Religious slaughter without pre-stunning remains a contested welfare issue, with scientific evidence consistently showing pre-stunning reduces suffering while religious communities maintain the validity of traditional methods.
The scientific evidence on non-stunned slaughter is clear: pre-stunning significantly reduces the time to insensibility and the associated pain and distress. The AHAW Scientific Panel of EFSA has consistently concluded that stunning before slaughter improves animal welfare. The policy question is more complex: how to balance scientific evidence about animal suffering with religious freedoms and cultural practices that have deep historical roots. Some Islamic and Jewish authorities accept reversible pre-stunning methods (where the animal would survive if not subsequently slaughtered), which may offer a welfare-improving compromise. Mandatory method-of-slaughter labelling would enable consumers to make informed choices and create market incentives for higher welfare slaughter practices.