Walloon's decision to recommend a ban on kosher and halal slaughter is misguided

The recommendation by the environment committee of the Walloon region to ban meat that is slaughtered without pre-stunning is a good example of people asking the right questions, but coming up with the wrong answers.

The key issue is how to ensure that animals are killed as painlessly as possible, which certainly accords with Jewish values and, from my conversation with imams over the years, I am assured applies equally to Islamic tenets. But the committee has made three errors.

First, it has put Jewish and Muslim procedures in the same category, and directed its judgement at both simultaneously. They may share the same ethos of minimising distress, but the Jewish method is highly regulated, with precise guidelines, meticulous training and strict monitoring.

It means that the animal is killed with a single cut to the carotid artery using an ultra-sharp blade, that cuts off blood supply to the brain immediately so that the animal loses consciousness within seconds. It needs almost no strength, merely great skill, which is why Jewish slaughterers, far from being sturdy giants, are often slender figures.

The Muslim process is similar, but is not centrally controlled under one supervisory authority, nor regulated to the same extent. That would be a good move to ensure that standards are maintained and that there can be public confidence in them.

The second error is to ignore the fact that the very reason for this method of Jewish and Muslim slaughter is to cause the least possible pain to animals. In this respect, they have been far superior to other methods of animal slaughter for centuries. It also explains the reticence to change now, for the various types of stunning have not yet been perfected. Sometimes they are very effective and save animals suffering, sometimes they either do not work or are administered wrongly, leaving animals immobile but conscious, and even more terrified.

We are not yet at the moment when stunning is without doubt superior to Jewish and Muslim methods. When that times comes, religious leaders of both faiths will need to weigh the moral principle of animal welfare against the traditional procedures. I have no doubt that, although there will be fierce debate, ultimately the former will prevail over the latter, as ethics always trumps rituals. That is a religious value.

The third error, or rather, puzzle, is why the Walloons are concentrating their energy on stunning, where the difference in the loss of conscious between it and Jewish/Muslim methods is only a few seconds. If they are truly concerned with animal rights, why are they not banning definite malpractices, such as force-feeding of calves, or cooping up chickens in tiny crates, or transporting animals long distances in highly unpleasant conditions. These are not only obvious examples of cruelty, but affect far more animals. Why not start with these?

It is worth noting, of course, that any form of slaughter involves a certain degree of suffering, with even the act of animals being herded in the abattoir causing panic at the smell and noise they encounter. I suspect that if most meat eaters spent just five minutes watching how their food is obtained, they might abstain from eating it that day, if not permanently.

In fact, for centuries, long before it became popular in the West, Judaism has regarded vegetarianism as a respectable option. Meat is permitted for those who so wish, but with the condition that the killing has to be done humanely. Pre-stunning may one day become the best way, but it has not yet superseded the religious method, and so banning it is premature.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain is minister of Maidenhead Synagogue and author of ‘Confessions of a Rabbi’ (Biteback)