Religious slaughter without prior stunning is permitted under exemptions in many countries but is contested by welfare scientists who argue it causes unnecessary suffering compared to stunned slaughter.
Slaughter without pre-stunning is among the most contested animal welfare issues, involving religious freedom, cultural practice and animal suffering. The welfare science is relatively clear that the period between throat cutting and unconsciousness in unsupported animals involves pain and distress that pre-stunning prevents. However, many religious authorities accept forms of stunning that are compatible with their requirements, and the blanket framing of religious slaughter as uniformly high-welfare-risk is inaccurate. The most welfare-positive outcome — which many religious communities have adopted — involves stunning methods compatible with religious requirements.