B. Halal

Two shops in the study area advertise that their food is halal. On the other side of Marrickville Road from the ‘Classic Food Bar’ that sells cooked ‘Free to Roam’ chickens there is Chicken Fantasy, which advertises that their cooked chicken is halal.

Just as we saw in the case of free range certification, halal certification may be awarded by a number of different bodies. These are not associated with industry but rather with various Islamic organisations. Eighteen certifiers across Australia are listed by the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), according to whether they are recognised by particular export markets in Muslim countries.^[1135] Four of them are in New South Wales, including two widely recognised bodies, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and the Supreme Islamic Council of Halal Meat in Australia. It is not known how many other bodies may purport to certify halal products sold in the study area.

While these certifying bodies may compete in a market sense, offering their services to various producers, they must also compete for theolog­ical credibility. Bodies with a range of respected Islamic scholars gain wider acceptance than do more commercial organisations. More liberal Muslims may prefer certain authorities, while other sects may have their own preferences. The Economist (2013) quoted a restaurateur in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets saying he did not bother with certificates, but that ‘he knows and trusts his suppliers and his customers know and trust him’.^[1136]

As in ethical considerations, acceptance that a product is halal (like free range) requires some known and accepted standards, and trusted and consistent authority or authorities.

The research has not remarked any local conflict - political or religious issues - associated with halal food. Nationally there have, of course, been several egregious instances of populist and intolerant politicians denigrating halal food.^[1137] There are also areas where religious and other ethical requirements may come into conflict. It is of interest to this study of religious, ethical and scientific bases of regulation to note debates over whether the ethical demands for humane treatment of animals conflict with religious demands for halal slaughter.

This debate often centres on possible conflicts between an ethical demand that an animal be stunned before slaughter and a religious demand that the animal be alive until it is slaughtered correctly. In the Australian context, the live export of animals to Indonesia and the Middle East, for halal slaughter at their destination, adds another dimension to the debate.^[1138]

The animal welfare arguments are based on minimising animal suffer­ing. Stunning renders animals unconscious, to anaesthetise them so they do not feel pain, or possibly so they are not aware of their fate. The anaesthetic motivation needs to be tested against the methods used for stunning: whether they are less painful or traumatic than the method of slaughter. The pain of either should surely be minimised. The question of awareness is a difficult one in the case of animals which, while they obviously feel pain and may be stressed by certain methods of handling, may not have a conception of life, death or the future.

Animal Liberation (South Australia) has advocated halal slaughter within Australia as a humane alternative to live exports, which cause suffering and death to animals crowded into ships.

The answer is to increase the number of Halal slaughterhouses in Australia so that animals are handled and killed according to Australian standards... There are already Halal slaughterhouses in Australia with religious officials present. Stunning has been accepted as long as does not mark the carcass (electrical or non-penetrating captive bolt stunning). There is already a robust trade in chilled and frozen meat to both the Middle East and Indonesia.^[1139]

Other religious considerations concern the definition of stunning and death. Some Islamic scholars accept stunning as long as it is reversible: the animal should not be so damaged by the stunning that it cannot return to life and normal consciousness.

There is scope for detailed investigation into these matters, both from an ethological point of view and in regard to the physical impact (infliction of pain) of different methods of stunning or slaughter. Islamic scholars and thoughtful animal rights advocates could work with scien­tific, philosophical and empirical research on methods of slaughter to reach more rigorous and well-founded conclusions on questions of animal welfare and halal slaughter.

C.