By: Alain Peretti,Doctor of veterinary medicine.
Translated by Bear from the original article in French in Novopress:
We always evoke the problems in the matter of suffering of the animal and the financial tax of Islam for the consumers. These problems are of course, real.
There is another that concerns us all, and has the merit to be evoked. An essential question.
The sanitary aspect, the security aspect, in fact, let’s remember that in halal slaughter, the animal is turned towards Mecca, bled without being stunned, a very large incision from the throat to the vertebrae sectioning all organs from the jugular and the carotid but also the trachea and the esophagus. T
This practice brings on anato-physiological consequences. These are as follows:
1. A regurgitation of the contents of the stomach through the esophagus which is anatomically beside the trachea
2. The animal continues to breath very hard from the agony that can last a quarter of an hour. Let’s remember that it inhales fecal matter, rich in germs of all sorts.
3. This matter that was inhaled all the way to the pulmonary alveoli distributes the germs in the blood much more easily because the membrane there is very thin and the circulation, let’s remember, is always working during this period of agony and even accelerated by the stress at the level of essential organs.
4. Enormous risk of contamination in the depth of the meat is consequently there.
5. We observe also from the intense stress, two physiological phenomenon which conjugate the fall of all immune systems. And the concentration of blood in the essential organs, you can say that the animal retains its blood.
This is a natural process of survival that brings on also a bleeding that is not as good. This is opposing the allegations of people doing this practice. There is in fact, a greater production of toxins.
6. The longer the agony finally brings on violent convulsions accompanied by defecation and urine, all of it splashing the whole slaughtering area.
We clearly see the consequences for the nutritional well being of the consumers. It is true that the European rules, CEE853-2004 in it’s annex chapter 4 titled, ‘hygiene of the slaughterhouse’ paragraph 7 line A says:-
“The trachea and the esophagus must remain intact during the bleeding (with a derogation for ritual slaughtering) the problem is according to recent estimates apron. 50% of the meat consumed is now halal.
Because even if Muslims are still minorities and do not consume certain pieces, we cannot leave the rest of the carcass. The industry finds it simpler and more profitable to have one line of slaughter so an entire beast will be consumed out of the halal market. They are nevertheless strangled according to this Oriental ritual.
We infringe the sacred idea of the precautionary principle to respect an exotic practice that is irrational, unsustainable on all plains.
Based on a superstition from the middle-ages that is observed. In these conditions, the actual derogation’s to the European rules permitting ritual slaughter, are they acceptable?
The multiplication of cases of toxic infections was predictable… and will touch mostly non-Muslims that are not conscious of the risks that are not controlled and of the culinary habits that makes consumers eat meat that is much more raw. (than Muslims eat meat)