Non-stun animal slaughter ban petition prompts MP clash

MPs have clashed over a public petition calling for a ban on the non-stun slaughter of animals, reigniting longstanding discussions around animal welfare and religious freedom.

The Westminster Hall debate on Monday 9 June was triggered by an online e-petition signed by over 109,000 people, which described non-stun slaughter as “barbaric” and out of step with “modern-day values”.

The petition argues that animals should always be stunned before slaughter to avoid unnecessary suffering.

See also: Halal lamb: ‘A market farmers can no longer ignore’

Several EU countries, including France, Denmark, and Sweden, have banned non-stun slaughter, citing animal welfare concerns despite objections from religious communities.

Liberal Democrat MP Jamie Stone opened the debate, quoting figures from the RSPCA that show 30.1m animals were slaughtered without stunning in 2024, up from 25.4m in 2022.

Of these, 27m were for halal markets and 3m for kosher.

RSPCA position

The RSPCA argues that non-stun slaughter causes significant pain before animals lose consciousness – sometimes lasting up to two minutes in cattle.

Islamic and Jewish dietary laws require animals to be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter.

While the charity estimates that about 88% of animals slaughtered for halal meat in the UK are pre-stunned, kosher slaughter involves no stunning.

During the debate, Mr Stone voiced support for enhanced welfare standards, but acknowledged that halal and kosher slaughter are rooted in religious doctrine.

“We must balance animal welfare with respect for religious freedom,” he said.

Former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, now an independent, strongly criticised the current exemptions for religious slaughter, describing them as “state-endorsed butchery”.

He said that millions of Britons unknowingly eat halal meat due to inadequate labelling, and urged a ban on both halal and kosher practices.

Labelling transparency

Several MPs urged the introduction of mandatory method of slaughter labelling on halal and kosher meat products to give consumers greater transparency to make better informed decisions.

However, Mr Lowe’s comments sparked strong reactions. Labour MP David Pinto-Duschinsky, who is Jewish, warned that a ban or restrictions on halal or kosher meat would undermine religious liberty.

“It is an affront to the principles of religious liberty upon which this country is so proudly built,” he said, adding that many industrial stunning methods are also distressing and not necessarily more humane.

Muslim MPs, including Yasmin Qureshi, Labour MP for Bolton South and Walkden, and independent MP Iqbal Mohamed, expressed concern that the debate disproportionately targets Muslim communities.

“Non-stun slaughter accounts for just 2.9% of UK meat production, yet it is repeatedly singled out,” Ms Qureshi noted, accusing some petition supporters of using animal welfare as a pretext for prejudice.

Mr Mohamed described the debate’s framing as “deeply concerning”, suggesting it masked xenophobic undertones.

“This isn’t simply ‘stun good, not-stun bad’ – it’s more complex and should focus on well-monitored practice,” he said.

“Assuming that there is only one ethical way to slaughter an animal is not science; it is imposition, and it does not reflect the values of a pluralistic society.”

Labour MP Josh Newbury encouraged the government to consider a British Veterinary Association idea on introducing a non-stun permit system “to ensure that the number of animals slaughtered without prior stunning does not exceed demand”.

Government stance

Responding to the petition, the UK government said it “encourages the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter”.

But it also “respects the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs”.