Animal welfare at slaughter: perceptions and knowledge across cultures

Authors: SINCLAIR, MICHELLE - Harvard University; HOTZEL, MARIA - Federal University - Brazil; LEE, NATASHA - Asia Animal Happiness Consultancy, Malaysia; DE LUNA, MARIA - University Of The Philippines; SHARMA, ARVIND - Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University; IDRIS, MUSADIQ - Islamia University Of Bahawalpur; ISLAM, MUHAMMAD - Bangladesh Agricultural University; IYASERE, OLUWASEUN - Federal University Of Agriculture, Abeokuta; NAVARRO, GRIESEL - Temuco Catholic University; AHMED, ABDELKAREEM - University Of Nyala; BURNS, GEORGETTE - Griffiths University; CURRY, MICHAEL - University Of New England; Marchant, Jeremy

Submitted to: Frontiers in Animal Science
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 4/17/2023
Publication Date: 5/12/2023
Citation: Sinclair, M., Hotzel, M.J., Lee, N., De Luna, M.C., Sharma, A., Idris, M., Islam, M.A., Iyasere, O., Navarro, G., Ahmed, A., Burns, G.L., Curry, M., Marchant, J.N. 2023. Animal welfare at slaughter: perceptions and knowledge across cultures. Frontiers in Animal Science. 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1141789.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1141789

Interpretive Summary: Most people around the world eat meat and billions of animals are slaughtered each year to meet that demand. For many, eating meat is a biocultural activity, steeped in tradition and formative in cuisines and identity. Eating meat, however, comes with a myriad of ethical and practical considerations. In tandem with animal rights and environmental sustainability concerns surrounding the impact of animal slaughter for meat, animal welfare science has identified numerous ways animals suffer on an individual level during various methods of slaughter. Governments, regulatory bodies and meat industries have an obligation to address evolving consumer expectations in relation to the welfare of animals. What these expectations are, however, are relatively unknown in most of the world. Practices of slaughter differ around the world, and the degree to which culture and regional interpretations of religion impact perceptions of animal welfare and suffering at slaughter is also relatively unknown. We begin to address some of these gaps by conducting a survey of general public knowledge and attitudes around animal welfare at slaughter and religious slaughter across culturally and religiously diverse countries in local languages; Australia (English), Bangladesh (Bengali), Brazil (Portuguese), Chile (Spanish), China (Traditional Chinese/Mandarin), India (Hindi and English), Malaysia (Bahasa Malay, Chinese and English), Nigeria (English), Pakistan (Urdu), Philippines (English), Sudan (Arabic) and Thailand (Thai), United Kingdom (English), and United States (English). In many of these areas, this constitutes the first insight of the general public regarding animal welfare at slaughter. Our findings demonstrate that in highly developed countries where exposure to slaughter is low, comfort witnessing slaughter and knowledge about slaughter is also low. Cultural and religious differences exist by country, however in all countries (except Bangladesh) the majority of participants stated that it mattered to them that animals do not suffer during slaughter, and in most countries participants would prefer animals be made unconscious before they are slaughtered (pre-slaughter stunning); including in countries where this practice is not currently widespread. In the case of the USA, religious slaughter was preferred by a notable proportion of participants who did not identify as Muslim or Jewish, suggesting that in some cases ‘religious’ is viewed as ‘better’. These findings suggest that concern for the reduction of animal suffering during slaughter is a universal human tendency, rather than a cultural development, while knowledge of how best to achieve this (i.e., to stun or not to stun) may be cultural and tied to local interpretations of religious slaughter requirements. The findings of this study serve as an indication for meat industries and governments that continual review and improvement of animal welfare processes at slaughter are required to continue to meet general public sentiment.

Technical Abstract: Most people around the world eat meat and billions of animals are slaughtered each year to meet that demand. For many, eating meat is a biocultural activity, steeped in tradition and formative in cuisines and identity. Eating meat, however, comes with a myriad of ethical and practical considerations. In tandem with animal rights and environmental sustainability concerns surrounding the impact of animal slaughter for meat, animal welfare science has identified numerous ways animals suffer on an individual level during various methods of slaughter. Governments, regulatory bodies and meat industries have an obligation to address evolving consumer expectations in relation to the welfare of animals. What these expectations are, however, are relatively unknown in most of the world. Practices of slaughter differ around the world, and the degree to which culture and regional interpretations of religion impact perceptions of animal welfare and suffering at slaughter is also relatively unknown. We begin to address some of these gaps by conducting a survey of general public knowledge and attitudes around animal welfare at slaughter and religious slaughter across culturally and religiously diverse countries in local languages; Australia (English), Bangladesh (Bengali), Brazil (Portuguese), Chile (Spanish), China (Traditional Chinese/Mandarin), India (Hindi and English), Malaysia (Bahasa Malay, Chinese and English), Nigeria (English), Pakistan (Urdu), Philippines (English), Sudan (Arabic) and Thailand (Thai), United Kingdom (English), and United States (English). In many of these areas, this constitutes the first insight of the general public regarding animal welfare at slaughter. Our findings demonstrate that in highly developed countries where exposure to slaughter is low, comfort witnessing slaughter and knowledge about slaughter is also low. Cultural and religious differences exist by country, however in all countries (except Bangladesh) the majority of participants stated that it mattered to them that animals do not suffer during slaughter, and in most countries participants would prefer animals be made unconscious before they are slaughtered (pre-slaughter stunning); including in countries where this practice is not currently widespread. In the case of the USA, religious slaughter was preferred by a notable proportion of participants who did not identify as Muslim or Jewish, suggesting that in some cases ‘religious’ is viewed as ‘better’. These findings suggest that concern for the reduction of animal suffering during slaughter is a universal human tendency, rather than a cultural development, while knowledge of how best to achieve this (i.e., to stun or not to stun) may be cultural and tied to local interpretations of religious slaughter requirements. The findings of this study serve as an indication for meat industries and governments that continual review and improvement of animal welfare processes at slaughter are required to continue to meet general public sentiment.