As the Greek philosopher Nikos Kazantzakis famously said, "Since we cannot change reality, let us change the eyes which see reality." It is with that approach that the British Veterinary Association (BVA) looked at the recent European Commission study into food labelling.
The long awaited study was finally published in May, almost six months after it was originally planned. Its conclusions were clear -there is no appetite for food labelling. The public don't want to pay for it and only two per cent of respondents mentioned production method as possible criteria for buying meat, and half of those wanted to ensure their food was fit for their religious purposes.
So you can imagine my surprise when the BVA decided to ignore the entire study and focus on one line that stated that, when pushed on the subject, 72 per cent of consumers would prefer some form of labelling. Especially as, later, the report concludes there is no understanding of the slaughter process and that consumers are not willing to pay for any extra information.
Having spent the past 30 years in public relations, I can only sit back and applaud the BVA analysis. It is part of my profession to take the useful line and leave the rest.
We've all seen the film poster that reads ''Incredible - the Daily Mail''. The fact that the reporter wrote that it was incredible that the film was ever commissioned is neither here nor there.
Jewish law requires that animals be treated with kindness
But the irony of being disingenuous and misleading to the public while pushing for more transparency is phenomenal. The BVA does not need to act as a censor for the general public.
When I talk to the rabbinical leadership within our community, they are focused and driven to improve animal welfare. Jewish law requires that animals be treated with kindness, consideration and respect. The Torah provides systematic legislation prohibiting cruelty to animals and mandating their humane treatment. These laws are binding today.
The sad fact of the matter is that the BVA's fixation with religious slaughter has meant that we are missing an opportunity for a proper and open discussion about consumer information and the slaughter process.
What do consumers really want to know about their meat? We know that price is a big factor. Even following the horsemeat scandal, consumers have told the European Commission they are not interested in paying to know where the meat is from, let alone how it was produced.
There are important best-practice discussions around the slaughter process, which we could all be having together in the interest of animal welfare. Transport to the slaughterhouse, animal welfare breaches and CCTV in abattoirs are just three areas where we could co-operate to make things better across the board.
We understand the importance of comprehensive labelling but this study showed that consumers do not understand the slaughter process.
If there is to be labelling, it needs to be comprehensive, non-pejorative and non-discriminatory, method-of-slaughter labelling. Giving the consumer proper information on whether the animal has been mechanically stunned prior to slaughter, asphyxiated by gas, electrocuted by tongs or water or shot with a captive bolt gun. Any label should also state the many times that these methods go wrong.
Perhaps this style of labelling would mean that the fallacy that stunning methods are good and religious methods are bad would begin to fall away.
But if the reality is that consumers don't want labelling, we must all, including the BVA, focus on best practice. We do not need to flog a dead horse if we can improve the lives of hundreds of animals with a few simple measures.
At Shechita UK we are in constant contact with the European Commission to understand what the next steps for the study are and what recommendations they intend to make. We will continue to work with them in the interest of animal welfare. I hope that the BVA and others will follow our lead.
