Halal meat . Are you happy to buy it ?

[Âme]

You're making my mouth water.

I empathise with the carrots when I grate them; always seem to get a bit of knuckle in with them.  [+o(]

[buelligan]

Quillan said;[quote] If the world stopped eating meat tomorrow then you really would have a big environmental, conservation, efficiency, health and agricultural problem, think about it.[/quote] 

 I'm sure you are right Quillan, but I have had a think about it and I can't come up with the answer that you, clearly, have.  Perhaps you could explain.

also;[quote]If anyone thinks being a vegetarian is healthier and will allow you to live longer then I am afraid your misinformed.[/quote] 

I would be interested to see the data on which you base that assertion.  As far as I am aware, there have been extensive studies on this subject, there is some evidence pointing towards the converse of your statement.  However, because there are other factors associated with the choice of a vegetarian diet (some of which may be considered self-selectors towards a healthier lifestyle), as far as I am aware, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Cake sounds nice, I'm having a mince pie though....[:D]

[Dog]

[quote user="Quillan"]

[quote user="Âme"]"If you eat a balanced diet and exercise you live longer, simple."

Would that it were so simple and so certain. [;-)]
[/quote]

Providing the other trillion things don't get you but generally true when it comes down to eating a balanced diet and you exercise. [;-)] If you ever have the chance to meet Vic (Vic's Big Walk) at 69 he is a prime example of what a good balanced diet and exercise can do for you. He is vegetarian but he will tell you its nothing to do with being a vegetarian its to do with a balanced diet plus the amount of excercise he does. His (2nd) wife (if I remember correctly) isn't but still eats a balanced diet and is also very fit and healthy, she also does a lot of walking with him as well.

[/quote]

Now theres a grudging approval of a 'balanced' diet that accidentally happens to be vegetarian - being good for you.

I should perhaps bring up the point that meateaters like to point out the carnivorious nature of man  - the difference is that the majority of carnivores eat their prey uncooked which is much healthier.

 

[Dog]

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Dog"][quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Dog"]

If you cannot justify your choices how do you know you made one?

[/quote]

My personal justification for eating meat is that I like it. You justify not eating meat because you think its morally wrong to kill animals and eat them. Good for you, at the end of the day it comes down to individual choice. [/quote]

Sorry missed that dig - You have put words into my mouth I do not only think it is morally wrong to eat sentient creatures I also avoid animal flesh for compassionate, environmental, conservation, efficiency, asthetic, health, agricultural and longevity reasons to name but a few- slightly more than I eat it 'cos I like it.

Why should you impose your unhealthy appetites on the world? You'll be telling me smoking is good for health and the world next...

[/quote]

It wasn't a dig and I am not putting words in to your mouth, it's what you have just said.

If anyone thinks being a vegetarian is healthier and will allow you to live longer then I am afraid your misinformed. A healthy diet is a balanced diet be it with or without meat. It makes absolutely no difference what so ever. If you eat a balanced diet and exercise you live longer, simple. If on the other hand you are Vegan then you with live a shorter life than either a vegetarian or a meat eater. If the world stopped eating meat tomorrow then you really would have a big environmental, conservation, efficiency, health and agricultural problem, think about it. I'm not sure where asthetics comes in to banning meat!

I think you make these abrasive and insulting comments because you don't have a valid argument. If you want to change peoples thinking it's much better to do it with a carrot (no pun intended) rather than a big stick as I have mentioned once before. You will find you get much better results. Nobody is asking you to agree with people eating meat only to agree that it's a choice, you have made yours and others have made there's. If you read through all the posts in this thread nobody has actually made any personally abusive or other comment about you being a vegetarian, its none of our business.

[/quote]

Quite how do you work out this balance?

I find your answers condescending and based on a blinkered view based on bad science and without an ounce of compassion. I am not after getting results with the morally indefensible who believe their choice is the only option. You just cannot understand other views other than your own which seems based on ignorance.

I find it deeply offensive and insulting to ignore the plight of millions of animals that live short pained lives just to die to satisfy a menu choice based on an uniformed choice.

 

 

[Scooby]

A vegetarian diet doesn't guarantee good health.  A friend of mine (who has been a vegetarian since his early teens) had a massive heart attack at just 40 years of age.

Edit - My b-i-l is a vegetarian (has been for many years) but is grossly overweight and quite definitely unhealthy.  Exercise is as important as diet..and quantity of food, of course!

[Quillan]

[quote user="Dog"][quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Dog"][quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Dog"]

If you cannot justify your choices how do you know you made one?

[/quote]

My personal justification for eating meat is that I like it. You justify not eating meat because you think its morally wrong to kill animals and eat them. Good for you, at the end of the day it comes down to individual choice. [/quote]

Sorry missed that dig - You have put words into my mouth I do not only think it is morally wrong to eat sentient creatures I also avoid animal flesh for compassionate, environmental, conservation, efficiency, asthetic, health, agricultural and longevity reasons to name but a few- slightly more than I eat it 'cos I like it.

Why should you impose your unhealthy appetites on the world? You'll be telling me smoking is good for health and the world next...

[/quote]

It wasn't a dig and I am not putting words in to your mouth, it's what you have just said.

If anyone thinks being a vegetarian is healthier and will allow you to live longer then I am afraid your misinformed. A healthy diet is a balanced diet be it with or without meat. It makes absolutely no difference what so ever. If you eat a balanced diet and exercise you live longer, simple. If on the other hand you are Vegan then you with live a shorter life than either a vegetarian or a meat eater. If the world stopped eating meat tomorrow then you really would have a big environmental, conservation, efficiency, health and agricultural problem, think about it. I'm not sure where asthetics comes in to banning meat!

I think you make these abrasive and insulting comments because you don't have a valid argument. If you want to change peoples thinking it's much better to do it with a carrot (no pun intended) rather than a big stick as I have mentioned once before. You will find you get much better results. Nobody is asking you to agree with people eating meat only to agree that it's a choice, you have made yours and others have made there's. If you read through all the posts in this thread nobody has actually made any personally abusive or other comment about you being a vegetarian, its none of our business.

[/quote]

Quite how do you work out this balance?

I find your answers condescending and based on a blinkered view based on bad science and without an ounce of compassion. I am not after getting results with the morally indefensible who believe their choice is the only option. You just cannot understand other views other than your own which seems based on ignorance.

I find it deeply offensive and insulting to ignore the plight of millions of animals that live short pained lives just to die to satisfy a menu choice based on an uniformed choice.

[/quote]

I would read what you have written very carefully if I were you then sit a while and think about it. Who said bad science, who mentioned compassion, who said its the only option and who cannot understand the views of others, you could be describing yourself, particularly in the latter.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Dog"][quote user="Quillan"]

[quote user="Âme"]"If you eat a balanced diet and exercise you live longer, simple."

Would that it were so simple and so certain. [;-)]
[/quote]

Providing the other trillion things don't get you but generally true when it comes down to eating a balanced diet and you exercise. [;-)] If you ever have the chance to meet Vic (Vic's Big Walk) at 69 he is a prime example of what a good balanced diet and exercise can do for you. He is vegetarian but he will tell you its nothing to do with being a vegetarian its to do with a balanced diet plus the amount of excercise he does. His (2nd) wife (if I remember correctly) isn't but still eats a balanced diet and is also very fit and healthy, she also does a lot of walking with him as well.

[/quote]

Now theres a grudging approval of a 'balanced' diet that accidentally happens to be vegetarian - being good for you.

I should perhaps bring up the point that meateaters like to point out the carnivorious nature of man  - the difference is that the majority of carnivores eat their prey uncooked which is much healthier.

[/quote]

I am not approving or disaproving either grudgingly, accidently or otherwise. I am simply pointing out that you have two different people eating different yet balanced diets (just in case you don't know what it is it should contain carbohydrate, protein, fat, vitamins, mineral salts and fibre), exercise regularily and are very healthy. Now who's putting words in to who's mouth?

You have made a choice on what you believe to be right, good for you. You seem to think I have a problem with what you eat and you being a vegitarian but I don't and I suspect many others here also don't have a problem either. Others have made different choices which is their right and good for them also.

[Quillan]

[quote user="buelligan"]

Quillan said;[quote] If the world stopped eating meat tomorrow then you really would have a big environmental, conservation, efficiency, health and agricultural problem, think about it.[/quote] 

 I'm sure you are right Quillan, but I have had a think about it and I can't come up with the answer that you, clearly, have.  Perhaps you could explain.

also;[quote]If anyone thinks being a vegetarian is healthier and will allow you to live longer then I am afraid your misinformed.[/quote] 

I would be interested to see the data on which you base that assertion.  As far as I am aware, there have been extensive studies on this subject, there is some evidence pointing towards the converse of your statement.  However, because there are other factors associated with the choice of a vegetarian diet (some of which may be considered self-selectors towards a healthier lifestyle), as far as I am aware, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Cake sounds nice, I'm having a mince pie though....[:D]

[/quote]

Health and environmental go together to a degree. There are many by products like shoes, wallets, belts etc made from leather. These would have to be made with other materials, probably in the main by petroleum by products such as plastic's. These as is documented can let of nasty chemicals and most don't decay. Then there is the pollution to the atmosphere in manufacturing these products because its cheaper to make them in countries where there is no control of emissions. All this is bad for the environment which can lead to bad health.

Likewise you would have to grow more food products, greater variety and out of 'season'. Some attempts have been made to do this in the UK in massive computer controlled greenhouses. I have seen the results of this type of farming in Spain and its not nice and does nothing to conserve the natural landscape.

I don't think you would have enough farmers who would be able to do this. You can't just say a farmer is a farmer and therefore can do anything. You would have a load of livestock farmers unemployed, some could probably be retrained others might not want to be agricultural farmers. The land would loose its 'appearance' as the grass meadows get turned over to grow produce and initially you would not have enough food to support the population (which in the UK you probably don't have now) so there's more pollution as food is shipped in even greater quantities.

As for the data on vegetarians living longer or even shorter than meat eaters just type in to Google 'Do vegetarians live longer', there's loads of stuff, some dubious at best but others are clearly well informed. You can read as much as you like and make your own mind up.

[mint]

[quote user="buelligan"]

Hubris (possibly), paranoia (maybe), dissociative identity disorder (our guess is as good as, well, ours).  OK!  I give up!  Why do you want to argue with me Scooby?  I really, really do not want to hit you with my pacifist sctick![:D]

[/quote]

Sorry, no sticks (however they are spelt) on the Forum![geek]

[buelligan]

Even this kind? [:D] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtick[/url] - sorry!  but it was rather late![:D]

[Gardengirl]

"Âme"]"If you eat a balanced diet and exercise you live longer, simple."

Would that it were so simple and so certain. [;-)]

 

As Ame said, would that it were so simple and so certain.

Our family has had a very healthy balanced diet for over 30 years, and it wasn't so bad before that. My husband had a heart attack two years ago; the medics ended up deciding it was family history that was the problem - both parents had heart attacks. They couldn't improve our diet.

I was diagnosed last week with what I refer to as gremlins; I had continued to eat a healthy balanced diet, have exercised quite a bit regularly ( not long distance walks, though I'm getting on a bit too). I admit to a fair bit of chocolate eating since diagnosis, and if I weren't on medication I'd no doubt have had a few glasses of good red wine; but that's also part of a healthy balanced diet! [;-)]

GG

 

[Dog]

Q do you really mean that? - Your post is gobsmackingly amazing, uniformed, myopic and ignores reality.

Shoes, belts etc are not by products - they are made from animal skin that is misguidedly called a by product.

How do you think leather is made? It uses lots of very nasty dangerous chemicals - so unhealthy that most tanning is no longer done in europe and has been exported to poorer countries where massive pollution takes place.

More food would be able to be grown and starvation could end. The problems in Spanish greenhouses is because they are not hitech computer controlled - do not confuse the methods.

There would be far more land available for crops. Presently growing crops to feed to animals uses  massive amounts of land, it is incredibly ineficient and uses lots of chemicals and water. The currently abused land could return to normal. Todays farming landscape is not normal people have just slowly become to think it is. Do you really think everywhere was meadow? Great forests were cut down and still are - to be turned over to grazing cattle.

The idea that lots of livestock farmers would be out of work is just the same hysteria that abounded when the use of horses became history.

I t is becoming disturbing to use search engines to replace knowledge and historical facts. 

[Scooby]

[quote user="gardengirl "]

Our family has had a very healthy balanced diet for over 30 years, and it wasn't so bad before that. My husband had a heart attack two years ago; the medics ended up deciding it was family history that was the problem - both parents had heart attacks. They couldn't improve our diet.

[/quote]

That's the same as our family GG - my mum has always been very careful about our diet (she was a hospital  nutritionalist then changed to nursing). She was also very big on walking - never passed her driving test and walked everywhere.  She had her first heart attack in her fifties - like your parents they have said it's genetic and nothing to do with her diet / exercise.  (All her children now have to have regular screening).

Peter, the 'healthy' vegetarian I mentioned above, was also an avid marathon runner - again it was a genetic pre-disposition 'thing'.

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

Just wondering Dog, if you have any pets, say a dog or something. What does that, a carnivore, get fed?

[Dog]

Instead of looking for the get out clauses why not improve health and longevity for people over the whole planet by feeding them on a vegetarian diet they can all be fed and be healthy and live longer lives and spare the lives of millions and millions of animals.

Against my better judgement I did google the suggest search and the very first on the list was http://www.oxveg.veggroup.org/articles/1114.html

Eating vegetables seems to do you little harm and if it can mean more people are fed and eat better why not? There are some interesting mentions of socio-economic groups, intelligence and being religious in the article.

 

[mint]

Scooby and GG, I was told from a very young age that I had to choose my parents carefully..........and a fat lot of good that advice gave me!

Still, I can't complain as I enjoy very good health.  I don't say that you might not be genetically pre-disposed to some seriously nasty conditions but there are LOADS that you can and must do to mitigate those disadvantages.

As for you, Bue, I ain't taking any stick from you, that's for sure!

[Scooby]

[quote user="sweet 17"]I don't say that you might not be genetically pre-disposed to some seriously nasty conditions but there are LOADS that you can and must do to mitigate those disadvantages.

[/quote]

Exactly Sweet - if she hadn't been sensible with her diet / exercise etc she may well have had her first heart attack in her thirties.  By buying herself some time she was able to benefit from a triple bypass etc...

[Dog]

[quote user="Richard"]Just wondering Dog, if you have any pets, say a dog or something. What does that, a carnivore, get fed?
[/quote]

I do have a guest - a rescue dog that lives with me.

Dogs are not carnivores they are scavengers. They enjoy fruit, nuts, grains and vegetables and live quite healthily on them. Cats do need a certain vitamin to be healthy that is most easily found in animal flesh. No cats live with me.

If you are feeding your dog just meat it will not do it any good.

[mint]

You're right there, Dog.  We had 2 cats and OH, a vegetarian, nonetheless had to feed them meat as, apparently, cats do need meat in their diets.

[powerdesal]

I have just read all 12 pages of this thread and, whilst I would not normally post these day, I just cannot resist a little input.

I am an omnivore, I like meat AND vegetables, preferably with a nice gravy or sauce. I have been a farmer and have reared and killed my own meat, I have also grown my own veggies.

I have no problem at all with those who choose to be vegetarians, I do have a problem with those vegetarians who are evangelical and try to persuade / tell me that I am some sort of despicable person because I eat 'dead flesh'.

In my many years of experience of life I have met many vegetarians, the majority of whom, (if from the 'Western' World,) are extremely evangelical in their attitude. Dog appears to fit that mould.

I generally try to make a deal with them, I wont tell you what to eat, you dont tell me what to eat - each to his own.

The average vegetarian cannot and will not be persuaded that they are wrong, its a waste of time  and effort trying that tack. Equally I will not be persuaded that they are right. Why not leave it at that.

back to the thread, I personally do not agree with halal slaughter methods.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="powerdesal"] whilst I would not normally post these day,Pity that.

I generally try to make a deal with them, I wont tell you what to eat, you dont tell me what to eat - each to his own. You try, but have you ever succeeded, and if so, how?  Because I'd love to know.  The average evangelical veggie that I've met thinks it's fine to hurl abuse at we meat eaters but can't take any negative comment about their own eating habits.

The average vegetarian cannot and will not be persuaded that they are wrong, its a waste of time  and effort trying that tack. Equally I will not be persuaded that they are right. Why not leave it at that. Because somehow most veggies can't leave it at that and think it's their duty to try to convert everybody else to their way of thinking.  Far worse than the average religious nut who usually gives up on my atheism after a while an leaves me to it!

back to the thread, I personally do not agree with halal slaughter methods. Moi non plus.
[/quote]

[Scooby]

Certainly for the slaughter of chickens, halal is a kinder method of killing.  The non halal slaughterhouse stuns the birds to immobilise them but then relies on an automated cutter to sever the arteries.  Because the cutter is automated it sometimes misses and so the bird has a longer, slower death.

I thought these research findings were interesting and put a different complexion on the debate:

The scientific facts

A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims

through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several

electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all

the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover

for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the

halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck,

cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with

the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The

remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method

as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings

allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart

throughout.

The Halal method

With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG

graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating

that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not

surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not

notice until some time later. The following three seconds were

characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought

about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.  Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero

reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still

beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the

spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who

are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does

actually no longer record any sensual messages.

The Western method

Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious

after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more

peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain

immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal

ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a

brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes

a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there

are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more

blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much

more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter

procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor

belt, if it does not move.

Appearances can deceive

Not all is what it seems, then. Those arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are

actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the

animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes

mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can

deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy

his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic

slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption

means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss

of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.

[Dog]

[quote user="powerdesal"]I have just read all 12 pages of this thread and, whilst I would not normally post these day, I just cannot resist a little input.

I am an omnivore, I like meat AND vegetables, preferably with a nice gravy or sauce. I have been a farmer and have reared and killed my own meat, I have also grown my own veggies.

I have no problem at all with those who choose to be vegetarians, I do have a problem with those vegetarians who are evangelical and try to persuade / tell me that I am some sort of despicable person because I eat 'dead flesh'.

In my many years of experience of life I have met many vegetarians, the majority of whom, (if from the 'Western' World,) are extremely evangelical in their attitude. Dog appears to fit that mould.

I generally try to make a deal with them, I wont tell you what to eat, you dont tell me what to eat - each to his own.

The average vegetarian cannot and will not be persuaded that they are wrong, its a waste of time  and effort trying that tack. Equally I will not be persuaded that they are right. Why not leave it at that.

back to the thread, I personally do not agree with halal slaughter methods.
[/quote]

There seems to be a common mistake occurring - I do not think any vegetarians have yet quoted in this thread theological arguments for not eating meat - so the use of the word evengelical is not correct. There is a theological part of halaal which meat eaters don't seem to realise.

The more correct word to use would be proselytizing.

This is a discussion board - I take part and I make my points of view clear - I accept that there will be other points of view but I have a ight to my views and it would be a boring one sided discussion if meat eaters think that non meat eaters should stay quiet.

I do not go door to door proselytizing, harangue diners in McMurders, or wear anti flesh eating T shirts on a daily basis. But if I am invited to make my view I will do it with vigour. I don't do deals -meat eaters are so lazy and complacent they need a shock sometimes.

 

[Dog]

Even muslims should not really be buying just halaal meat.

Halaal tayyib it seems is the product they should be eating and it offers significantly higher welfare rights to animals offering them a minimum length of life, the right to reproduction and other benefits that make their short life a little better.

It would seem on the whole that meat eaters care little for the short lives of their flesh food and cannot even be bothered to say prayers for each and every animal.

Sharia law would bring this benefit to all animals bound for the slaughterhouse.

[Dog]

[quote user="Scooby"]Certainly for the slaughter of chickens, halal is a kinder method of killing.  The non halal slaughterhouse stuns the birds to immobilise them but then relies on an automated cutter to sever the arteries.  Because the cutter is automated it sometimes misses and so the bird has a longer, slower death.

I thought these research findings were interesting and put a different complexion on the debate:

The scientific facts

A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.

The Halal method

With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.  Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.

The Western method

Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.

Appearances can deceive

Not all is what it seems, then. Those arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.

[/quote]

I had read some similar research before -  in this research did they check on the ECG whether they felt less pain when prayers were said during slaughter?

It would seem that the double standards of western meat eaters are achieved through western style slaughter.