When done properly, religious slaughter is as good as any other  Much of the research which suggests that religious slaughter causes pain is flawed. To show that the method is necessarily painful, you would have to watch a trained person with perfect equipment. However, many studies into slaughter have observed religious slaughter done in a way which doesn’t meet the religious requirements, and so doesn’t tell us anything about the real world. For example, one study of shechita done in New Zealand used a knife which was half the length required by Jewish law, making it more likely to tear the wound and cause pain. [1] These are not trivial details – they materially affect the humaneness of the process.  As well as this, campaigners often conflate different types of slaughter in ways that are not scientifically accurate. Different animals – horses, cattle, sheep, poultry, rabbits etc. – and even different breeds of animals react differently to both the slaughter and the stunning. Before we can assess the applicability of a study we need to know what kind of animal was being used, the length and sharpness of the knife, the precise location of the cut and other details.  The available evidence only shows the unsurprising result that religious slaughter causes pain if done badly, just like any other kind of slaughter. It is sensible to argue for better regulation, but a ban is not supportable.  [1] Regenstein, Joe M., ‘Expert Opinion on Considerations When Evaluating All Types of Slaughter:  Mechanical, Electrical, Gas and Religious Slaughter’, Cornell University, 23 May 2011,