UK legislation requiring pre-slaughter stunning has certain exemptions for religious slaughter. Supporters of both Muslim (Halal) and Jewish (Shechita) slaughter methods claim that the efficiency of the bleed out is adversely affected by stunning. In this study, electrical stunning followed by neck cutting, and captive bolt stunning followed by neck cutting, were compared with the Muslim slaughter method (neck cutting without stunning) in sheep. Total blood loss and percentage blood loss, expressed as a percentage of live weight, were calculated and compared between groups. In addition, the time taken to reach 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% of total blood loss was calculated and compared. There was no apparent difference in the packed cell volume levels between groups. Slaughter method did, however, affect meat pH and colour. The results show that the bleed out after neck cutting is not adversely affected by electrical or captive bolt stunning; nor is an improved bleed out achieved by neck cutting without stunning.

The slaughter of animals for the halal market is both ethically and economically significant. There are animal welfare and spiritual requirements that must be met for meat to be considered fit for Muslim consumption. These requirements are enshrined in Islamic law, known commonly as the Shariah law, derived from commandments in the Holy Quran and the Hadith (teachings or traditions of the Prophet of Islam, Mohammed, Peace Be Upon Him). Islamic jurists widely interpret the Shariah law differently, and this has led to debate as to whether pre-slaughter stunning is acceptable for halal slaughter. This paper reviews how these laws are interpreted and implemented and reviews the methods of stunning accepted by proponents of halal stunning. It also describes why some proponents of halal stunning do not accept irreversible stunning methods for producing halal beef within the EU, a situation which has meant that thousands of halal cattle are slaughtered without any form of stunning.

This paper summarises the findings from five studies in eight countries on over 1,500 cattle slaughtered commercially by the halal or shechita methods without stunning. It reports the number of cuts applied to the neck, the cutting methods and the frequency of complications during the bleeding period. Complications during the bleeding period that occurred in some cattle included: (i) delay in the time to collapse, which was interpreted as late loss of consciousness; (ii) premature arrest of bleeding from the carotid arteries due to false aneurysm formation; and (iii) blood entering the respiratory tract during bleeding. These features are important as they determine or reflect the duration of consciousness following the cut and the potential for protracted suffering from wound nociception or blood irritating the respiratory tract. When cattle were not restrained following the halal cut, they took on average 20 s to collapse. Fourteen percent stood up again after an initial collapse, and 1.5% took more than 4 min before their final collapse. Eight percent took 60 s or longer to collapse, and those animals were more likely to have false aneurysms in the severed ends of the carotid arteries. False aneurysms, which were at least 3 cm in diameter, formed in the severed cardiac ends of the carotid arteries in 10% of cattle slaughtered by halal or shechita. Some false aneurysms formed in the severed ends of the carotid arteries within 7 s of the halal cut, and in 10% of the cattle bloodflow came to a halt in one of the arteries within 10 s. On average, the false aneurysms developed within 21 s. Nineteen percent of cattle slaughtered by shechita and 58% of cattle slaughtered by halal had blood lining the mucosa of the trachea. All animals had blood lining the glottis. In both situations there could be a sense of respiratory tract irritation from the blood. It is proposed that severing the carotids at the position in the neck which corresponds to C1 will reduce the frequency of false aneurysm formation and subsequent arrested bloodflow from the severed arteries, and it will deafferent the respiratory tract reducing the transmission of potentially unpleasant sensory signals associated with blood contaminating the upper and lower parts of the tract. Most cattle subjected to halal and shechita have the neck cut at a position which corresponds to C2 to C4, and changing to a cut at C1 could partly reduce the potential for suffering during slaughter without stunning.

The maintenance of head-only minimum stunning currents for sheep to ≥ 1.0 Amp as per current legislation was examined in two trials in a commercial abattoir. In the first trial, a Jetco MS100 stunner failed to maintain the current to > 1.0 Amp in 118 of the 228 sheep. In a second trial, a Jetco MS105 delivered sufficient current in all sheep (n = 275) to meet the legislative requirement, apart from a single animal. Recorded electrocardiograms showed a regular heartbeat, with no evidence of ventricular fibrillation, in all animals in both trials following stunning and neck-cut. Only one of the two stun units may therefore be considered to meet the statutory requirements but both may meet the requirements for halal slaughter where pre-stun is considered acceptable.

In Italy, living close to or even within a place of business is not in and of itself unusual. Forms of housing in Italy are similar to many other European countries in that people primarily live in mixed-use spaces. It is common to have an apartment above cafés, bars, and bakeries. In this article, I examine how this form of mixed-use residence shapes market practices, decision-making, and labour relations among owners and workers. I argue that the spaces in which employees participate in the market economy also mirror their commitments to family. By examining workspaces across two food certifications in Milan, Italy – a Made in Italy certification (Food Italy) and a halal certification (Halal Italia) – I argue that Italian kinship networks structure how workers in each business operate. This intervention contributes to a larger literature on the cultural dimensions of capitalism.

Why is shariʿa the taboo of modern law? This article examines the “spread of halal” controversy in China as a window to assess how nativist public opinion influences state law and policy whereas state law is foreclosed to providing protection to rights provided for in shariʿa. Among Chinese Muslims (Hui), qingzhen (lit. “pure” plus “true”) or “halal” is the kernel of their localized shariʿa, and one that prohibits consuming pork. The symbol qingzhen has proliferated in the course of China's economic modernization such that it pervades the public sphere, creating anxiety among Han Chinese that Chinese society and government is becoming “Islamicized.” Hui fear that the profusion of qingzhen foments food insecurity and endangers truth in labeling. In response, they have sought greater protection for their diluted core symbol in national legislation—attempts which have only exacerbated Hui-Han relations. Based on observations from over seven years of field research and interviews with Hui legal entrepreneurs, and drawing from the anthropology of taboo, I explain the debate in China by taking the Hui idea of shariʿa as a taboo to reflexively think about how secular non-Muslim states regard shariʿa as the taboo of modern law.

The paper examines the tension amongst the Indonesian government and Islamic organisations in dealing with the plurality of interpretation within Islamic tradition and at the same time maintaining the unity and harmony of the Muslim ummah. I provide two case studies here: first, the issue of determining the first and the end of Ramadan and also 10 Zul Hijjah (for Idu al-Adha). Second, who has the authority to issue halal certificate? Due to different methods of hisab (astronomical calculation) and ru'yah (sighting a new crescent), Islamic organisations (Muhammadiyah, Nahdlatul Ulama and Majelis Ulama Indonesia) have produced different fatwas. At the same time, the Government has to make announcement on which dates to begin or to end fasting. With regard to the second issue, there is currently a tension between the Government and the MUI as the first thinks it falls into its authority whereas the latter insists that halal certificate is a written fatwa which belongs to its ‘jurisdiction’.

The questions are: how does the government decide which fatwa to choose, and what are the reactions of Islamic organisations when their views differ with the position of the government? There is also tension in society in celebrating Idul Fitri and Idul Adha on different dates. How far should the government go to accommodate such different views, to maintain harmony in the community?