Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-05-Speech-2-418"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090505.28.2-418"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-05-23--2009-07-13)3,3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, in this debate I think the issue of animal welfare has been narrowed down too much to the question of whether or not we should use stunning. It is not that I am against stunning, it is just that we must realise that stunning was originally introduced, not out of concern for animal welfare, but for economic reasons, to be able to slaughter animals in factory farming, which involves mass killing in slaughterhouses, without affecting and lessening the quality of the meat through the anxiety caused by slaughter.
Thus with religious slaughter it is about the high art of slaughtering without the animals experiencing additional suffering, and with the issue of stunning in slaughterhouses, it is not only about whether or not stunning should be used, but also about the handling of animals during transportation and during the waiting time in the slaughterhouses. I agree with Mr Parish’s point that religious slaughter should be labelled accordingly, so that consumers know what they are buying and what they are supporting."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples