Halal Meat in Shops

[Cobby]

It all comes down (IMHO) to context. There's a Bob Dylan song called 'Hurricane' about Reuben Carter, a black American who was framed for murder. One line goes 'and to the white folks he was just a crazy n****r, no- one doubted that he pulled the trigger'.

Should the song be censored, you know, a white guy using a phrase that is 'owned' by black folks?

Pulp Fiction. A really good film, one of my favourites of all time. Littered with the 'N' word. Should Quentin Tarantino be banned?

Where do we stop? Ban jokes? They pick on minorities too you know!

I happen to have a ginger business partner - he's had more than his fair share of abuse over the years - often from random strangers. Know what he does? He gets on with it.

I am not, nor have ever been involved in the slave trade. Neither have my parents or grandparents. Trace things back far enough and you might find some mud that sticks, but should I be apologetic for something someone I've never met before may or may not have done in the past? I think not.

Of course you don't need to apologise for something you haven't done. That doesn't mean you get to display the behaviour of the people for whom you are *not* apologising.

There's a very broad difference between the art & cultural aspect of using such language and people using it in the same manner and with the same intention as those from times past: casting negative stereotypes and oppressing based on these. Using the n-word in Pulp fiction? It's the portrayal of an imaginary character. Making jokes about black people? If you're laughing at a negative and damaging stereotype then maybe you *do* need to apologise.

As for your ginger friend, well, you'll have to remind me how many years of being treated as property did ginger people endure? How often is he stopped by police for no other reason than being ginger? If you genuinely can't see the difference then perhaps you need to spend a little more time thinking about it.

A black guy is at the top of the political world, others excel at business, sport, entertainment, ambassador-ness, in all walks of life.

Don't create problems where there are none please!

This is in spite of the racism present in society, not because of a lack of it, and one has to be pretty blinkered to believe there are no more problems with racism.

 

[Cobby]

I've decided to ignore all of the arguing and reply to the matter of Halal meat.

Good idea. I think it's quite telling that a thread about consumer choice with regard to potential animal cruelty in the name of a particular religion turns into a thread about racism.

Doesn't matter to anyone really how it died, really C'mon think about it... it's no different cutting the arteries after it's been stunned as suppose to cutting the neck and letting it drip dry.

Ah, so if you needed an operation, would you be okay with the doctors not bothering to use anaesthetic? You'd be in pain and panicking on the operating table but it's the same thing as not suffering unnecessarily, right?

 

[Excel Expert]

Simon here is a slightly different view. These are just a random collection of thoughts but they kind of tie up.

The n word started as a very neutral word and was interchangeable with describing someone as black. The word seems to have got hijacked during the slavery period and became associated with slavery.

In the US coloured people were still treated as second class citizens well passed WWII and legal segregation didn't end until about 1950. In real terms segregation went on well in to the 70's and black people had to run gauntlets to get equal education and to go to the smae universities etc. There is also still a KKK presence in the country and they still basically have racial hatred on their minds. There are almost daily cases of racially motivated police and people in office. So the racial diversions between white and black in the US is still raw, probably a lot rawer than it is here. As a result in the US I can see why the n word carries more weight when said by a white person.

As we were basically the exporter of slaves in to the US, the US has a far greater percentage of people with direct connections with victims of the slave trade. We still have a families whose wealth can be traced back to the slave trade. Unlike the US we seem to reject out of hand any attempts at reparations. So we have people sitting rich on the suffering of their ancestors. Add to that we unfortunately can not claim to have equal opportunities for all races. Take a look at the info graphic from this Guardian report

http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...t-for-uk-ethnic-minorities-race-whos-affected

Under the options select white and black and you will see since 1993, if you are black your chances of being unemployed has always being double that of a white person. I suspect that it is similar story in the US but with less of division.

So it is easy to see what black people in the UK and the US feel they are being oppressed. As the n-word has such strong connections with their ongoing oppression I can see why it causes offence coming from descendants of those that caused the slave trade. It is probably similar to Germans using the same racial terms for Jews used during the war.

The n word is stamped firmly in black history and their culture - a history and a culture forced on them. So I can also see why it is a part of their everyday vocabulary.

Like any other minority black people will be the subject of humour (as are gingers and a wide variety of other sections of the community). As a Welsh person I always get stick when I visit England. 99% of the population that is not all that objectionable to either side. It is just the n-word is the problem.

 

[simon field]

I realise there are problems Cobby, of course there are.

But half the time the problems are created by people throwing the 'race card' in where there had been no mention of race IMHO. They seem to actually drum up tension and division.

As for 'damaging and stereotypical' jokes - how many jokes are *not* making fun of stereotypes, minorities, and so on?

Mother-in-law jokes, Englishman Irishman Scotsman jokes, Jewish jokes, Muslim jokes - how can you pick and choose what makes you laugh?

Excluding certain groups from these expressions only creates more tension doesn't it? Wouldn't you rather treat everyone the same, regardless of skin colour?

Actions are one thing, but words are quite another. Judge on what people do, not what they say.

I'm sure there are people in the world being treated as property right now.. Some white, some black, some yellow, some brown - it's not good.

 

[Excel Expert]

Cobby - The Halal meat in your local supermarket, Pizza Express, Subway etc has been pre-stunned in the same way as any other meat they have. I think everyone here is against the small proportion of non-pre-stunned meat.

The original point was the media was trying to make out that supermarkets were tricking us in to buying the non-pre-stunned meat and people were believing them. The truth is the only difference was that someone may or may not have said a prayer during the slaughter process.

 

[Cobby]

Cobby - The Halal meat in your local supermarket, Pizza Express, Subway etc has been pre-stunned in the same way as any other meat they have. I think everyone here is against the small proportion of non-pre-stunned meat.

You can see the point I was replying to as I quoted it.

As for 'damaging and stereotypical' jokes - how many jokes are *not* making fun of stereotypes, minorities, and so on?

Mother-in-law jokes, Englishman Irishman Scotsman jokes, Jewish jokes, Muslim jokes - how can you pick and choose what makes you laugh?

Excluding certain groups from these expressions only creates more tension doesn't it? Wouldn't you rather treat everyone the same, regardless of skin colour?

Again, it comes back to the very broad difference between a thing that is an expression of a shared experience and a thing that is an expression of hatred and oppression. You're absolutely right, you can't pick and choose what makes you laugh, but if what is making a person laugh is a stream of jokes about black people and their associated negative stereotypes, then that person is a part of the problem. I do however find it disturbing you think most jokes are just about negative stereotyping of minorities.

 

[Excel Expert]

Sorry Cobby, half a sleep today - I had a 3am telephone meeting and I'm feeling it today

 

[simon field]

Badly put on my part.

The point I was trying to make is that *someone* is usually the butt of a joke.

But yes, I do like comedy which offends. Jimmy Carr is a perfect example.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Good idea. I think it's quite telling that a thread about consumer choice with regard to potential animal cruelty in the name of a particular religion turns into a thread about racism.


Ah, so if you needed an operation, would you be okay with the doctors not bothering to use anaesthetic? You'd be in pain and panicking on the operating table but it's the same thing as not suffering unnecessarily, right?

Well... Considering I can't even take Paracetamol I doubt very much that I'd be given anesthetic anyway Knowing my luck with my health issues it'd probably kill me LOL!

With regards to not suffering, it's bred as food, simple as to be honest... I couldn't give two hoots whether my burger suffers or not. I'm still going to trough it... it's still going to be sustenance for me for a few hours and I'll eventually dispose of the unnecessary parts at a later interval... either way, it's still food.

I won't apologies for sounding too harsh either... I say it as it is, whether it's a little lamb running about in a field, a pig in a pen, a cow munching on grass or a horse that's just fallen at the grande national... it's going to be eaten end of... why should I worry about it suffering?

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Let me put it this way...

=

=

=

Food is as it is.

Oh wait, I forgot...

=

hmmm anyone else suddenly feel hungry?

 

[Excel Expert]

why should I worry about it suffering?

Why would you allow an animal to suffer slow painful death when there was no need? Just because these animals are bred for killing it does not mean we should inflict pain or suffering if we can help it.

I personally don't want any animal I consume to have suffered unnecessarily just to put food on my plate. I don't care if my food has been prayed over or if it is horse or cow. As long as it didn't suffer and its labelled correctly, it is all good to me.

 

[sirearl]

I won't apologies for sounding too harsh either... I say it as it is, whether it's a little lamb running about in a field, a pig in a pen, a cow munching on grass or a horse that's just fallen at the grande national... it's going to be eaten end of... why should I worry about it suffering?

Or a pet dog or cat ending up in a stew in china.

 

[Hedgie]

There are some Christian groups around the world that believe in body mutilations, there are some that publicly chant "that all soldiers are fags and should go to hell" at their funerals.
.

That just shows how much of a distorted knowledge of Christianity you have. Neither of those groups are Christian groups but fringe elements who live by their own rules and twisted scripture interpretations.

 

[That Bates Girl]

That just shows how much of a distorted knowledge of Christianity you have. Neither of those groups are Christian groups but fringe elements who live by their own rules and twisted scripture interpretations.

I think that's the point he was trying to make. You may think of them as 'non-Christian' groups with twisted interpretations of scripture, but they certainly think of themselves as Christians.

Treating all Muslims as a homogenous group, with homogenous beliefs, and homogenous intentions makes as much sense as expecting Ian Paisley to agree with the Pope.

 

[That Bates Girl]

Sorry but that is absolute baloney.

Do you really believe that allowing one race to use certain language but not another is conducive to a balanced, fair society? It's exactly that sort of stuff which is divisive and does the 'anti ism' type groups no favours at all in their seemingly never-ending quest to be offended, and provoke offence in others.

It all comes down (IMHO) to context. There's a Bob Dylan song called 'Hurricane' about Reuben Carter, a black American who was framed for murder. One line goes 'and to the white folks he was just a crazy n****r, no- one doubted that he pulled the trigger'.

Should the song be censored, you know, a white guy using a phrase that is 'owned' by black folks?

Pulp Fiction. A really good film, one of my favourites of all time. Littered with the 'N' word. Should Quentin Tarantino be banned?

Where do we stop? Ban jokes? They pick on minorities too you know!

I happen to have a ginger business partner - he's had more than his fair share of abuse over the years - often from random strangers. Know what he does? He gets on with it.

I am not, nor have ever been involved in the slave trade. Neither have my parents or grandparents. Trace things back far enough and you might find some mud that sticks, but should I be apologetic for something someone I've never met before may or may not have done in the past? I think not.

Posturing against 'isms', jumping up and down, pointing and shouting 'look, look, it's racist everyone!' Is one of the worst causes of racial friction I can think of!

A black guy is at the top of the political world, others excel at business, sport, entertainment, ambassador-ness, in all walks of life.

Don't create problems where there are none please!

Wowser! I see we're not going for the "empathy" approach I suggested then.

Apparently no-one ever taught you that words have meaning.

 

[simon field]

I

Wowser! I see we're not going for the "empathy" approach I suggested then.

Apparently no-one ever taught you that words have meaning.

Spot on! Words have meaning!

Now, can you try to imagine a scenario where words may mean something rather different to someone who isn't you?

 

[Cobby]

With regards to not suffering, it's bred as food, simple as to be honest... I couldn't give two hoots whether my burger suffers or not.

There is a pragmatic aspect to the animals = food argument, but a person saying "I don't care if they suffer" when the same outcome (i.e. animals = food) can be achieved without the suffering indicates a lack of empathy, which itself is a root cause of many of the world's problems.

That just shows how much of a distorted knowledge of Christianity you have. Neither of those groups are Christian groups but fringe elements who live by their own rules and twisted scripture interpretations.

This is referred to as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Who are *you* to say they aren't real Christians? There are literally thousands of different branches of Christianity, all believing slightly different things. There is no "correct" answer, just a collection of people gathering together according to a certain moral template, wherein they pick and choose which parts of their Holy story book is literal and which is metaphor.

 

[That Bates Girl]

I


Spot on! Words have meaning!

Now, can you try to imagine a scenario where words may mean something rather different to someone who isn't you?

Yes, that's the entire point I'm making.

 

[Excel Expert]

That just shows how much of a distorted knowledge of Christianity you have. Neither of those groups are Christian groups but fringe elements who live by their own rules and twisted scripture interpretations.

You missed the point I was making.

As in the Muslim faith there are those of a Christian belief that twist the core beliefs to suit their own political and power needs. Some have just arrived at some heavily bastardised version of the religion that does not reflect the true religion. You only have to look at the Westboro Baptist Church to see how easily people mutilate a religion. It does not mean that these are anyway remotely the beliefs of the main core of believers.

 

[Cobby]

As in the Muslim faith there are those of a Christian belief that twist the core beliefs to suit their own political and power needs. Some have just arrived at some heavily bastardised version of the religion that does not reflect the true religion.

The main point being that there is no "true" version of any religion. It's like clothing people put on - the different shade of the religion they choose matches their own outlook on life.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

In reality what folk are missing here is that there is the same amount of suffering when animals are slaughtered by either Muslim, Christian or Jewish ways of slaughtering the animal.

The animal to be fair is killed, has anyone here actually spoken with a cow that has been brought back to life and asked the question... Did it actually hurt? The simple answer to that is No, no one has and no one ever will do... to say that it's painless is contradictory to the actual way an animal is slaughtered for food.

Which is why, as I've said before... food is food, doesn't bother me whether it suffered or not... if it's on my plate, I'm going to eat it.

If it really affects folk that much then turn vegan because there's no way of us ever knowing in reality if any of our food produce has suffered or not.

 

[Excel Expert]

It is possible to ask someone who has been unconscious if they felt anything while they were out. Or a patient that was knocked for an operation if they felt the operation.

The animal is instantly stunned unconscious prior to the slaughter process. It is unconscious during the actual slaughter so I think it is fair to say an unconscious animal does not feel anything. With the Halal method that the media is trying its best to associate with supermarkets the animal is not unconscious and can feel everything including its life ebbing away over several minutes.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Dhabiha

This is the name for the halal method of slaughter, which requires that animals are killed with a swift incision to the throat from a razor sharp blade. The animal must never see another animal being slaughtered nor must it ever see the blade being sharpened. Animals must be checked prior to slaughter to ensure they are healthy and given clean water to drink, once they have drunk they are turned to face Mecca, the name of Allah is spoken and then the throat is cut and the blood drained from the carcass.

When carried out correctly the sudden drop in blood pressure to the brain renders the animal brain dead within seconds and many researchers have found Dhabiha to be less stressful and painful to the animal than modern western methods of slaughter. The intention behind all of this is to ensure that the meat is fresh and free of impurities, the animal is given proper respect and Allah is thanked for providing us with food.

It is possible to ask someone who has been unconscious if they felt anything while they were out. Or a patient that was knocked for an operation if they felt the operation.

So are you suggesting that a swift blow to the head that renders someone "unconscious" is painless?

Sorry, but I've been knocked out, whether or not something happened during me being unconscious or not doesn't deter the fact that the blow to the head did in fact hurt AND it did in fact hurt considerably for a couple of days afterwards. Touching the huge bubble that had formed on my head was also extremely tender.

With regards to an operation, you seriously cannot compare DEATH to feeling something during an operation - C'mon seriously...

I've had operations, sure I didn't feel anything, but then again I was plied with pain killers - however once I was off the operating table, couple of days down the line for me to say I felt nothing would be a complete and utter lie.

 

[Excel Expert]

The animal may feel that blow for a fraction of a second but after that nothing. It is not going to wake up and feel a bump on his head for a couple of days.

The alternative is a cut throat or artery and waiting to bleed to death. That causes the animal to suffer the pain for minutes rather than a fraction of a second. It causes the animal panic and undue stress as it loses its feelings and functions. None of which is needed.

Rendering people unconscious during their final moments in hospital is very common practice. It is proven to stop stress and pain (based on the lack of brain responses normally expected during pain).

If you were about to be put to death by having your throat slit or your heart stabbed would you prefer to be concious or unconscious for the process? Which do you think would be the most painful for you?

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

You can't possibly compare a human life with an animals that is reared for food... seriously Carl that is completely ludicrous.

Heart stabbed? who stabs the heart exactly please? I've not come across this act of slaughtering an animal...

With regards to the cutting of an artery and "bleeding" to death, you could really do with reading on what is cut and how long they're conscious for... because in reality it's not that long at all.

Either way, as I've said before... and I'll say it again... food is food... it's no issue to me, horse, cat, dog, cow, pig if it's on my plate I'm going to eat it. doesn't matter how it got there as long as it tastes good.

 

[Excel Expert]

Sure I can compare human life with an animals that is reared for food (in this sense). Animals (no matter what they are reared for) feel pain, stress and fear no different to that of a human beings

The slaughter people, the RSPCA and many scientist believe rendering the animal unconscious first is the most humane thing to do. You are the first person I have come across that thinks it is ok to allow an animal to suffer when we know more humane ways to kill them.

The standard way of killing large animals is to stick them - this involves inserting a sharp object in to the area of the heart and cutting the arteries/veins to and from the heart. It is only the Halal way to cut the arteries in the throat. Both methods basically then rely on bleeding to death.

Bleeding to death, particularly for a large animal is not quick. We are talking anything between seconds and minutes depending on the individual animal. Some will basically die of shock while waiting to die or fall unconscious quickly. Some will have a heart attack and their heart will stop - the heart stopping will not kill the animal but it will speed up the process.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

I can only conclude that you're replying without reading the above...

When carried out correctly the sudden drop in blood pressure to the brain renders the animal brain dead within seconds and many researchers have found Dhabiha to be less stressful and painful to the animal than modern western methods of slaughter.

TBH I thought the most standard way to slaughter an animal was to stun them. :|

So are you suggesting that if you where to find out that all slaughter houses made the animal suffer before it was put on your plate you would in fact turn Vegan or Vegetarian?

 

[MikeJ]

Are you really saying you don't care if animals die a long, slow painful death or a quick, painless death?

 

[Excel Expert]

Interesting quote you used there. It is repeated time and time again on various blogs with no connection back the "researchers" or the research carried out by them. The no 1 google result for that quote is the Halal Catering Company

A slightly more reliable source of study on the subject

Opponents of dhabīḥah ḥalāl, most notably some animal welfare groups, contend that this method of slaughter "causes severe suffering to animals" compared to when the animal is stunned before slaughter. In the United Kingdom, the government funded but independent advisory body Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that conventional dhabīḥah (along with kosher slaughter (sheḥitah)) without prior stunning be abolished. The FAWC chairwoman of the time, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, said, "This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."

No I would not eat the meat of an animal that I thought had suffered needlessly. Yes I pick free range chicken over battery hen chickens etc, and yes I would refuse to eat meat that had gone through the full Halal slaughter process. The current slaughter system works with organisations such as the RSPCA to ensure animals suffer as little as possible during their lives.

We as humans eat meat and I see no reason to give it up, I also see no reason to make an animal suffer (when it can be possibly prevented) just so I can have my dinner.

 

[simon field]

Hate to bring it up (again) Carl.

But what about fish? Do you abstain?

 

[Cobby]

The animal to be fair is killed, has anyone here actually spoken with a cow that has been brought back to life and asked the question... Did it actually hurt? The simple answer to that is No, no one has and no one ever will do...

There have been studies monitoring brain activity for pain response during the stunning which is why the RSPCA are okay with it; it's "humane" (i.e. not beyond the average human's level of empathy to allow suffering; showing compassion; being civilised). It's certainly quite shocking (no pun intended) to see it take place, but it's far better than the alternative of letting them struggle and panic in agony for minutes at a time.

You keep talking about how much you don't care if animals die an unnecessarily painful death, and it's interesting to see the kind of arguments put forth by people from that side of the debate, so thanks for your contribution.

 

[Excel Expert]

Simon no dont, because with present technology and systems there isnt a more humane option. If there was a more humane mass option for producing fish I would not eat a fish that had been simply dragged out of the sea and allowed to suffocate.

The key phrase is "needless suffering". There is no need to not stun an animal before it is killed, therefore not stunning first creates needless suffering. There is no practical way to stun several thousand fish at once and to keep them stunned long enough to be processed. So in order for us to eat fish it is unfortunately needed.

Basically I dont want any animal to suffer anything that can be avoided to get to my plate.

 

[simon field]

I asked out of genuine interest, because the plight of fish often seems to be ignored - even though they're all someone's brother, sister, daughter, friend.

Same with prawns. I often wonder (whilst tucking in), whether they knew each other when they lived free of human's wants.

I think many people see fish as somehow less of a creature, not particularly worthy of humane treatment.

But then, who cares what I think. I don't!

Yum yum.

 

[Excel Expert]

It was more than a fair question Simon. (I'm not a big fish fan though when it comes to food)

There is also some differences when it comes to river fishing. I personally dont think hooking a fish, dragging it out of the water by that hook, weighing it and throwing it back in is exactly humane either. Catch it and eat it fair enough. Catch it and cause it harm for "sport" seems wrong. There seems to be a lot of debate about how much of the hook the fish feels but I don't think it is exactly a stress free day for the fish.

 

[Excel Expert]

Just skipping back to the n-word conversation that sprung up. An extra random thought

A survey out today suggests that an incredible 33% of the public hold some sort of racist view. I thought that was an incredible figure but looking at the stats it has been fairly consistent for 20 years!. (I've not seen the questions in the survey or how it was carried out so I dont know how much trust to put in those numbers)

So how do we tell if someone using the n word is not one of the one in three using it with a certain amount of overtone? Is this another reason why non-black races shouldn't use it as it is impossible for any one to guess which side of that fence we are on.

 

[That Bates Girl]

Just skipping back to the n-word conversation that sprung up. An extra random thought

A survey out today suggests that an incredible 33% of the public hold some sort of racist view. I thought that was an incredible figure but looking at the stats it has been fairly consistent for 20 years!. (I've not seen the questions in the survey or how it was carried out so I dont know how much trust to put in those numbers)

So how do we tell if someone using the n word is not one of the one in three using it with a certain amount of overtone? Is this another reason why non-black races shouldn't use it as it is impossible for any one to guess which side of that fence we are on.

I can't think of a single good reason why someone who wasn't black would want to use the word, unless they were using it specifically to critique racism, or to be racist.

 

[simon field]

I'd have thought that the PC brigade would not want to admit being racist, so that 33% figure could well be on the low side.

 

[Excel Expert]

I cant work out if it is high or low (hard to tell without seeing the full details).

The reports kind of indicate that people were ask to rate themselves on a scale with one of the options being slightly racist. I would guess there were several other options including not racist at all to your complete racist.

What I have seen with all the recent UKIP discussions is that people tend to lean to thinking that wanting immigration caps is racist. As a result there is a large number of people that are worried about immigration numbers for non racist reasons but because of their belief that immigrations caps maybe racist they class themselves as slightly racist. This could be skewing the results.

However at the same time I also believe the same as you Simon.

It is an odd one to fathom out, but the worrying bit is that the figure has been so consistent over the past 20 years.

I dont know anyone I would class as racist in any shape or form, so this report would suggest 1 in 3 people I know is hiding the truth from me

 

[yasar365]

Meat is meat at the end of the day, once something is dead its finished.
This is the food chain and its set up pretty well. I don't recall seeing huge demonstrations for halal food in large outlets or people demanding it.. It is a simple ploy for large firms to earn more money. To be fair, its been going on for a while with Nandos, then KFC and many others branching out into it.. The typical spend on burger joint is £2-5 whereas a decent curry is £10-£20, if they can appeal to the curry lovers and get them to spend the £10-20 on their items why not. There is a niche in the market and the firms are taking advantage of it.

Everybody has choices in life. You can choose to eat or not to eat.

The winner are the firms involved.

Animal cruelty is over rated in this sense. Its hardly like these animals are living a free joyous life and then are randomly plucked from the farm yards and have their throats slit.

 

[Excel Expert]

There does not seem to be a price premium attached to it though. I also don't see any real push by these companies to promote it as premium. Personally I don't think they would get away with a premium because it is no more expensive to produce than any other piece of meat. As they cant demonstrate any extra expense during production charging a premium would probably bring all sorts of discrimination charges.

I don't think there was ever demonstrations or protests asking for Halal meat the whole process seems to have been a slow build up to where we are now. In discussions with several Muslim friends, finding Halal meat used to be difficult. It could only be found in local butchers and demand basically out stripped supply. (There was and still is a limit to how many animals could be butchered in the full Halal way) At the same time there was a growing concern about the slaughter methods. So there was a growing market demand for Halal meat and a demand to change the slaughter method.

At some point the Halal Food Authority, the RSPCA, the slaughter houses and the supermarkets put their heads together and came up with the Halal slaughter method we have today. This simply allowed the supermarkets and others to serve this market which they did with no fuss.

Price is probably the main reason we don't have good labelling on them. In some areas Halal meat will outsell non-Halal meat and in other areas it will be the opposite way around. As we live in a supply and demand world this might cause sizeable price fluctuations.