Halal Food

[MadFlavour]

@Famine; UKIPandtheDailyMail. Soon that will be recognised as a single word.



There isn't ham in those, is there?

And do they really contain 220g of fat? That's nearly 5 big macs!

Nope, just Tuna. Italian Herbs and cheese is the bread. Toppings are all vegtables

 

[Leicht]

Nope, just Tuna. Italian Herbs and cheese is the bread. Toppings are all vegtables

Wait tuna has 220g of fat??? I

 

[MadFlavour]

Wait tuna has 220g of fat??? I

I said that?

 

[Leicht]

I said that?

Umm not really but now I notice you ignore the tuna bit sorry

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wait tuna has 220g of fat??? I

Ah, the figure I found was the footlong chicken, that has 220g of fat. The footlong tuna pepperjack has only 50g of fat, slightly more than a Big Mac. See @Imari's thread to decide if that's good or bad

EDIT: Can't find the 220g figure any way now. head, desk, head, desk...

 

[BobK]

That's okay, it's looking like maybe fats are good for you anyway. Or at least not as bad as previously thought.

 

[terminator363]

I searched "Halal Meat" and came across a video of some guy throwing baby pigs on the ground. Looks like I'm not sleeping tonight

 

[KSaiyu]

Good business sense. If government continues to pander to a religious minority (although how much longer this remains true is debatable) who's to stop businesses streamlining their production.

 

[DK]

I wonder, if lab-grown meat becomes more common, would it be halal? My (Catholic) aunt is a vegetarian, and she still wouldn't eat lab-grown meat.

 

[Blitz24]

I wonder, if lab-grown meat becomes more common, would it be halal? My (Catholic) aunt is a vegetarian, and she still wouldn't eat lab-grown meat.

Debatable. It may not even be classified as meat.

 

[kennylmao]

@kennylmao I thought Subway were only doing it in a number of stores? I might be wrong about that.

You are correct. I am guilty of skimming through. Well, that's reasonable I guess.

 

[MadFlavour]

Ah, the figure I found was the footlong chicken, that has 220g of fat. The footlong tuna pepperjack has only 50g of fat, slightly more than a Big Mac. See @Imari's thread to decide if that's good or bad

EDIT: Can't find the 220g figure any way now. head, desk, head, desk...

Actually a 6 inch Tuna sub only has 14g of fat. I had a foot long so that would be 28 today. 745kcal

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually a 6 inch Tuna sub only has 14g of fat. I had a foot long so that would be 28 today. 745kcal

EDIT: Corrected because I'd used the US figures for @MadFlavour's very British sandwich

I've used Subway's own figures here, the top line is for the 6" Tuna on 9-grain with the usual lettuce, tomato, cucumber, onion topping. I've subtracted the 6" 9-grain and added your 6" Parmesan-Oregano bread. I've then followed Subway's advice and doubled it to get the footlong value. I'd say a footlong is actually more than double because it isn't two round-ended 6" subs end-to-end, the "rounding" is filled in in the center. No matter, you still had 51 g of fat

Subway's figures are cleverly done when you look instore, it really is no different to eating in any other fast-food junk chain

Back on-topic, it seems that there's some confusion in the press about how the majority of halal meat (at least in the UK) is produced. There will always be cases (usually private idividuals or occasions) where a fully ritualistic halal killing is performed but that food isn't for consumption in the wider market. Most mass-culled halal meat is stunned in the same way as in a normal cull. The Mirror won't be able to understand that, obviously

 

[MadFlavour]

I've used Subway's own figures here and corrected the sandwich to include the bread you chose, I've then doubled it to get the footlong value. I'd say a footlong is more than double because it isn't two round-ended 6" subs end-to-end, the "rounding" is filled in in the center. No matter, you still had 51 g of fat

Subway's figures are cleverly done when you look instore, it really is no different to eating in any other fast-food junk chain

Back on-topic, it seems that there's some confusion in the press about how the majority of halal meat (at least in the UK) is produced. There will always be cases (usually private idividuals or occasions) where a fully ritualistic halal killing is performed but that food isn't for consumption in the wider market. Most mass-culled halal meat is stunned in the same way as in a normal cull. The Mirror won't be able to understand that, obviously

Strange, the figures on the UK website are different.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Strange, the figures on the UK website are different.

Shamone, graphic updated. You're right - I'd foolishly used the American figures. The US version shows 51g satfat, the UK shows 34.6 g overall fat. That's about 2/3 of a Big Mac, so getting better

 

[MadFlavour]

Shamone, graphic updated. You're right - I'd foolishly used the American figures. The US version shows 51g satfat, the UK shows 34.6 g overall fat. That's about 2/3 of a Big Mac, so getting better

Wonder why such a big difference though?

 

[Blitz24]

Wonder why such a big difference though?

Different rules regarding food products in the EU vs. the US.

 

[sumbrownkid]

This topic is making me hungry for meat ironically enough.

 

[LeMansAid]

The related issue that's staring me in the face while reading through this thread is live exports.

I've seen video footage of the "ethical" halal style slaughter process that I wish I could un-see. But that privilege is reserved for the ones that actually survive the journey. The stark reality is that millions of Australia's (just one of the many countries) animals must endure being crammed together on a ship for up to three weeks, with their own excrement generating suffocating ammonia, to then be killed in conditions that befit countries with no animal cruelty laws, all because of this religion. Millions of animals have died in transit.

Non-Islamic countries tend to happily accept imports of meat rather than animals. The offers to have the animals slaughtered in Australia in accordance with Islamic law, and by an applicable person were refused.

I copied this from a site protesting the practice:

In August 2012, an Australian ship carrying approximately 21,000 sheep was blocked from unloading in Bahrain after local authorities claimed that the animals had scabby mouth disease. The sheep had already been at sea for 33 days and were left on board for almost two weeks longer, suffering in temperatures of up to 38 degrees. Eventually the sheep were unloaded in Pakistan under a new ESCAS approved specifically for this shipment.

It was later reported that around 9,000 of the sheep had been killed by order of the Pakistani Government, which also suspected that the animals were diseased. A recording of their slaughter showed brutal treatment at the hands of untrained workers. “Like a giant mass of wool, bloodied and filthy, they lay in trenches – slit open, stabbed or clubbed to death, while many still wriggled with some life left in them, soon to be buried alive.”The Australian Government tried to intervene and stop the cull but, despite its efforts, all of the remaining 12,000 sheep were eventually killed.

The ethics of the actual slaughter might be up for debate (though I read that an average of 11 cuts to the throat are required). The ethics of the transit is not really up for debate though. But for the religion, the animals would suffer far less.

I boycott shops that advertise halal, and also make it known to them that I do.

 

[MadFlavour]

It's one swift cut to the juglar, not 11. What they say they saw are no different to farms on the UK. They take chickens that can't produce eggs no more and bash their head in the wall till it dies. Would you eat it?

 

[Liquid]

That's something I didn't know; that certain countries explicitly import animals rather than meat.

For what reason did the Islamic lands refuse to accept meat which had already been slaughtered according to halal instructions in the country of origin? I would imagine it is because they can't 'be sure' it was done correctly, but I'd be interested to know if there was another reason.

 

[LeMansAid]

It's one swift cut to the juglar, not 11. What they say they saw are no different to farms on the UK. They take chickens that can't produce eggs no more and bash their head in the wall till it dies. Would you eat it?

No, I don't eat meat.

I'm only reporting back what I read: that the average number of cuts required was eleven, with the maximum required reported to be thirty three. Do you have accounts that report that in the real world it only ever requires one?

The suggestion that other parties perform heinous acts has no bearing on the topic at hand.

That's something I didn't know; that certain countries explicitly import animals rather than meat.

For what reason did the Islamic lands refuse to accept meat which had already been slaughtered according to halal instructions in the country of origin? I would imagine it is because they can't 'be sure' it was done correctly, but I'd be interested to know if there was another reason.

Pretty much that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you have accounts that report that in the real world it only ever requires one?

I've seen it done plenty of times with a single cut, although that's generally by a chef or hired cook. I can't think of it ever taking more then 3 or 4, and you're very aware of it being done. Bear in mind that the carcass is treated as a respected, valuable item. Noone wants a butcher who takes 33 cuts to do the job

In practical terms in a modern abbatoir the only difference in the production of halal is that the spinal cord isn't severed. Considering that after bovine spongiform encephalophysis the industry started to realise the danger caused by spinal material and legislated heavily to prevent it accidentally entering the food chain... it seems like Isla'am had good food rules to start with.

There are all kinds of traditions and religions whose slaughter rituals are inhumane (and probably pretty ghastly) when you go old-school, but remember that 99% of people* live in the real, modern world. Unlike the British red-tops.

I'd also add that there's a strong anti-Isla'am surge in the pro-government press in the UK at the moment as the head of the Church of England's Prime Minister has just made some comments about Britain being a "Christian Country". This has started a lot of debate as the UK, it seems, does consider itself Christian despite having very few active worshippers.

More British people put "Jedi" on the census as their religion than there are practicing Christians in Britain

 

[LeMansAid]

In practical terms in a modern abbatoir the only difference in the production of halal is that the spinal cord isn't severed.

Except that it's not. So, accept that it's not.

"Production" cannot be restricted to the confines of the abattoir, so the picture needs to be extended to include the many tiers involved. Even if the one cut story holds up in reality, the religion, and the mistrust within the religion is the sole reason for the unnecessary wasteful deaths of millions of animals, and the cruel treatment of many more millions of animals.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In practical terms in a modern abbatoir the only difference in the production of halal is that the spinal cord isn't severed.

Except that it's not. So, accept that it's not.

Show me a source, I completely disagree. A halal abbatoir (not a backstreet butcher, an actual proper factory) looks like any other. The difference is who presses the button and whether or not a prayer is said. Here's one example of some guidelines, you'll find plenty more.

"Production" probably can be confined to the abbatoir, unless you're talking about meat produced privately for private consumption. Then there's no policing, but nor is there if you or I choose to raise animals and slaughter them ourselves.

 

[LeMansAid]

The differences in slaughter may be negligible. The realities of production differences are most certainly not.

Production includes everything that goes in to realising the end product. Not all, but plenty of halal meat requires suffering that would otherwise not exist. I was very clear in my first post in this thread that I was focusing on live exports in particular.

 

[C-ZETA]

We're all supposed to think that this is all barbaric, cruel, etc. But are any of the other methods really better? I mean in other restaurants they explicitly say "Chicken, flattened with the brick" for instance. I mean, there, do you really have to know how it died? None of the methods flat out stating this seem lovely.

Or practical.

It's difficult to kill chickens humanely. I mean if you look realistically at the method of just picking it up, dropping it in a pot - you'll think that's simple, then realise it's not so.

Simpler methods either don't leave enough of it left, or cost too much.

Halal methods methods might well be the least flawed therefore, regardless of ethics.

Mind you, I do think Subway and Pizza Express should still give the choice. But as long as it's tasty, I'm fine with it. That's their goal, anyway.

 

[ECGadget]

No, I don't eat meat.

Do you have accounts that report that in the real world it only ever requires one?

As far as I know, it HAS to be one cut, otherwise it is not considered halal. One swift cut only...


oh, and aside from the actual slaughter, the way the animals are treated prior to this (regardless of the way of slaughter) I think is a whole different topic. Personally, if I was told that a certain butchers or takeaway had meat from animals that were cooped up in a small room for days before slaughter, I would never shop there again.

 

[kennylmao]

It's difficult to kill chickens humanely.

Snap the neck? Things die instantly if you snap the neck. Someone should invent a chicken neck snapping machine.

 

[Liquid]

It's difficult to kill chickens humanely.

FTFY