Kosher and halal dietary guidelines—particularly
in regards to the treatment and slaughter

of animals—have long sparked controversy and debate, even within their respective religious communities.

The most contentious aspect of ritual slaughter—taking
the international stage more than once—is

whether shechita and zabiha are the most humane and merciful or the most brutal and barbaric.

Hi it's Emily from Bite Size Vegan and welcome
to another vegan nugget.

I’ll be honest that this has been one of
the most daunting and profoundly challenging

videos I’ve ever made.

As a vegan educator, I know all to well that
dietary practice alone is a hot button issue.

Add in religion, culture, heritage, politics,
and money, and you’ve got a proper powder

keg of a topic.

So before we get started, there are some very
important caveats I need to clarify.

As Jewish and Islamic scholars continue to
study, debate, and deepen their own understanding

of kashrut and halal meat and slaughter even after thousands

thousands of years, it’s not only unrealistic but

also irresponsible to assume that I can adequately
comprehend and convey the entirety of their

teachings within a single video.

Presenting incredibly complex concepts in
a simplified format always runs the risk of

being overly reductionist.

This is why—as with all of my content—this
video has an accompanying blog post with citations,

an extensive bibliography, and in this case,
portions of my original essay that were cut

for the sake of time.

That it remains a comparatively lengthy video
is a testament to the complexity of this topic.

Additionally, this video is not an attack
on Judaism, Islam, or even religion as whole.

The aim here is to take a hard look at kosher
and halal slaughter and evaluate whether they

are genuinely humane, merciful practices.

Such an assessment is perhaps even more vital
for their adherents, as violation of these

principles compromises the very foundation
of their faith.

In fact, the values espoused by animal advocates
opposed to ritual slaughter are, according

to Jewish and Islamic leaders, the very basis
of halal and kosher practices.

But this potential common ground is rarely
explored as almost every public debate over

ritual slaughter arises from undercover footage
exposing the horrifically brutal treatment

of animals in halal and kosher slaughterhouses.

As this abuse grossly violates halal and kosher
laws, rightly drawing outrage from all sides,

the ultimate conclusion is almost always a
call for better regulations and stricter enforcement

of halal and kosher standards, leaving unanswered
the very the question of whether these methods—when

carried out as intended—are humane, and
failing to address what truly lies at the

heart of the humane slaughter debate as a
whole: is it even possible to end the life

of another being in a way that is kind?

In the effort to actually address this core
question through the overwhelmingly complex

lens of the ritual slaughter debate, I’m approaching this topic in a deliberately different manner.

Let’s begin with a brief overview of the
similarities and differences between kosher

and halal dietary laws.

Meaning “right/proper” and “lawful/permitted”
respectively, both terms encompass far more

than their most recognized application to
meat and slaughter.

Their origins are rooted in scripture—the
Tanakh and Talmud (written and oral Torah)

for kashrut and the Quran and various hadith
(report describing the words, actions, or

habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad) for
halal.

Both dictate which species may or may not
be eaten, expressly prohibit the consumption

of blood—thus requiring complete exsanguination
of the corpse—and specify animals must be

alive, healthy, and uninjured at the time
of their slaughter, which is to be performed

with a swift cut from a sharpened knife (chalaf
or chalef in kosher) in order to minimize

pain and provide the quickest death.

While there are numerous differences and nuances
between the two sets of laws, the most notable

variation in regards to the humane debate
is their stance on pre-slaughter stunning.

Kosher standards explicitly require animals
be fully conscious and aware when killed.

Some Jewish individuals, like Rabbi Shmuly
Yanklowitz, advocate the adoption of post-slaughter

stunning—meaning immediately after the throat
is cut—stating that “the drawn out moments

between the slaughter and final death are
terribly painful and stressful for the dying

animal [who is] completely conscious and continues
to shake in extreme pain for minutes after

the neck is cut.”

However post-slaughter stunning lacks any
majority acceptance within the Jewish community.

While halal slaughter is traditionally—and
still typically—also carried out on fully

conscious animals, some Muslim authorities
have approved very particular methods of pre-slaughter

stunning, given they meet specific requirements
(must be nonlethal such that animal would

regain consciousness in less than a minute
and be able to eat within five minutes) and

almost all halal slaughter plants in Australia
and New Zealand perform pre-slaughter stunning.

This brings us to another layer of complexity.

Irrevocably intertwined with the question
of ritual slaughter’s “humaneness” is

the role of governmental bodies in its regulation.

Every country with humane slaughter regulations—which
in and of themselves are a study in human

ingenuity and self-deception—requires stunning
animals prior to slaughter.

However, the vast majority—including the
United States—contain exemptions for religious

slaughter, with the whole of the European
Union specifically mandating member states

permit non-stunning kosher slaughter.

Just as the humane treatment of animals is
confoundingly offered as both the main objection

to and justification for ritual slaughter,
the issue is further muddied when every government’s

humane regulations require stunning, yet simultaneously defend ritual slaughter

with arguments of its enhanced humaneness.

How can this possibly be?

All methods of slaughter cannot simultaneously
be the most humane.

Who is truly in the right?

Perhaps the most influential and oft-referenced
study in regards to the humanness of ritual

slaughter is the 1994 paper from Dr. Temple
Grandin, widely heralded as the foremost authority

on humane livestock handling and slaughterhouse
restraint system design.

Grandin emphasizes the “need to critically
consider the scientific information available

about the effects of different slaughter practices
on animals before reaching any judgments about

the appropriateness of a particular form of
slaughter” and to “understand the importance

of these practices to the people who follow
these religious codes.”

The study outlines three basic concerns: stressfulness
of restraint methods, pain perception during

the incision and latency of onset of complete
insensibility, meaning how long it takes for

the animal to lose consciousness—and thus
stop feeling pain—after their throat is cut.

Because animals are conscious at the time
of ritual slaughter, they

must be fully bodily restrained.

A large contributor to the confusion within
the humane debate is the extreme variation

of restraint systems and methodologies utilized
around the world and even from factory to factory.

For a rather exhaustive 76-slide PowerPoint
presentation—from meat industry insiders—detailing

these variations, complete with photographic
illustrations and their impact on profits,

see the blog post.

One of the most objectionable and decidedly
stressful forms of restraint is shackling

and hoisting animals while fully conscious,
a method banned in Canada and other countries,

but still used in North and South America,
Israel, and many others.

The primary method of restraint utilized for
ritual slaughter without stunning in Europe,

as well as Israel, and select US plants, is
a full inversion pen, wherein cows are flipped

upside down with a head restraint exposing
their neck for slaughter.

Largely preferred by Jewish and Muslim communities,
because they allow for a more natural and

controlled cutting motion, Grandin’s research
along with subsequent studies, including one

in 2004 from the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA), found this method highly stressful

for cows, recommending instead upright restraint.

However, facing pushback from religious communities
and what it cryptically refers to as “different

stakeholders,” the European Commission ordered
an extensive investigation and report comparing

upright and inverted methods.

The report, issued on February 8, 2016, exactly
3 years and 2 months after its due date and

over 6 years after its commission, concluded
that there was no discernable different in

animal welfare between the methods.

It’s no wonder there’s such confusion
and conflict surrounding ritual slaughter.

With such variation in methodology, conflicting
scientific studies and governmental back and

forth, influenced to varying degrees by religious
tensions, political pressure and meat industry

interests, how can anyone be sure what kosher
and halal even mean anymore?

Just as humane and free-range labels lack
any meaningful improvements for animals, and

governmental mandates lack timely—or any—enforcement,
halal and kosher certifications have time

and again been exposed as inadequately enforced,
with rampant violations of both religious

and governmental laws being the norm rather
than the exception.

A particularly horrific undercover investigation
conducted in Postville, Iowa, at AgriProcessors,

the largest kosher slaughterhouse in the America,
revealed unbelievably barbaric footage, subsequently

featured in the documentary Earthlings, and
sparked international outrage from all camps.

While I believe it’s of vital importance
to witness the reality of what we do to animals,

I’m not including this footage here as it
would no doubt result in this video being

age restricted, thus severely limiting accessibility
to the remaining information.

I have provided a link to the video, along
with a mini-documentary response from the

Jewish community and additional videos of
halal investigations.

The undercover investigator at AgriProcessors
described in his notes seeing cow after cow

loaded into the full inversion rotating restraint
and having their trachea or esophagus ripped

out of their open throats as they aspirated
on their own blood.

They were then dumped onto the blood-soaked
floor and many struggled to stand with their

heads nearly severed off.

One managed to stand and walked into the corner.

Some cried out despite their torn throats.

He wrote:

“The first time I saw a cow stagger to his
feet and walk around with his trachea dangling

outside of his body, I thought to myself,
this can’t be happening—but after several

days I knew better.

There is no justification for the cruelty
I documented in that slaughterhouse.

The presence of the USDA didn’t have any
effect, nor did the presence of the rabbis.

These animals were failed by both religion
and regulations.”

Jewish and Islamic communities were appalled
by this footage, and even Temple Grandin said

it was “the most disgusting thing I’d
ever seen.

I couldn’t believe it.”

When Grandin, visited the plant, workers had
performed the slaughter to her standards,

as they did for visiting rabbis.

But the undercover footage taken over seven
weeks showed this barbaric treatment was in

fact standard operating procedure, leaving
Grandin to conclude “the only way to ensure

that correct procedures are followed in this
plant is to install video cameras that can

be audited over the internet.”

This of course begs the question: what is
going on inside of every other plant she’s

approved—or any slaughterhouse for that
matter—when no one is watching?

These atrocities are not anomalies.

In an interview with activist Anita Krajnc
of Toronto Pig Save, a kill floor worker from

Riding Regency Meat Packers, a Halal and Kosher
slaughterhouse in Toronto, Canada, observed

rabbis reaching into the cows’ neck and
grabbing their esophagus.

He described how cows are routinely still
conscious when chained and hung upside down,

taking four to five minutes to die, such that
the first few cows of each day reach the “scalper”

and are fully aware when the skin is peeled
from their face.

Where is the regulation in all of this?

For many in the Jewish community, that was
the most astounding aspect of the

AgriProcessers scandal.

In the face of this blatant brutality decried
by every side of the issue, The Orthodox Union,

which certified the plant as kosher, stated
“We continue to vouch for the kashrut of

all of the meat prepared by AgriProcessors,
Inc., which was never compromised."

In a most poignant summation, religious scholar
Dr. Aaron Gross writes:

“the fact that the products of factory farming
and even abusive facilities like AgriProcessors

are given moral legitimacy by being deemed
‘kosher,’ transforms kashrut from an ethical

system into one that helps mask organized
animal abuse.

This awkward situation is so far from the
moral vision of kashrut that it is painful

to even acknowledge.”

As I said at the start of this video, while
it’s vital to acknowledge that violations

are the norm rather than the exception within
kosher and halal factories, in order to truly

evaluate the ethics of ritual slaughter, we
must strive to assess the principles in their

ideal manifestation, even if such a manifestation
doesn’t actually exist in any current application.

In the end, after all of this human-created
noise and confusion, the best way to answer

whether ritual slaughter is humane is by simple
observation.

I’m even going to far as to edit out the
actual cutting of the throat

or any visuals of blood.

So let’s observe this most profoundly idealized
example of ritual slaughter.

“The position has to be very comfortable
for the animal first, so he can cooperate

with me and I’m be comfortable to give him
a good slaughter.

I want to assure you - only lucky animals
are slaughtered here—they are very proud

to fulfill their mission—it’s a necessary
act for this meat to reach your table.”

Even in this most idealized and artificially
sterilized scenario—which even the slaughterer

states is the exception—its evident this
sheep was not a wiling participant.

Ending the life any sentient being prematurely
and against their will cannot possibly be

a humane or merciful act.

Just like children, these beings cannot give
us their consent.

His cessation of struggling after much manipulation
and assurance is more of a sad statement of

his innocent yet misplaced trust in his caretaker
turned slaughterer than any form of willful

submission through a full comprehension of
what’s to come.

The assertion that this act is necessary,
thus justifying the lesser of the evils, is

one of the main rationalizations offered by
meat eaters, secular and religious alike.

But no religion—Judaism and Islam included—mandates
the consumption of animals.

In fact, as I cover in my video series History
of Veganism, primarily in the Middle Ages

episode, the Quran and hadith contain numerous
verses in support of compassion and respect

for animals, even emphasizing the consumption
of fruits and vegetables to sustain humans

and animals alike.

And following Genesis 1:29, Rabbinic tradition
has taught that human beings were originally

vegetarian in the garden of Eden and it was
only after the fall and the flood that meat

eating was reluctantly permitted.

Thus the spiritual ideal is a diet free of
animal products.

There are countless Jewish and Muslim vegans,
many of whom state their decision to go vegan

was a natural extension of their religious
practice, and greatly deepened their connection

to their faith.

The myth of humane slaughter reaches beyond
any religion.

Humanity as a whole consistently strives to
excuse and justify the enslavement, torture,

and murder of sentient beings.

There’s a level of absurdity with how much
time, energy, detail, government money, and

paperwork goes into finding just the right
way to kill.

We point fingers at inexcusable abuse in other
countries, cultures, religions, and specific

companies, erupting in righteous outrage and
conveniently avoiding any assessment of our

own complicity in the deaths of the animals
on our plates.

I’ll conclude with the words of Jewish author,
noble laureate and Holocaust survivor

Isaac Bashevis Singer,

“People often say that humans have always
eaten animals, as if this is a justification

for continuing the practice.

According to this logic, we should not try
to prevent people from murdering other people,

since this has also been done since the earliest
of times.”

I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments
below.

If you’d like to help support Bite Size
Vegan so I can keep putting in the long hours

to bring you this free educational resource,
please check out the support links in the

video description below where you can give
a one-time donation or see the link in the

sidebar to join the Nugget Army on Patreon.

I’d like to give a special thanks my $50
and above patrons and my whole Patreon family

for making this and all of my videos possible.

Please share this video far and wide to inform
and spur focused, constructive debate.

And subscribe for more vegan content every
week.

Now go live vegan, no matter your faith or lack thereof, and I’ll see you soon.

It's more, the Bible makes clear that, in the ideal world - the world God had in mind,

has in mind for the future, everybody would be vegetarian.