Discussion Paper On The Animal Welfare Standards To Apply When Animals Are Commercially Slaughtered In Accordance With Religious Requirements

This document is also available in PDF format: [religious-requirements.pdf 101 k ]

Information about viewing PDF files []

NAWAC Discussion Paper

April 2001

ISBN 0-478-20086-2 ISSN 1171-8951

Disclaimer

While every effort has been made to ensure that the information in this publication is accurate, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry do not accept any responsibility or liability for any error of fact, omission, interpretation or opinion which may be present, however, it may have occurred.

Requests for further copies should be directed to:

NAWAC Secretary
National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
C/o Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
Telephone (04) 474 4296
Facsimile (04) 498 9888

Table of Contents

Summary
1. The Purpose Of This Paper
2. Background
3. The Scope Of The Paper
4. Current Legislative Situation
5. The General Slaughter Process
6. Religious Slaughter (As Historically Prescribed)
7. Current Religious Slaughter Practice In New Zealand
8. The Decision Making Framework
9. Issues For Comment
Appendix A - Process For The Preparation Of Codes Of Welfare

Summary

Purpose of paper

The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is currently preparing a draft code of welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 covering commercial slaughter ^[1]. This involves consideration of whether separate standards should be included dealing with "religious slaughter" ^[2]. This discussion paper seeks your views on what standards should apply to religious slaughter to assist writing the draft code.

What is a code of welfare?

The Animal Welfare Act sets out the basic obligations relating to the care and killing of animals. One of these is that animals must be killed in such a manner that they do not suffer unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

The Act does not provide detailed guidance on how this obligation can be met. This is found in codes of welfare. Codes contain minimum animal welfare standards covering all aspects of slaughter. Failure to meet a minimum standard can be used as evidence to support a prosecution under the Act.

In some circumstances, there may be justification for minimum standards in a code of welfare that do not fully meet the obligations in the Act. The Act recognises this by providing that in exceptional circumstances, dispensations can be made. One of these circumstances is in order to meet "the requirements of religious practices or cultural practices or both". This reflects a right contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 covered in more detail later in this summary.

What is the process for developing the commercial slaughter code?

The process for developing codes of welfare is set out in Appendix A.

NAWAC is currently preparing the draft commercial slaughter code and is required under the Act to consult with representatives of persons likely to be affected by it. This discussion paper has been written to facilitate feedback on the minimum standards that should apply to religious slaughter.

Once a draft code has been prepared, it will be publicly notified and anyone can make a submission. NAWAC will consider the submissions before making recommendations to the Minister who will issue the code by Gazette notice.

The existing regulations covering slaughter, including religious slaughter, are under the Meat Act 1981. That Act is progressively being replaced over the next three years by the Animal Products Act 1999, but legislative provision for the animal welfare aspects of slaughter will be transferred to the Animal Welfare Act. The existing slaughter regulations under the Meat Act will be repealed on the date that a code of welfare is issued.

What do the current regulations require?

The regulations require that all animals must be rendered insensible (unable to feel pain) before they are slaughtered. This is generally achieved by mechanical or electrical stunning.

An exemption from the requirement to stun is provided where slaughter is carried out in accordance with religious requirements.

What does historical religious law require?

The discussion paper makes reference to the Jewish and Muslim faiths. The historical religious requirements covering these faiths are covered below. In some cases, these differ from what currently happens in practice. Current practice is covered in the next section.

Jewish requirements as historically prescribed

Devout Jews believe that observing dietary laws helps maintain their spiritual well being. The Jewish method of slaughtering animals to produce kosher food (food that conforms with Jewish dietary laws) is called "shechita".

Under Jewish law, life is sacred and animal welfare is an important concern. The taking of an animal's life must fulfil a real human need. Shechita must be carried out by a Jewish male of high moral standing who has studied for several years to master both the intricate theoretical laws and the practical slaughter skills.

Meat must be derived from animals that are live at the time of slaughter.

The cut to the neck must be done with great precision with a knife of exquisite sharpness. Slaughter must be quick, and must produce a clean, open cut. The aim is to ensure there are no tears to the wound and that the bleed-out occurs rapidly. This ensures the animals become quickly unconscious and also facilitates blood loss. Jewish law prohibits the eating of blood.

Muslim historical requirements

Animals slaughtered in accordance with Muslim law are termed "halal". Muslim laws specify that Muslims must eat clean, well-treated meat from animals that are alive and in good health at the time of slaughter. In New Zealand, slaughter is carried out by practicing Muslims who are appointed by official Muslim authorities. They must have a good knowledge of Islam and be well acquainted with halal procedures.

Various rules must be adhered to during slaughter. The animals must be washed, fed and rested prior to slaughter and they must be alive when slaughtered. They mustn't see the knife or see other animals being slaughtered. The animals must face Mecca and the slaughterman must invoke the name of Allah while slaughtering the animal.

How does current practice differ from historically prescribed laws?

Although the current regulations allow religious slaughter without stunning, in practice, higher animal welfare standards have been met, voluntarily, since 1982.

Jewish

Shechita of a small number of animals currently occurs at only two slaughterhouses, 2-3 times a year. Chickens are slaughtered in one and cattle and lambs in the other. This meets the requirements of Jewish communities in Auckland and Wellington.

None of the animals are stunned prior to slaughter, however, under a voluntary agreement with MAF, there is agreement to stun cattle within 10 seconds of slaughter. This addresses concerns that cattle can remain conscious, and could feel pain for over 90 seconds after the neck is cut. Chickens and lambs are not stunned after slaughter. Lambs generally become insensible to pain within 10 seconds and thus the animal welfare issues are of a lower order. It is thought that chickens may remain conscious for similar lengths of time to cattle but to date the possibility of a post-stun procedure has not been discussed with the Jewish community.

The voluntary agreement in relation to cattle represents a compromise from an animal welfare point of view. Some devout Jews also view it as a religious compromise. There is a perception that the post-stun may retard the bleed-out, although the heart continues to pump.

There is no export of shechita meat.

Muslim

New Zealand is the largest exporter of halal slaughtered sheepmeat in the world and a significant exporter of halal slaughtered beef.

Markets opened up in the late 1970s and significant research efforts were directed toward developing techniques that met both Muslim requirements (that the animals be alive at the time of slaughter) and the animal welfare concerns of our trading partners. The result was the adoption of a head-only electrical stun that renders the animals only temporarily unconscious. If not slaughtered, they make a full recovery. If slaughtered immediately, the animals experience no pain or distress before death.

Halal slaughter thus meets the requirements in the regulations relating to general slaughter.

The following table summarises the above information.

Current legislation	Historically laid down religious requirements	Voluntary standards currently applying
General slaughterAll animals must be pre-stunned. Religious slaughter No pre-stunning required in law.	Jewish: Animals must be alive at the time of slaughter.	Jewish: Limited killing of a small number of chickens, lambs and cattle each year without pre- stunning. Cattle receive a post stun within 10 seconds of the neck being cut.The killing of sheep and chickens does not meet the general slaughter standard. The standards applying to cattle are a compromise from an animal welfare perspective. Some consider the post-stun of cattle, a religious compromise.
	Muslim: Animals must be alive at the time of slaughter.	Muslim: Animals receive an electrical head-only pre-stun. This means that they cannot feel pain but are still alive prior to slaughter. If not slaughtered, the animals fully recover.Animal welfare is not compromised. Religious authorities have accepted the pre-stun but some Muslims may consider the pre-stun to be a religious compromise.

Steps in the decision-making process

NAWAC proposes to consider the following sequence of questions when considering what standards should apply to religious slaughter:

1. Does slaughter carried out in accordance with historically prescribed religious laws and doctrine cause "unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress"?

This question addresses whether slaughter carried out in accordance with religious laws in unmodified form would comply with the basic obligation in the Animal Welfare Act. Traditionally, under both Muslim and Jewish law, such slaughter is carried out while the animals are sensible i.e. without a pre-stun. This issue must be addressed in order to confirm whether a dispensation needs to be considered.

The critical issues are whether the animal feels unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress during the period that the physical cut is made to the neck and during the subsequent bleed-out period before becoming unconscious.

While there is not scientific certainty, the dominant international view is that the animals are likely to suffer an unreasonable level of pain or distress during the cut given the magnitude of the wound and the number of nerves that are severed.

There is also no scientific consensus on what animals feel during the bleed out period, but again the prevailing view is that pain would be at unreasonable levels for an unacceptable period of time. Research shows that sheep and goats are likely to remain sensible for 2-15 seconds while cattle can be conscious for longer. It has also been shown that chickens take a relatively long time to lose brain function when they are bleed out. NAWAC considers that in all cases (sheep, goats, cattle, poultry) the level and duration of pain experienced, during the physical cut to the neck and during the subsequent period until insensibility occurs, is unreasonable.

The pain or distress suffered would also be "unnecessary" in that the technology is available to prevent suffering.

2. Can a dispensation be considered?

The answer is yes. As noted, the requirements of religious practice is one of the criteria for considering a dispensation.

3. How should the Bill of Rights Act be taken into account?

The criterion in the Animal Welfare Act allowing dispensations for religious practices, reflects the right contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This provides that "Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or private."

This right is not absolute. It may be limited to take account of the rights of others and the interests of the whole community. However the Bill of Rights Act provides that any limit must be reasonable and be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In cases where religious slaughter practices are not consistent with animal welfare objectives, a value judgement must therefore be made. The Minister, on the recommendation of NAWAC, must weigh the value society places on safeguarding people's rights to manifest religion against the value society places on protecting animals from unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

4. Would any dispensation apply to the slaughter of animals for export?

Any dispensation will be made to recognise rights that New Zealanders have under the Bill of Rights Act. That Act does not apply outside New Zealand. In other words, NAWAC would not have an obligation to make a dispensation from the general standards to meet the needs of Jews or Moslems in other countries. Accordingly, any dispensation would not apply to the slaughter of animals for export.

How can you make input?

As an input to its judgements, NAWAC needs information on the matters that are valued, and the views held, by affected parties. Readers are invited to answer a list of questions included at the end of this discussion paper and to provide any additional comment. The process for making submissions is noted at the end of the paper.

Discussion Paper On The Animal Welfare Standards To Apply When Animals Are Slaughtered In Accordance With Religious Requirements

1. The Purpose Of This Paper

The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) ^[3]is currently preparing a draft code of welfare covering the commercial slaughter of animals. Codes of welfare are mechanisms under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 for setting minimum standards relating to the care of animals.

The preparation of the draft slaughter code involves consideration of the standards that should apply to religious slaughter. The purpose of this discussion paper is to seek the views of representative groups likely to be affected by such standards. This includes religious, consumer, and human rights groups, the meat industry, and animal welfare organisations. This is a preliminary round of consultation to assist the writing of the draft code of welfare. Formal public notification of the draft code will occur later.

2. Background

2.1 The central focus of the Animal Welfare Act 1999

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 introduced significant changes to the way in which New Zealand legislates to protect animals. The previous legislation was almost solely concerned with punishing cruelty. The new legislation takes a more preventative approach. While it still contains offences for ill-treatment, the primary focus is on establishing obligations relating to the proper care of animals.

Included in these obligations is one, which relates to the manner in which animals should be killed. Section 12(c) of the Act provides that:

A person commits an offence who, being the owner of, or a person in charge of, an animal kills the animal in such a manner that the animal suffers unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

Failure to kill animals in a humane way may lead to a prosecution under the Act.

2.2 What is a code of welfare?

The Act itself does not provide detailed guidance on how to provide proper care of animals or how to kill humanely. Such detail is set out in codes of welfare.

Codes of welfare can contain two types of provisions: minimum standards and recommendations for best practice. Only minimum standards have legal effect.

An owner or person in charge of an animal cannot be prosecuted for a breach of a minimum standard in a code. Rather, the prosecution would relate to a breach of one of the obligations in the Act. Failure to meet a minimum standard in a code of welfare would be used as evidence to support the prosecution. Demonstrating that one has complied with all minimum standards in a code of welfare may be used as a defence to a prosecution.

New Zealand legislation and codes of welfare do not apply outside New Zealand. If imported animal products are produced from animals that are killed in a manner that is not in accordance with New Zealand law, there is no legislative means to control such imports. Similarly, New Zealand legislation does not apply to live animals exported from New Zealand, once they have arrived at their destination.

2.3 Codes of welfare may contain minimum standards that do not meet the obligations in the Act.

The Act recognises that there will be some circumstances where there is justification for minimum standards in a code of welfare that do not fully meet the obligations in the Act. Provided an owner or person in charge of an animal meets these standards, they will not be at risk of prosecution.

Section 73(3) provides that any dispensation should be only in "exceptional circumstances" and section 73(4) sets out the grounds that could support the lowering of standards. One of these is:

"(b) The requirements of religious practices or cultural practices or both;"

This reference to the requirements of religious practices reflects a right contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

2.4 How are codes of welfare developed?

The process for developing codes of welfare is set out in diagrammatic form in Appendix A. This discussion paper has been written to facilitate the consultation required during the preparation of a draft code of welfare (stage 1 of the diagram).

Prior to the commencement of the Animal Welfare Act, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee published a number of codes which did not have legal effect. These codes were used voluntarily by affected groups to guide their use and care of animals. These will be reviewed and updated as draft codes of welfare under the new Act.

3. The Scope Of The Paper

As noted above, the grounds set out for a dispensation in section 73 of the Animal Welfare Act include the requirements of religious practices or cultural practices or both. In practice, religion is often a subset of culture. In some instances it is difficult to determine whether a particular religious practice derives directly from the original scriptures or is an interpretation or modification that has developed over time as a result of social or other influences.

New Zealand Bill of Rights considerations covered later in this paper apply only to religious (and not cultural) practices. However, NAWAC considers that it would not have been useful to have analysed whether particular slaughter practices are prescribed in original scripture or are culturally derived. NAWAC accepts that the Jewish and Moslem religious requirements covered in the paper are widely considered by adherents in New Zealand as being an integral part of their religion.

NAWAC is not aware of any slaughter practices in New Zealand that do not have their roots in a recognised religion and which could be described as a "cultural practice".

The slaughter of pigs to provide meat for ceremonies is important to many Polynesian people in New Zealand. However, it is NAWAC's understanding that the method of slaughter is not a prescribed part of any Pacific Island faith or culture. Rather, it is the dressing of the pigs after slaughter that is culturally important.

NAWAC would welcome comment on the issue of cultural slaughter and particularly whether there are practices in New Zealand that it is not aware of.

4. Current Legislative Situation

4.1 Transfer of legislative provision

The animal welfare aspects of slaughter, including religious slaughter are currently governed by the Slaughter of Stock, Game and Poultry Regulations 1969 under the Meat Act 1981 (the Slaughter Regulations). Because it was considered more appropriate for such aspects to be covered by animal welfare legislation, provisions to enable a transfer were included in the new Animal Welfare Act.

On 1 November 1999, the Animal Products Act 1999 was passed. This will progressively replace the Meat Act over a three-year transitional period. The Slaughter Regulations continue to have effect during this transitional period until new standards in a code of welfare are issued by the Minister of Agriculture.

4.2 The Slaughter of Stock, Game and Poultry Regulations (the Slaughter Regulations)

General slaughter

The Slaughter Regulations require that animals be rendered insensible to pain prior to slaughter and to remain insensible until death occurs. Insensibility may be achieved by use of a stunning instrument or by administration of an electric shock.

Religious slaughter

The Slaughter Regulations provide an exemption from the requirement to render animals insensible to pain, where slaughter is carried out:

"... in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that requires a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anoxia caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries and jugular veins with a sharp instrument:"

In the case of cattle, other than bobby calves, the regulations require that the animals be restrained in a pen that has been approved by the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Only one type of religious slaughter is currently undertaken in New Zealand within the above exemption provision. This is kosher slaughter carried out to meet the requirements of devout Jews. The pen approved for this slaughter is one modeled on that designed in the United States and approved by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the ASPCA pen). This restrains the animals in an upright standing position and when properly operated is considered to cause minimal stress and suffering.

5. The General Slaughter Process

In general, the slaughter of animals first involves stunning to produce insensibility and then an incision to sever critical blood vessels that supply the brain. Death occurs from lack of blood and therefore lack of oxygen to the brain. This is referred to as "bleeding".

Two main methods of bleeding are used. One is a deep cut to the neck which is designed to cut the common carotid arteries and jugular veins. The skin, neck muscles, nerves, trachea and oesophagus are also severed. The other is a stab to the chest which severs the major arteries and veins which give rise to the carotid arteries and jugular veins.

Insensibility is generally achieved by:

• The firing of a bolt at a particular point on the animal's head. One type of bolt penetrates the brain and kills the animal. Another type does not penetrate, but causes concussion. With the latter type, the animal can recover if not bled out beforehand but may suffer skull fractures.
• Electrical stunning. With this method, electrodes placed on the animal deliver an electrical current. They may be placed solely on the head or on the head and on another part of the body. With head-only stunning, the electrical current causes an epileptic type of brain seizure that renders the animal unconscious for a limited period. If the animal is not then slaughtered it recovers fully. With a head to body stun, heart function is interfered with and the animal will generally not recover if it is not then slaughtered.

The time interval between bleeding and brain death differs depending on the animal species. This is an important consideration in religious slaughter covered later in this paper.

6. Religious Slaughter (As Historically Prescribed)

This section covers the requirements for animal slaughter as historically prescribed by religious laws and doctrine and followed today except where modified by present day laws or agreements. Current practice in New Zealand differs as a result of voluntary agreements and is covered in the next section. The requirements of the Jewish and Muslim faiths only, are covered. NAWAC is not aware, at this stage, of any other religious groups in New Zealand that espouse or practice methods of slaughter that depart from those used generally. NAWAC would appreciate comment from any other religious group that considers its needs should be addressed.

6.1 Shechita

Shechita is the Jewish method of slaughtering animals to produce food that conforms with dietary laws. Such food is referred to as being kosher. Devout Jews believe that observing dietary laws helps to maintain one's spiritual well-being.

Shechita involves adherence to a number of strict regulations and restrictions set out in detail in the Jewish religious law. These are based on the following principles:

• Life is sacred - the taking of an animal's life carries great responsibility and must fulfil a real human need. Shechita must be carried out by a specially trained Jewish male of high moral standing (the shochet) who, during the act of shechita, thinks about the act of taking the animal's life. Shechita cannot therefore be done by machine. The shochet undertakes formal study for several years to master both the intricate theoretical laws and the practical skills necessary to ensure that the cut is made swiftly and cleanly.
• Meat must be derived from animals that are alive and healthy when slaughtered. Jewish authorities do not permit pre-stunning.

A number of rules must be observed during slaughter. These are designed to ensure that slaughter is quick, causes minimum suffering to the animals and facilitates blood loss. Jewish law prohibits the eating of blood.

The slaughter method consists of a single rapid cut of the neck by means of a knife of adequate length and exquisite sharpness. The cut is a transverse incision of the neck which cuts the common carotid arteries, jugular veins, trachea, oesophagus, nerves skin and muscle. The incision must be through that part of the neck that presents least resistance to the knife and must be a continuous motion. The blade must not have any notches or flaws as this could tear the wound. The incision must be free, open and exposed to promote rapid blood loss and render the animal quickly unconscious. Internal organs must be examined for disease after slaughter.

Devout Jews generally eat meat from the 11^th rib of an animal forward only. Following slaughter, the meat is soaked and salted and certain blood vessels are excised to remove the remaining blood. The non-kosher part of the carcass is used for other markets.

Jewish law does not specify any particular method of restraint for the animals. The method used must allow the neck to be presented in a manner that facilitates schechita.

6.2 Halal

The term "halal" means "lawful" or "permissible". To be halal, animals must be slaughtered in accordance with the Islamic Shariah. This is the body of doctrines regulating the lives of Muslims.

These laws specify that Muslims must eat clean, well-treated meat from animals that are alive and in good health at the time of slaughter. The preference is for slaughter to be carried out by a practising Muslim who has a good knowledge of Islam and is well acquainted with halal procedures. However, in cases where Muslims cannot kill their own animals, they may use meat killed by "a person of the book" i.e. a practising Christian or a practising Jew.

All animals are washed, fed and rested prior to slaughter. The animals must be alive when killed. It is considered cruel to allow the animals to see the knife prior to slaughter and an animal must not see another being slaughtered. The animals must face Mecca and the slaughterman must use a sharp knife and invoke the name of Allah while slaughtering the animal. This acknowledges that God created the animal and asks permission to slaughter it.

The slaughter method consists of a single rapid cut of the neck by means of a knife of adequate length and exquisite sharpness. The cut is a transverse incision of the neck which cuts the common carotid arteries, jugular veins, trachea, oesophagus, nerves skin and muscle. The incision must be through that part of the neck that presents least resistance to the knife and must be a continuous motion. The blade must not have any notches or flaws as this could tear the wound. The incision must be free, open and exposed to promote rapid blood loss and render the animal quickly unconscious. Internal organs must be examined for disease after slaughter.

Unlike kosher slaughter, many Muslim authorities approve prior stunning, provided it meets certain standards. It must not kill the animals and the animals must be able to regain consciousness if not then slaughtered.

7. Current Religious Slaughter Practice In New Zealand

7.1 Shechita

In the 1996 census 4,812 people indicated their religious affiliation was Jewish. This represented 0.14% of the population. It is not known how many of these are strict observers of the faith and observe the Jewish rules on the consumption of meat and other foods.

Currently shechita of cattle and lambs is carried out in one slaughter premises in New Zealand, 2 - 3 times a year. Shechita of chickens is also undertaken at one premises at the same frequency. On each occasion around 15-20 beef cattle, 40-50 lambs and 1200-1400 chickens are slaughtered to meet the needs of the Jewish communities in Wellington and Auckland. The animals are slaughtered by a specialist Rabbi who is a fulltime shochet, and who travels from Australia on request.

Although stunning is not currently required by law, the Jewish authorities have reluctantly agreed to stun cattle within 10 seconds of the throat being cut. This was in response to concerns about the length of time that cattle remain responsive to pain during bleeding. No stun is used for sheep as they generally become insensible within 10 seconds. While it is thought that chickens retain brain function for periods of time similar to cattle, a post-cut stun has not been considered.

The arrangements relating to cattle were put in place to reflect changing societal views on animal welfare. They represent a compromise from an animal welfare perspective because there is an unreasonable risk of pain for a period of up to 10 seconds. They are also viewed by some devout Jews as a religious compromise as it is perceived that the post stun may affect the bleed-out of the animals.

Cattle are restrained in an ASPCA pen operated in accordance with MAF-approved operating procedures. These ensure the minimum stress to the animals. Sheep are restrained by hand and poultry in a bleeding cone.

The hind-quarters and any other meat not eligible to be sold as kosher meat is sold on the local market. If the hind-quarters are porged (the sciatic nerve and sinew removed), the meat is kosher. Porging is a skilled and time-consuming process that is not undertaken in New Zealand, because it is not economically viable.

No kosher meat is exported from New Zealand but some is imported from Australia.

7.2 Halal

In the 1996 census 13, 548 people indicated their religious affiliation was Islam. This represented 0.39% of the population. Again, it is not known how many of these adhere strictly to religious practices.

New Zealand has been exporting halal slaughtered meat to the Middle East since 1979. It is now the largest exporter of halal slaughtered sheepmeat in the world and a significant exporter of halal slaughtered beef.

When the export market to the Middle East developed in the late 1970s, slaughter without stunning was not considered acceptable to the New Zealand meat export industry. It was considered that such export would have an adverse effect on trade to markets, which are dependent on New Zealand maintaining high animal welfare standards. A significant research effort was thus directed in the early 1980s toward developing techniques that met both Muslim needs and animal welfare concerns. The result was the development of an electrical head-only stunning method that renders the animals only temporarily unconscious. If not slaughtered, the animals make a full recovery. Muslim authorities have agreed this meets the requirement that the animals be alive prior to slaughter, but there may be some individual Muslims who do not agree.

Halal slaughtermen are practising Muslims approved by Muslim Authorities. They must have a good knowledge of Islam and be well acquainted with halal slaughter procedures.

To avoid the need for separation of systems and product, many slaughter premises in New Zealand use halal methods for all animal slaughter, including for the general domestic market.

8. The Decision Making Framework

8.1 Background

The current regulations exempting religious slaughter from the need to pre-stun are now over 30 years old. Voluntary standards have emerged since then as a result of voluntary agreements between MAF, religious authorities and the New Zealand meat industry. The requirements of New Zealand's trading partners provided a particular impetus to the development of these voluntary arrangements. They also reflect changing views about the importance of animal welfare and improved scientific knowledge on how the welfare needs of animals can be met.

The passing of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 enables the development of religious slaughter standards in codes of welfare which have legal effect. This imposes a greater onus on the Minister and NAWAC to ensure that the appropriate process is followed than was the case with development of voluntary agreements. In particular, there is a need to:

• Ensure that the legal requirements relating to consultation are met. This includes the need to approach decision-making with an open mind;
• Give relevant consideration to the rights protected under the Bill of Rights Act 1990;
• Ensure that there is a clear logic and justification for the standards proposed.

An important check at the end of the process is scrutiny by the Regulations Review Committee, a select committee of Parliament ^[4]. Codes of welfare are deemed to be regulations for the purpose of enabling this scrutiny.

NAWAC thus proposes a structured approach to decision making starting from first principles and taking into account the rights protected under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. This is in the form of a series of questions set out below.

The need to maintain an open mind means that NAWAC is not, at this stage, advocating particular standards.

8.2 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations

The long title of The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 identifies one of its purposes as "To affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand;"

The Act contains a list of civil and political rights, which include:

"MANIFESTATION OF RELIGION AND BELIEF - Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private"

The rights and freedoms are not absolute however. They do not override all other law. Provisions in the Bill of Rights Act recognise that limits on people's rights and freedoms can be justified in particular cases. As noted by Justice Richardson, "It reflects the reality that rights do not exist in a vacuum, that they may be modified in the public interest to take account of the rights of others and of the interests of the whole community." ^[5]

The Judge followed the above statement with an important proviso: "Equally clearly section 5 guards those rights by insisting that they may be regarded as modified, only where the stringent tests laid down are met." The tests in section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act are that any limit on the manifestation of religion and belief is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Animal Welfare Act in section 73 recognises that a departure from the general standards applying to the care of animals may be justified in order to allow people to freely manifest religious practices. However, it does not indicate that such religious freedom should automatically prevail over the welfare of animals. A value judgement must be made. The Minister as decision-maker, on the recommendation of NAWAC, must weigh the value society places on safeguarding people's right to manifest their religion against the value society places on protecting animals from unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

The courts have provided some guidance to assist such value judgements: Decision-makers should determine:

1. Is the objective, of ensuring the welfare of the animals, sufficiently significant to override the rights to manifest religion. Does the animal welfare objective relate to concerns, which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society?
2. Is the means chosen (for example requiring a pre or post slaughter stun) in reasonable proportion to the importance of the objective. This involves considering:
   1. Is there is a rational connection between the measures to be used (the requirement to stun) and the objective (of ensuring the welfare of animals)?
   2. Do the measures impair as little as possible the right or freedom in question?
   3. Are the adverse effects of the measures (for example, financial costs incurred as a result of the need to buy more expensive imported meat, or adverse effects on spiritual welfare), justified in light of the objective which they are to serve?

The Court of Appeal, in a recent case^[6] has confirmed that legislation should be interpreted in a way, which would impose the "least possible limitation" on a right or freedom under the Bill of Rights Act.

8.3 Steps in the decision making process

NAWAC proposes to address the following sequence of questions when considering what standards should apply to religious slaughter.

Question 1 Does slaughter carried out in accordance with historically prescribed religious requirements and doctrine, cause "unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress"?

This question addresses whether slaughter, carried out in accordance with historical religious requirements in unmodified form, would comply with the basic obligation in the Animal Welfare Act. This issue must be addressed in order to confirm whether a dispensation under section 73(3) needs to be considered if submitters indicate a need to carry out/continue slaughter practices that do not accord with general animal welfare standards. The historically prescribed religious laws are set out in section 6.

There are three principal welfare issues to be addressed: (i) Is the restraining procedure used unreasonably stressful to the animal?

The stress associated with restraint depends on how it is done, whether the animal was distressed before being restrained and the level of operator skill.

Methods of restraint for halal kill are those employed for general slaughter and are acceptable. Jewish laws do not prescribe the method of restraint. Currently the only pen approved in New Zealand for Jewish slaughter of cattle is the ASPCA pen referred to in section 4.2. This is considered acceptable provided care is taken with its operation. The handholding methods of restraint for sheep, goats and chickens during slaughter is used in other aspects of management of those animals and is therefore considered acceptable. (ii) Does the cut to the neck cause unreasonable pain?

There is no definitive scientific evidence to indicate whether or not animals feel pain during the period that the physical cut is made to the neck and if so, whether or not the level of pain is "unreasonable".

The prevailing international view, subscribed to by NAWAC, is that animals are likely to experience an unreasonable level of pain during the cut to the neck given the magnitude of the wound and the number of nerves severed.

One view represented by Levinger, a veterinarian and a rabbi, is that, provided the neck cut is made very quickly and cleanly, there may not be a strong perception of pain. In support, he notes that a person may cut him or herself with a very sharp instrument without being aware of it until attention is directed to it ^[7]. Supporters of this view consider that even if the cut is painful, there is likely to be a delay of up to several seconds between the incision and the perception of pain and that during this period, the capacity of the brain to perceive pain has ceased. They note that calves observed following shechita appear to have no reaction to the throat cut.

The response to this latter point by the majority of scientists is that reliance cannot be placed on behavioural responses given that the cutting of the trachea means the animal is not able to vocalise. (iii) Is there unreasonable pain and distress in the interval between the neck cut and loss of brain function and death?

Numerous scientific studies have sought to assess whether pain or distress occurs after the neck cut and how long it persists. Most of the work has focused on establishing how long it takes for brain function to become disturbed to the point where there is likely to be no perception of pain.

This is done indirectly by measuring levels of brain activity and the time taken for such activity to reach a low point where it is assumed that animals could no longer perceive the outside world, including pain. There is no scientific consensus, however, on the precise moment at which pain can no longer be perceived.

The prevailing view, internationally, however, is that while there is not scientific certainty, there is a high likelihood that sensibility persists for an unacceptable length of time after the neck cut. Research suggests that brain activity persists in sheep and goats for 2 - 15 seconds. With cattle, the time that brain activity is recorded is extremely variable, with some remaining conscious for more than 90 seconds. Chickens can also take a long period of time before brain function ceases during bleeding, and there are valid concerns about the period of consciousness in this situation. While the time that animals experience pain is not proven, NAWAC considers there is sufficient evidence to indicate that policy makers should err on the side of caution. NAWAC considers that in each case above (sheep, goats, cattle, and poultry) the suggested periods of sensibility are of unreasonable duration.

The school of thought represented by Levinger believes that, provided the neck cut is done skillfully, the amount of blood supplying the brain is insufficient to allow the perception of pain beyond a few seconds after slaughter. They draw support from observations that over 95% of calves collapse immediately following skillfully executed shechita and show no signs of consciousness.

Those representing the dominant international view note that, in circumstances where thousands or millions of animals are killed in a year, 5% of those animals would still equate to a large number exposed to suffering. They comment that animals may collapse because of shock or the pain of the cut and not because they have become insensible immediately.

They also draw attention to the difficulties of ensuring clean severance of the arteries and rapid blood loss in some animals. With chickens, the carotid arteries are located close to the spine. In some cases the shochet does not cut close to the spine to avoid damaging the knife blade. This may mean that the arteries are not completely severed. However, the shochet carefully inspects the cut to ensure that it is correctly located. With cattle, blockages may form at the severed ends of the arteries which impede blood loss and extend the time to sensibility.

In relation to slaughter carried out in accordance with historically prescribed religious laws, it can be concluded that:

• the methods of restraint currently used in New Zealand do not cause unreasonable or unnecessary distress;
• while scientific evidence is not conclusive, the prevailing scientific view (subscribed to by NAWAC) is that the level and duration of pain experienced during the physical cut to the neck and during the subsequent period until insensibility occurs, is "unreasonable";
• the technology is available to prevent pain, so from a purely animal welfare perspective, pain is therefore "unnecessary" ^[8];
• on the basis of the prevailing scientific views, religious slaughter of cattle, sheep, goats and poultry that does not involve pre-stunning, causes unreasonable and unnecessary pain or distress; and
• any provision for religious slaughter would need to be by way of exceptional standards (pursuant to section 73(3)of the Animal Welfare Act) in the commercial slaughter code.

Question 2 Do religious slaughter requirements fall within the matters for which an exception to the obligations under Part 1 of the Animal Welfare Act can be considered?

The answer is yes. As noted earlier in this paper the "requirements of religious practices or cultural practices or both" is provided in section 73(4)(b) as a circumstance in which a departure from the obligation (not to cause unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress when killing an animal) in section 12(c) may be considered.

Question 3 In making any dispensation under section 73(3) of the Animal Welfare Act would this apply to killing for domestic consumption as well as export?

There has been some recent interest in New Zealand in exporting kosher killed meat without stunning either before or after the neck cut. This leads to the question of whether an exemption under section 73(3) to meet the needs of New Zealanders of particular faiths, would automatically apply to killing for export or whether the Minister would have a discretion to apply it only to the domestic market.

The criterion in section 73(4)(b) is intended to reflect the right to manifest one's religion in practice, which is protected under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The long title to that Act states that one of its purposes is to "affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand." (emphasis added). NAWAC and the Minister have no obligation to consider the rights of people who live in other countries.

Further, any exclusions from the obligations in Part 1 of the Act must be made in "exceptional circumstances" and in terms of the criteria in section 73(4). These criteria do not include facilitating New Zealand's export trade.

The conclusion reached by NAWAC is that the only ground for a possible dispensation is the need to protect religious freedom within New Zealand. Accordingly, any exemption would not apply to animals killed for export.

Question 4. Should a dispensation be granted under section 73 of the Animal Welfare Act for those religious slaughter practices that do not meet the obligations in the Act or should animal welfare considerations prevail?

This question involves balancing the right to manifestation of religion and belief under the Bill of Rights Act and the public interest in the welfare of animals.

Section 7.2 sets out the relevant provisions in the Bill of Rights Act and the guidance provided by the courts on weighing the relevant values. To assist the decision making process, NAWAC needs information on the matters that are valued, and the views held, by affected parties. Readers are invited to answer the list of questions in the next section and to provide any additional comment.

9. Issues For Comment

The table on page 4 of the summary at the beginning of this paper summarises the current regulations, historically prescribed religious requirements and current practice in relation to kosher and halal slaughter. It may be a useful reference point when preparing comments.

The following suggested submission form provides a guide to information that would assist NAWAC to make judgements on standards for religious slaughter. Some questions may not be relevant to you. You are invited to provide any additional comments or information that you consider may be useful for the committee.

Submission Form

Office use only Submission number: Date received:

This form is included to assist you. Submissions in another format are also welcome, as are any additional or general comments.

Please note that all submissions are subject to the Official Information Act and can be released, if requested, under that Act. If you have specific reasons for wanting your submissions withheld, please set out your reasons in the submission. Those reasons will be considered when making any assessment for release of submissions if requested under the Official Information Act.

Name:

Organisation/Company:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

Please send your submission to:
Kathryn McKinnon
Secretary
National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
PO Box 2526
WELLINGTON

Submissions close 5pm, Friday 1 June 2001.

1. Do you have a religious affiliation that you are willing to declare? If so, please state what it is. Any information received will be treated in the strictest confidence and any statistics published will not identify individuals.

2. In situations where religious requirements and animal welfare objectives conflict:

1. Should the objective of the Animal Welfare Act (to ensure animals are killed humanely) always be paramount?
   
   
   
   
   
2. Should the right to manifestation of religion and worship always be paramount and, where necessary, a code of welfare provide exceptions to the general standards relating to animal welfare?
   
   
   
   
   
3. Is a compromise (where religious freedom is partially limited and/or animal welfare needs not fully met) acceptable?
   
   
   
   
   

3. Do you have, or know of, a religious affiliation or cultural practice not associated with Judaism or Islam, that has requirements relating to the slaughter of animals? If so, what is that religious affiliation or cultural practice? What are the requirements?

4. What minimum standards in a code of welfare do you consider should be applied to:

1. Jewish slaughter;
   
   
   
   
2. Muslim slaughter;
   
   
   
   
3. Other (name).
   
   
   
   

Bear in mind that any dispensations from the general standards would apply only to religious slaughter to meet local requirements. They would not apply to slaughter for export.

5. If a future code of welfare made no dispensations from the general minimum standards applying to slaughter, would this affect you and if so, how?

6. Would you find it helpful to meet with MAF and NAWAC to discuss your comments or seek further clarification?

7. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make? If so, please do so. Please continue on a further page if necessary.

Appendix A

Process For The Preparation Of Codes Of Welfare

Stage 1 - Preparation of the draft code

Stage 2 - Public notification and call for submissions

Stage 3 - Consideration by NAWAC of submissions

Stage 4 - Recommendation to Minister

Stage 5 - Issue by Minister

Endnotes

1. The commercial slaughter code will cover all slaughter carried out for a fee. This will include home kill carried out by professional service providers listed under the Animal Products Act 1999 but will not cover home kill carried out by the owners of animals. back to body text
2. The term 'religious slaughter' is used throughout the discussion paper to refer to the slaughter of animals carried out in accordance with religious requirements. back to body text
3. NAWAC is an advisory committee to the Minister of Agriculture established under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It is responsible for carrying out public consultation on the standards that should be included in Codes of Welfare and making recommendations to the Minister. back to body text
4. This Committee is charged with examining regulations against a set of criteria and drawing any regulation to the attention of the House of Representatives that does not meet the criteria. Grounds for reporting to the House include that the regulation trespasses unduly on personal rights and freedoms, is not made in accordance with the general objects and intentions of the statutes under which it is made and that it was not made in compliance with the particular notice and consultation procedures prescribed by statute. back to body text
5. Richardson J in: Ministry of Transport v Noort [1992] 3 NZLR 260 (NZLR means New Zealand Law Reports) back to body text
6. Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review (Court of Appeal 42/99) back to body text
7. Levinger, I. M. Shechita in the Light of the year 2000 - Critical Review of the Scientific Aspects of Methods of Slaughter and Shechita. Maskil L'David Jerusalem, 1995, page 74 back to body text
8. It could be suggested, that in order for people to meet the requirements of their religion, pain and distress to animals is 'necessary'. However, the Animal Welfare Act expressly provides that the requirements of religious practice is one of the circumstances that can be used to justify a departure from the obligation in section 12(c) (not to cause unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress). Accordingly, it can be concluded that Parliament did not intend that pain and distress arising from adherence to religious requirements represented a 'necessary' imposition on animals. back to body text

Page last updated: 30 April 2008