MP pushes for labels on meat from non-stun slaughter

Meat from animals slaughtered without stunning should be clearly labelled, a Conservative MP has said, as she pushes for new rules aimed at improving consumer transparency.

Esther McVey, Conservative MP for Tatton, introduced the proposal in parliament through a Ten Minute Rule Bill that would require all meat from non-stun slaughter to be clearly labelled.

She pointed to a 2021 Defra consultation in which nearly 97% of respondents to one question backed mandatory labelling showing the method of slaughter.

Ten Minute Rule Bills rarely become law and are usually used by MPs to raise awareness of an issue or force debate in the Commons.

Under UK animal welfare laws, animals must generally be stunned before slaughter to reduce pain and suffering. But religious exemptions allow slaughter without stunning for kosher meat and for some halal meat.

Religious groups argue those exemptions are necessary so Jewish and Muslim communities can follow their dietary laws.

All kosher meat produced in the UK comes from non-stun slaughter. While stunned halal meat is widely accepted by many Muslims, a significant proportion of halal slaughter still takes place without stunning.

Opening the debate, Ms McVey said slaughter without stunning causes animals “severe pain” and argued that shoppers who want to avoid such products should be able to identify them easily.

She said some religious consumers also want clarity over whether meat is halal or kosher, as some object to meat produced under another faith’s practices. In her view, “clear labelling is essential to make an informed choice”.

Ms McVey argued that exemptions designed to serve Jewish and Muslim consumers are now being used more broadly than intended.

She said there is a substantial oversupply of meat from religious slaughter and claimed much of it enters the wider market or is exported.

The MP also suggested some slaughterhouses may choose non-stun slaughter because it is cheaper, rather than because of genuine religious demand. She said that was “not what was intended by the legislation” and argued the system had created a “two tier system” for slaughterhouses.

She also used the debate to criticise the government’s animal welfare strategy, published in January, saying it failed to mention either non-stun slaughter or labelling.

According to Ms McVey, ministers missed a “clear opportunity” to address a contentious issue that sits at the intersection of animal welfare and consumer choice.

Despite Britain’s reputation as a “world leader” in animal welfare, she argued the continued use of non-stun slaughter means the country “can no longer make such a claim”.

In an article published the previous day, Ms McVey also referred to research from the National Secular Society which said some UK supermarkets and schools had supplied unlabelled meat from halal or kosher slaughter.

No speech was made against the bill when it was introduced.

The National Secular Society, which wants religious exemptions removed from animal welfare laws, briefed MPs ahead of the bill and welcomed the move.

Its head of campaigns, Megan Manson, said the proposal gave parliament a chance to revisit what she described as years of inaction.

“Despite this slaughter method causing avoidable pain to animals, and despite the clear lack of consumer choice, the animal welfare strategy omitted non-stun slaughter and labelling completely,” she said.

Ms Manson warned that “if the status quo continues, animals will continue to suffer unnecessarily” and said consumers would remain unable to make choices that reflect their ethical views.

“While non-stun slaughter remains legal, mandatory labelling for this method must be introduced,” she added.

The issue remains highly contested in the UK, with arguments over animal welfare, religious freedom and consumer transparency continuing to pull in different directions.