772 cattle and calves were slaughtered in UK, of which 1,314 (3%) by shechita
233 and 1,727 (4%) by dhabiha (Food Standards Agency, 2012). Ten per cent of those slaughtered by
234 Jews were stunned immediately after bleeding while 84% of those slaughtered by Muslims were
235 stunned before slaughter and less than 1% after bleeding (Food Standards Agency, 2012). In 2015,
532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590
11 236 the Food Standards Agency (FSA) published the result of another Animal Welfare Survey undertaken
237 in abattoirs across UK in a one week period in September 2013. The survey stated that around 84%
238 of animals slaughtered by dhabiha were stunned before slaughter, confirming earlier 2011 figures
239 (Food Standard Agency, 2015).
240 Muslims commonly accept reversible stunning methods, such as head-only electronarcosis, but
241 they are reluctant to approve mechanical stunning, as it may cause irreversible loss of consciousness
242 and injuries to animals (McLean et al., 2017). Unfortunately, there are some animal species,
243 especially large ones, where stunning by electric current is not easily applicable for various technical
244 reasons (Wotton et al., 2000; Grandin, 2011; Robins et al. 2014, McLean et al., 2017) and mechanical
245 means, such as captive bolt gun, are preferred. A particular head-only electrical stunning method,
246 called the Jarvis Beef Stunner, was specifically developed for adult bovines in New Zealand.
247 However, as the original method of the Jarvis Beef Stunner requires the application of a post-stun, 248 low-voltage electro-immobilisation to control post-stun convulsions, violating the EU animal welfare 249 provisions, it was subsequently modified for the European market by introducing an additional 250 current application to cause a cardiac arrest in the animal (Weaver and Wotton, 2009). The Jarvis 251 Beef Stunner currently applied in EU is a head-to-body electrical stunning andIt induces stun, cardiac
252 arrest and spinal discharge by three consecutive cycles, with considerable welfare advantage (Weaver
253 and Wotton, 2009) over the head-only electrical stunning method, designed in New Zealand.
254 However, currently, Jarvis Beef Stunnerit is not yet widespread at European level, and for example
255 in UK it has been introduced only into 7 plants across the country (Mpamhanga and Wotton, 2015).
256 It follows that species such as cattle and horses are automatically excluded from the possibility of
257 being stunned before ritual slaughter unless the captive bolt gun is used immediately after cutting.
258 However, this practice is very uncommon among religious slaughterer (Cenci-Goga et al., 2013) and
259 during the current study, it happened only once (0.001%), during Muslim ritual, because of the
260 prolonged state of animal consciousness. Studies on cattle indicate that some animals may have a
261 period of prolonged sensibility (Grandin, 1994) as cattle have a particular anatomical conformation
592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647
12 262 of vessels (Gregory et al., 2008; Bartz et al., 2015). In addition to branches from the carotid and
263 basilar arteries, cattle brain is supplied with blood via a basioccipital plexus. During slaughter, when
264 carotid arteries are cut, the thick anastomotic network of the basioccipital plexus keeps the brain
265 perfused, prolonging the state of consciousness (Gregory et al., 2006; Gregory et al., 2008; Bartz et
266 al., 2015). Further complication can result from the tendency of cattle to develop "false aneurysm" or
267 “Ballooning” shortly after resection of the carotid arteries (Gregory et al., 2006; Bartz et al., 2015).
268 This phenomenon is due to the partial occlusion of the severed artery orifice by engorgement with
269 blood in the lumen or in the connective tissue of the vessel, slowing down the bleeding and
270 considerably extending the duration of animal consciousness (Gregory et al., 2006; Gregory et al.,
271 2008; Bartz et al., 2015).
272 3.2 Evaluation and acceptability of carcasses
273 During our study, none of the animals slaughtered with Jewish ritual was rejected because of
274 anomalies arising during ante mortem inspection or the occurrence of a prohibited technique (Table
275 1). A low rejection rate (2.4%) during cutting was also confirmed by Bozzo et al. (2017) and it is
276 probably due to the technical expertise of operators and the routine application of standardized
277 procedures (Bozzo et al., 2017).
278 On the contrary, a very high percentage of carcasses (77.1%) were refused by the shochet during
279 his inspection. In particular, 50% of rejections occurred during the first step of the bedikah (when the
280 shochet checks the thoracic cavity with organs in situ), because the shochet reported the presence of
281 lung adhesions and irregularities, and 50% during the second step, when the shochet specifically
282 examines the lungs and liver of animals that have passed the first step. In this case, the carcasses were
283 mainly rejected following the detection of inflammatory or reparative processes. In addition to these
284 rejected carcasses, because of the impossibility to perform nikkur (extremely rare practice outside
285 Israel), the shochet systematically discarded the hindquarters of all animals, even those deemed
286 kosher. Our data confirm figures found at global level where it has been estimated that only about
287 20-25% of beef and sheep meat, slaughtered according to shechita is ultimately classed as kosher
650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708
13 288 (Barclay, 2012; Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2015; DG SANTE, 2015).
289 These data also agree with the high percentage of the carcasses failing to qualify as kosher reported
290 in a recent study of Bozzo et al., (2017). In their study, 67.2% and 40.7% of the total carcasses were
291 rejected by the Rabbis from the Community of Milan and Rome, respectively. The variability is
292 probably due both to the subjective selection criteria of the shochet and to the commercial outcome
293 of the kosher meat. In particular, stricter requirements seemed to be applied when the meat is intended
294 for orthodox Jewish communities. However, another aspect that can reduce the percentage of the
295 carcasses qualified as kosher is the age of cattle. In fact, the older the cattle the greater is the likelihood
296 of finding lesions in their organs, as our statistical analyses confirmed. In the current study, the
297 frequency of carcass rejection observed for adult calves (over 12 months,) was compared to those
298 reported in a similar study for calves younger than 8 months, and bull calves aged between 8 and 12
299 months (see Bozzo et al. 2017) by statistical analysis. The overall difference in frequency of rejected
300 carcasses across age groups was highly significant, being Χ2=60,45 and P<0,001; interestingly, the 301 comparison between young calves and bull calves also resulted in highly significant differences
302 (Χ2=34,9 and P <0,001), as well as between bull calves and adult bulls (Χ2=6,92 and P <0,001). These 303 results indicate an effect of age on carcass acceptability. Therefore, the very high difference in value
304 between the acceptances of adult cattle compared to other categories of cattle is unlikely to be due to
305 other external factors (such as operator or slaughtering procedures).
306 All rejected carcasses observed during the present study period and non-eligible hindquarters were
307 sold to the (non-religious) conventional market (i. e. local butchers). This "modus operandi"
308 represents a practical (even though not ethical) solution for slaughterhouses and farmers to minimize
309 the economic loss. According to industry estimates (unofficial data), sheep and beef meat derived
310 from animals slaughtered without stunning which was sold through the conventional market in 2012
311 accounted for 40,000 tons of meat for grilling (5% of the conventional market of meat for grilling)
312 and 20,000 tons for slow cooking (3.5% of the conventional market of slow cooking meat.) (DG
313 SANTE, 2015). Moreover, there have been cases of state schools, hospitals, pubs, sports arenas, cafes,
710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765
14 314 markets and hotels serving halal and kosher meat to customers without their awareness (Barclay,
315 2012).
316 Our survey confirmed that, usually, during Islamic slaughtering the carcasses rejection rate is very
317 low (according to the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe it is less than 20%) (DG SANTE,
318 2015). In fact, all animals were accepted and sold to local halal butchers. This could be due not only
319 to the absence of particular operational or qualitative criteria adopted during carcass and organs
320 evaluation but, probably, also to the growing demand for halal meat in Italy and especially in Tuscany,
321 which is among the regions with the highest Muslim population (7.3% of foreigners) (ISMU, 2016).
322 Presently halal meat produced in Italy is marketed at national level (Goga et al., 2010;
Cenci-323 Goga et al., 2013) and not exported. In 2009, the Italian-Islamic Religious Community (Co.Re.Is),
324 with the support of several institutional bodies signatories of an inter-ministerial agreement, initiated
325 the first pilot-project for halal certification in Italy and, a year later, registered the "Halal Italia" mark.
326 This certification was established to certify compliance of various products (food, drugs, cosmetics,
327 etc.) with the Koranic laws and encourage their export abroad (Interministerial Agreement, 2010).
328 Recently halal meat has also appeared in supermarkets and large stores (especially of big cities) in
329 dedicated shelves or counters.
330 3.4 Implications of consumers: in search for a legislative “politically correct” solution
331 In recent years, following the growing interest of consumers in animal welfare, the resale of meat
332 coming from ritual slaughter to conventional retail outlets has aroused several concerns worldwide.
333 This is especially because nowadays at global level, no government has made mandatory the labelling
334 of meats from animals slaughtered without stunning and therefore there is no chance for consumers
335 to avoid them if they so desire. In 2010, even the president of the UK Halal Food Authority recognized
336 the importance of labelling, arguing that as Muslims have a choice of eating halal meat, non-Muslims
337 should have the opportunity to not eat it (Barclay, 2012).
338 Issues related to unintentional purchase and consumption of these meats by EU citizens has led
339 the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) for the European Commission Directorate General
768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826
15 340 for Health and Food Safety to carry out an EU wide survey. Through the interview of 13,500 EU
341 consumers, the FCEC attempted to ascertain if respondents would be interested in receiving
342 information on the method of slaughter when purchasing meat (DG SANTE 2015). In 2015, the
343 findings were published in a report entitled “Study on information to consumers on the stunning of
344 animals” according to which 72% of consumers were interested in receiving information about the 345 stunning of animals and 45% of them thought that it should be reported on label. However, it must
346 be pointed out that the respondents did not voluntarily suggest that slaughter method was an important
347 criterion when purchasing meat, but only mentioned it when asked directly whether they would like
348 to know more about it (DG SANTE, 2015). Moreover, most stakeholders stated the only relevant
349 information on this issue is whether an animal had been stunned prior to slaughter and not the method
350 of stunning used. Probably the information on the method of stunning is not significant to consumers
351 because they are not properly aware of the various types of stunning methods. In particular,
352 considering the low level of consumers’ understanding of slaughter practices, the introduction of
353 labelling on stunning would require substantial efforts in terms of educating consumers. Introducing
354 labelling without a preliminary education and awareness may result in false alarms and further
355 reductions in consumer confidence in the meat supply chain. This also holds true for Muslim
356 consumers who are likely to question whether pre-slaughter stunning is acceptable if they are not
357 adequately informed.
358 Following the data obtained from the study, EU has not considered it necessary to impose label
359 information on the type (or absence) of the stunning. This decision was probably made because
360 ordinary consumers will likely refuse to buy meat labelled as coming from animals slaughtered
361 without stunning, with a consequent depreciation of the value of this meat (especially hindquarters)
362 on the market. Moreover, the distribution chain is likely to refuse to market meat from animals
363 slaughtered without stunning, for communication/image to the general public reasons and to avoid
364 bearing the risk of unsold meat. However, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) has
365 supported the correct identification of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning, arguing that
828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883
16 366 “the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is unacceptable under any 367 circumstances”. Therefore meat (or products thereof) coming from ritual slaughter without stunning 368 should be clearly labelled to enable consumers to make an informed choice based on welfare, ethics
369 or personal belief (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, 2014). Furthermore, FVE advocate that
370 labelling should refer to non-stun slaughter rather than a method of religious slaughter because it may
371 discriminate against Jewish or Muslim communities (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, 2014).
372 In fact, labelling to indicate whether animals had been stunned or not, rather than whether the meat
373 was halal or kosher, could mitigate the stigmatization of certain religious groups (Federation of
374 Veterinarians of Europe, 2014). Many evidence of possible racial and anti-cultural implications
375 already exists (Gruber, 2012; Rauschnabel et al., 2015) and in this regard, the case of French fast food
376 is emblematic (Wright & Annes, 2013). In 2009, the introduction of halal meat in the menu of a fast
377 food restaurant located in a densely populated Muslim area in Toulouse raised strong public outrage.
378 Many French media and citizens saw the episode as an abuse of national identity, arguing that the
379 spread of certain products on a large-scale could threaten the French national identity and food culture
380 (Wright & Annes, 2013).
381 In order to reduce the risk of stigmatization, as proposed by several stakeholders, the information
382 related to stunning could be communicated via a code rather than text, for instance a letter, for
383 example “S” for stunned, that would allow informed consumers to make their choice while avoiding
384 misinterpretation for other consumers.
385 4. CONCLUSIONS
386 The percentage of rejected carcasses identified in the current study was particularly high for the
387 Jewish slaughtering. Therefore, a big proportion of carcasses was sold onthe conventional market
388 without appropriate labelling. On the countrary, no rejection was observed during Muslim procedures.
389 The results of this study confirm those found by other scientific studies, however, surveys in this
390 sector are still limited and further investigations are needed at national, EU and global level. As
391 regards the labelling of stunning method, the EU, following its 2015 study, has taken a clear position,
886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944
17 392 deciding not to make it mandatory. In this light, if EU government does not intend to regulate the
393 labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning, then it would be necessary to explore a
394 range of alternative options and actions to prevent non-religious consumers from unwitting and
395 unwelcome purchases.
396 Funding sources
397 This research was financed by the University of Pisa. The funding source was not involved in the
398 article preparation and submission process.
399 Conflict of Interest:
400 D’Amico Priscilla, Vitelli Nicolò, Cenci Goga Beniamino, Nucera Daniele, Pedonese Francesca,
401 Guidi Alessandra, Armani Andrea declare that they have no conflict of interest.
402 Bibliography
403
404 1. Anil, M.H. (2012). Effects of slaughter method on carcass and meat characteristics in the meat of
405 cattle and sheep. Available at:
http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/wp/wp-406 content/uploads/2013/04/slaughter_and_meat_quality_feb_2012-final-report.pdf.
407 2. Barclay, C. (2012). Religious Slaughter. House of Commons Standard Note: SN/SC/1314.
408 3. Bartz, B., Collins, M., Stoddard, G., Appleton, A., Livingood, R., Sobcynski, H., & Vogel, K. D.
409 (2015). Assessment of nonpenetrating captive bolt stunning followed by electrical induction of
410 cardiac arrest in veal calves. Journal of Animal Science, 93(9), 4557-4563.
411 4. Blech, Z.Y. (2009). Kosher Food Production. (2nd ed.). Ames: John Wiley & Sons.
412 5. Bozzo, G., Di Pinto, A., Bonerba, E., Ceci, E., Mottola, A., Roma, R., Capozza, P., Samoilis, G.,
413 Tantillo G., & Celano, G. V. (2017). Kosher slaughter paradigms: Evaluation of slaughterhouse
414 inspection procedures. Meat Science, 128, 30-33.
415 6. Cenci-Goga, B. T., Mattiacci, C., De Angelis, G., Marini, P., Cuccurese, A., Rossi, R., &
416 Catanese, B. (2010). Religious slaughter in Italy. Veterinary Research Communications, 34(1),
417 139-143.
418 7. Cenci-Goga, B. T., Sechi, P., Cuccurese, A., Poeta, A., De Angelis, G., Marini, P., Mattiacci, C.,
419 Rossi, R., Pezzato, R., Salamano G., & Santori, P. (2013). Religious slaughter: Data from surveys
420 and spot-check visits in Italy and animal welfare issues. Society & Animals, 21(5), 459-488.
421 8. Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the
422 time of killing. Official Journal, L303.
946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001
18 423 9. Della Pergola, S. (2017). World Jewish Population, 2016. In A. Dashefsky, & I.M. Sheskin (Eds.),
424 American Jewish Year Book 2016 (pp. 253-332). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 425 10. DG SANTE (2015). Study on information to consumers on the stunning of animals. Final
426 Report. Available at: http://www.ceasc.com/Images/Content/2643%20Appendices.pdf
427 11. Downing, E. (2015). Religious slaughter of animals. Available at:
428 http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07108/SN07108.pdf.
429 12. EBLEX (2010). The Halal meat market: EBLEX Special Report. Available at:
430
http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/wp/wp-431 content/uploads/2016/03/p_cp_EBLEX_Halal_Meat_FINAL_111110.pdf
432 13. European Commission (2016). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
433 Council on systems restraining bovine animals by inversion or any unnatural position.
434 COM/2016/048 final. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-435 content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0048
436 14. European Commission (2017). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Available
437 at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm.
438 15. Farouk, M. M. (2013). Advances in the industrial production of halal and kosher red meat. Meat
439 Science, 95(4), 805-820.
440 16. Farouk, M.M., Al-Mazeedi H.M., Sabow A.B., Bekhit A.E.D., Adeyemi K.D., Sazili A.Q., &
441 Ghani A. (2014). Halal and kosher slaughter methods and meat quality. Meat Science, 98,
507-442 509.
443 17. Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (2014). Slaughter of animals without prior stunning. FVE
444 Position Paper FVE/02/104 Final. Available at:
445 http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunnin
446 g.pdf
447 18. Ferrari, S., & Bottoni R. (2010). Legislation regarding religious slaughter in the EU member,
448 candidate and associated countries. Dialrel Report Deliverable 1.4. Available at:
449 http://www.dialrel.eu/images/report-legislation.pdf
450 19. Food Standard Agency (2012). Results of the 2011 FSA animal welfare survey in Great Britain.
451 Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa120508.pdf.
452 20. Food Standard Agency (2015). Results of the 2013 animal welfare survey in Great Britain.
453 Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2013-animal-welfare-survey.pdf
454 21. Grandin, T. (2011). Electrical stunning of cattle. Available at:
455 http://www.grandin.com/humane/elec.stunning.cattle.html. 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062
19 456 22. Grandin, T., & Regenstein J.M. (1994). Religious slaughter and animal welfare: A discussion
457 for meat scientists. CAB International, 115–123
458 23. Gregory, N. G., Shaw, F. D., Whitford, J. C., & Patterson-Kane, J. C. (2006). Prevalence of
459 ballooning of the severed carotid arteries at slaughter in cattle, calves and sheep. Meat science,
460 74(4), 655-657.
461 24. Gregory, N. G., von Wenzlawowicz, M., Alam, R. M., Anil, H. M., Yeşildere, T., &
Silva-462 Fletcher, A. (2008). False aneurysms in carotid arteries of cattle and water buffalo during shechita
463 and halal slaughter. Meat Science, 79(2), 285-288.
464 25. Gruber, V. (2012). Case study: KFC in France. In T. Rudolph, B. B. Schlegelmilch, J. Franch,
465 A.Bauer, & J. N. Meise (Eds.), Diversity in European marketing: Text and cases (pp. 41–55).
466 Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
467 26. Gurtman, R. (2005). Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter. Available at:
468 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8852091/Gurtman05.pdf?sequence=3.
469 27. Hackett C. (2016). 5 facts about the Muslim population in Europe. The Pew Research Center.
470 Available at:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/19/5-facts-about-the-muslim-471 population-in-europe/.
472 28. Havinga, T. (2010). Regulating halal and kosher foods: Different arrangements between state,
473 industry and religious actors. Erasmus Law Review, 3(4), 241.
474 29. Hayes N.S., Schwartz C.A., Phelps K.J., Borowicz K.R., Maddock-Carlin K.R., & Maddock
475 R.J.(2015). The relationship between pre-harvest stress and the carcass characteristics of beef
476 heifers that qualified for kosher designation. Meat Science, 100, 134–138.
477 30. Interministerial Agreement (2010). Convenzione interministeriale a sostegno dell'iniziativa
478 Halal Italia. Available at: http://www.halalitalia.org/documenti/Conv.%20Interm.firmata.pdf
479 31. ISMU (2016). Immigrati e religioni in Italia: gli ortodossi sono più numerosi dei musulmani.
480 Available at: http://www.ismu.org/2016/07/in-italia-ortodossi-piu-numerosi-dei-musulmani/.
481 32. Lada, S., Harvey Tanakinjal, G., & Amin, H. (2009). Predicting intention to choose halal
482 products using theory of reasoned action. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern
483 Finance and Management, 2(1), 66-76.
484 33. Lever, J., & Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2010). The development of halal and kosher meat markets
485 in the UK.Other. Cardiff University.
486 34. Lever, J., Puig della Bellacasa, M., Miele, M., & Higgin, M. (2010). From the slaughterhouse
487 to the consumer: transparency and information in the distribution of Halal and Kosher meat.
488 Dialrel Report n. 43. Available at: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/20492/1/Dialrel_report_43.pdf
1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119
20 489 35. Lipka, M. (2015). The continuing decline of Europe’s Jewish population. The Pew Research
490 Center. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/09/europes-jewish-491 population/
492 36. Lugo, L., & Cooperman, A. (2011). The future of the global Muslim population. The Pew
493 Research Center. Available at: http://www.euro-muslims.eu/future_global.pdf.
494 37. Lytton, T. D. (2013). Kosher. Harvard University Press.
495 38. McLean, D., Meers, L., Ralph, J., Owen, J. S., & Small, A. (2017). Development of a microwave
496 energy delivery system for reversible stunning of cattle. Research in Veterinary Science, 112,
497 13-17.
498 39. Mintel (2009). Kosher Foods - US - January 2009. Available at:
http://store.mintel.com/kosher-499 foods-us-january-2009.
500 40. Mpamhanga, C. J., & Wotton, S. B. (2015). The effects of pre-slaughter restraint (for the purpose
501 of cattle identification) on post-slaughter responses and carcass quality following the electrical
502 stun/killing of cattle in a Jarvis Beef stunner. Meat science, 107, 104-108
503 41. Needham, C. (2012). Religious slaughter of animals in the EU. Library of the European
504 Parliament. Available at:
505 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2012/120375/LDM_BRI(2012)1
506 20375_REV2_EN.pdf
507 42. Pozzi, P. S., Geraisy, W., Barakeh, S., & Azaran, M. (2015). Principles of Jewish and Islamic
508 Slaughter with Respect to OIE (World Organization for Animal Health) Recommendations.
509 Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 70, 3.
510 43. Rauschnabel, P. A., Herz, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Ivens, B. S. (2015). Brands and religious
511 labels: a spillover perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(11-12), 1285-1309.
512 44. Regione Liguria (2016). Rispetto e modifica della normativa in materia di macellazione degli
513 animali. Atto n. 47 del Consiglio Regionale di Giovedì 25 Febbraio 2016. Available at:
514
http://www.regione.liguria.it/regione-liguria/ente/consiglio/archivio-comunicati-stampa-del-515
consiglio/item/13197-i-lavori-del-consiglio-regionale-di-gioved-25-febbraio-pomeriggio-516 seconda-parte.html
517 45. Robins, A., Pleiter, H., Latter, M., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2014). The efficacy of pulsed ultrahigh
518 current for the stunning of cattle prior to slaughter. Meat science, 96(3), 1201-1209.
519 46. Rosen, S.D. (2004). Physiological insights into Shechita. Veterinary Record, 154, 759–765.
520 47. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2015) Slaughter without pre-stunning.
521 Available at: 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180
21
522 https://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=123271961104
523 3&mode=prd
524 48. Salamano, G., Cuccurese, A., Poeta, A., Santella, E., Sechi, P., Cambiotti, V., & Cenci-Goga,
525 B. T. (2013). Acceptability of electrical stunning and post-cut stunning among Muslim
526 communities: A possible dialogue. Society & Animals, 21(5), 443-458.
527 49. Thomas, A. M., White, G. R., Plant, E., & Zhou, P. (2017). Challenges and practices in Halal
528 meat preparation: a case study investigation of a UK slaughterhouse. Total Quality Management
529 & Business Excellence, 28(1-2), 12-31.
530 50. Velarde, A., Rodriguez, P., Dalmau, A., Fuentes, C., Llonch, P., Von Holleben, K. V., ... &
531 Cenci-Goga, B. T. (2014). Religious slaughter: Evaluation of current practices in selected
532 countries. Meat science, 96(1), 278-287.
533 51. Weaver, A. L., & Wotton, S. B. (2009). The Jarvis Beef Stunner: Effects of a prototype chest
534 electrode. Meat science, 81(1), 51-56.
535 52. Wotton, S.B., Gregory, N.G., Whittington, P.E., & Parkman, I.D. (2000). Electrical stunning of
536 cattle. Veterinary Record, 147, 681–684.
537 53. Wright, W., & Annes, A. (2013). Halal on the menu?: Contested food politics and French
538 identity in fast-food. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 388-399.
539 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237
