Australia recently lifted its month-long suspension on live-cattle exports to Indonesia, but the debate about animal welfare in religious slaughter still rages on

The recent furore over the suspension of live exports of cattle to Indonesia by Australia has stirred up a recurring debate in discussions about the halal meat industry.

Animal welfare groups have been using the Four Corners exposé, shown initially on Australian TV. It depicts the abuse of animals in selected abattoirs in Indonesia, and prompted the government of Australia to suspend live shipments to Indonesia as a platform to attack un-stunned slaughter.

Halal, and its cousin kosher, are often pitted at the opposite end of the spectrum from animal welfare. The points of view aired in the media tend to be very polarised: animal welfare activists insisting on mandatory stunning, versus conservative Muslims proclaiming stunning to be haram (forbidden).

Stunning is not a panacea that will solve the animal welfare issues associated with slaughter. It is akin to saying that banning motorcycles would solve global warming. There are many other animal welfare issues along the live animal supply chain that need to be addressed. Abuse and mishandling can occur on the farm, in holding yards, races, chutes and on the loading ramps – all of which occur away from the slaughter box or the area where stunning and slaughter would be performed.

Stunning does not make any of the other animal welfare problems go away. In some cases, the need for stunning may well add further pain. Birds have to be shackled onto metal clamps without any padding for their feet because of the contact required for effective electrical stunning. Having their head plunged in a water bath is already tortuous enough without having an electric current pass through their body.

Similarly, the absence of stunning does not mean that a proper halal slaughter is taking place. I have visited many abattoirs where the Muslim owner proudly proclaims to perform zabh (halal slaughter) the 'right way', without stunning, only for me to be appalled by the way the animals are handled prior to slaughter (dragging by one leg, shackling and hoisting of large ruminants).

The Shariah (Islamic law) is very clear on Islam's position when it comes to animal welfare. There are numerous references in the Quran and in the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) which prescribed proper treatment of animals, centuries before similar 'Western' laws were enacted. The animal has to be fed well, according to their natural physiology, and by-products from the same species are not allowed, unlike the case with some industrially produced feeds. Animals must be put at ease and they must not see the slaughterman sharpening his knife, nor witness another animal being slaughtered.

This process allows animals to arrive at the slaughter area calm and properly restrained so as to not require stunning. As derived from the sayings of the Prophet, 'when you slaughter, slaughter well...'.

So how do we reconcile the differences between the Muslim and Jewish communities, and animal welfare groups? We need to sit down and talk. Firstly, the issue of stunning should be taken off the agenda, to be re-visited later, and we should discuss everything else that is important for good animal welfare, such as stock density, feed formulation, mustering techniques, transportation systems, training of animal handlers and slaughtermen, design of equipment including slaughter equipment and suitable restraint methods to keep the animal calm and physically still. We may find that we have a lot more in common and can significantly improve animal welfare by working together, which is certainly the Muslim and Jewish goal, and we certainly hope that it is the goal of the animal welfare community.