A Storm in a Soup Can?

Cross-posted over at the Corner:

TPM Muckraker has a rising-tide-of-intolerance type story over on its site. The topic? Soup.

Earlier this year, Campbell Canada introduced a line of halal-certified soups. The 15 soups comply with Islamic dietary regulations which, much like kosher regulations, prohibit certain foods and define the right way to slaughter animals. The line, which includes low fat cream of broccoli and vegetarian vegetable, was certified by the Islamic Society of North America, which has been certifying halal foods since 1988. To some people, that’s just more evidence that Sharia is coming to North America — this time, via the grocery store.

“M-m-good for the Islamists. Not so yummy for the rest of us,” reads the blog of Scaramouche, which broke the news Tuesday, some eight months after Campbell’s launched the line.
Robert Spencer, who writes Jihadwatch.org and has been saying for years that ISNA is tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood,* quickly echoed the alarm.

“So why is Campbell’s Soup rushing to do its bidding?” Spencer wrote on Tuesday. “’M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good?’”

If the problem here is ISNA (and for some it seems to be), that’s something worth discussing, but Campbell’s should not be attacked on “halal” grounds alone. The company’s decision to offer a line of halal soups is, in principle, shrewd niche marketing and no bad thing (in its own small way it may even help integration along). It ought to be as uncontroversial as, say, selling kosher products or vegan snacks. Incidentally, Campbell’s halal soups are vegetable soups, but generally not described as vegetarian (I suspect the mysterious “fat” that features in the ingredients of most of them is to blame), but the animal rights discussion that revolves round halal food is a separate one.

If you are looking for a more genuine halal controversy, cross the Atlantic to Blighty, where there’s been a row over supermarkets and other distributors selling halal meat without informing their customers:

Britain’s biggest supermarket chains are selling halal lamb and chicken without telling unsuspecting shoppers.Those stocking meat slaughtered according to Islamic law include Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Somerfield and the Co-op. And a Mail on Sunday investigation has found that fast-food chains including Domino’s Pizza, Pizza Hut, KFC, ­Nando’s and Subway are also using halal meat without ­telling customers. But the UK’s second-biggest supermarket, Asda, has refused to confirm or deny whether it sells halal meat. The Mail on Sunday contacted Asda on Tuesday, but by yesterday it had failed to answer any of our questions.

Initially, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and Tesco were reluctant to admit they sold halal meat. But later they confessed to selling Islamically slaughtered lamb. Tesco also admitted selling some halal chicken without labelling it as such. Most lamb imported from New Zealand by British supermarkets has been slaughtered according to Muslim law, but this is not mentioned on packaging. Some lamb from British abattoirs is also halal.

Last night, Agriculture Minister Jim Paice said: ‘People should know what they’re buying in the shops or when they’re eating out and I will be discussing with the food industry the role labelling can play in giving consumers a choice.’

Mr. Paice’s view seems reasonable, but read the whole (slightly overwrought) thing, and decide for yourself.

This entry was posted in culture and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to A Storm in a Soup Can?

  1. John says:

    I’m no halal expert, but I’m not sure I need to be told if food is halal since I’m not a Muslim. If I’ve used a certain brand of salt for the past 10 years, and then find out that it’s kosher, that won’t make me any more or less likely to keep using it, any more than I would be more or less likely to decorate a living room a certain way if it were feng shui. If there is something I’m missing (is halal food less safe?), that might make a difference.

  2. Roger says:

    I eat halal food all the time at a local Muslim-owned restaurant. I need no reason other than that I think that the food is good. Good business decision by Campbell’s to market to a niche community, and they’re getting some free publicity for it.

  3. Bob Smith says:

    “If there is something I’m missing (is halal food less safe?), that might make a difference.”

    The issue isn’t really safety, it’s how the animals are slaughtered. Western standards generally require animals to be unconscious. Halal specifically requires the animal to be conscious when its carotid arteries are cut, and that the slaughterer must wait for the animal to die by exsanguination. Thus halal is unspeakably cruel by Western standards. Why should there be one law for us and another for Muslims?

  4. Agreed, John. The idea that a retail outlet “failed to inform” the consumer that the meat was slaughtered in a specific manner and happened to have been prayed over, is pretty absurd.

    Its no less anti-intellectual and pure fearmongery than the fracas over irradiated meat, which of course sends people into hysterics because of the word “radiation”, probably the same people who then march outside for a tan, thinking that SPF factors have something to do with preventing skin cancer (hint, folks: UVA A and UVA B are different wavelengths…)

    Ultimately its just more muslim cooties. aieeeee! you might catch teh cooties too if we sneak some halal in your soup!

    And thus the Grand Jihad unfolds. bwahaha

  5. Polichinello says:

    It’s not really a large controversy, but is annoying seen more allowances made for those people, people who make no allowance for others.

  6. Polichinello says:

    And thus the Grand Jihad unfolds. bwahaha

    Let’s see if Molly Norris finds humor in your joke.

  7. Egad says:

    Just as a data point, the poultry section in my local supermarket (H.E.B. — look it up) here in San Antonio in the great, red and exceedingly Christian state of Texas has carried halal chicken for a long time. No-one seems to have gotten hysterical over it, at least not yet.

  8. David Hume says:

    Let’s see if Molly Norris finds humor in your joke.

    and it’s molly norris we should be talking about. the rest is triviality.

  9. Abu Noor Al-Irlandee says:

    Polichinello,

    “those people” really? Who are those people? Muslims? All Muslims make no allowance for others? This is just not true? People who are violent extremists trying to kill you are probably not the ones looking for halal Campbell’s soup.

    Thanks for lending further evidence to Aziz’s contention that “concerns” over this issue is nothing but fearmongery and irrational prejudice.

  10. Polichinello says:

    Exactly, DH.

  11. Stephen Moore says:

    Meh. Much ado about nothing really. In all the years that I’ve eaten meat, I’ve hardly given a thought to how it is slaughtered. I kinda just presume that it is humane, as required by law.

    The only issue here is one of animal welfare. Is the animal stunned (non-halal, non-kosher) or is it not or only minimally (halal, kosher)? Make a decision based on that. For non-adherents to a particular religion, that’s really the only reason to label a food halal or kosher. Personally, I don’t care if food is halal, kosher, or not.

    And why do Christians care if a Muslim prayer is said at the time of slaughter. Islam is, after all, a false religion, so the prayer will mean nothing and have no power. If anything, all it demonstrates is the fragility of the faith of those complaining.

  12. Richard T says:

    The Mail is a vicious and unreliable tabloid with a history of generalising from very small particulars when it comes to rabble rousing about ethnic groups so it is sensible to take its ravings with a handful of salt. The questions one might ask are why the fuss about halal meat?; would they be raving in the same way if the supermarkets admitted to kosher meat on sale?; what is the Mail’s motivation for this?

  13. Polichinello says:

    And why do Christians care if a Muslim prayer is said at the time of slaughter.

    Again, I agree that this is not the top issue, but you do have to pay someone to do the praying and supervise the slaughter. Since the slaughter technique comes from pre-modern times, it wouldn’t surprise to find out that it comes at some cost to efficiency.

    I had friends who worked at a meatpacking plant in south Texas that was trying to get Kosher certification. They imported a bunch of holy rabble from Isreal, and those guys did NOT come cheap. So, yeah, I would prefer to not subsidize other people’s religious silliness, especially when one of those religions is intent on establish cultural domination.

    Let me put it this way, if Jews and Muslims and Atheists can pitch a bitch about a Christmas tree or a creche in a public area, why shouldn’t this subsidy cause a bit of consternation?

  14. Polichinello says:

    Who are those people? Muslims?

    Your powers of deduction and inference are simply stunning.

    All Muslims make no allowance for others?

    With a few possible exceptions, in every Muslim run country non-Muslims suffer legal discrimination. So, yeah, while you can find some oddball moderate, who as David Hume has pointed out is not the norm, my statement stands.

    Thanks for lending further evidence to Aziz’s contention that “concerns” over this issue is nothing but fearmongery and irrational prejudice.

    After 9/11, Ft. Hood, Molly Norris, and the Cartoon brouhaha, there’s no amount of “fearmongery” I can do to further ruin your well deserved bad reputation. If you don’t like the fact that everyone else dislikes you, spend some time with your coreligionists convincing them to be less dislikeable instead of wagging your finger at us for using the eyes your silly god supposedly gave us.

  15. Bob_R says:

    As I understand it the concern comes entirely from the animal rights community, and the issue is the amount of electrical shock given to the animal before slaughter. I grew up on a farm and we, of course, never used electrical shock before slaughtering animals. From my perspective halal slaughtering methods seem pretty normal, and I can see why any store/slaughter house with a large Muslim clientele would use it as the default method.

  16. Matt says:

    Rationally speaking I agree wholly with Stephen. On the other hand, on an emotional level (even in a hypothetical world with no differences in slaughter between the halal and haraam) I would be slightly averse to people performing mumbo jumbo rituals around my food before I eat it – I probably would not buy any “blessed” foodstuffs/sacraments if given the option of another alternative. My feeling is along the lines (although not the magnitude) of not wishing to buy perfectly hygienic and non-tainted vegetables which had been used for sex acts. It’s rather a weird essentialist way to feel, I must admit – materially speaking there’s obviously no change or alteration.

  17. falterer says:

    Aziz and Stephen,

    Some Christians are offended by this if they see halal meat which has been prayed over as a thing that’s been offered up to idols, as in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22. That said, Paul does go on to say, “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question”, which to me suggests that halal meat might be fine from a Christian perspective, if you don’t know it’s halal. Once a Christian has been told meat has been prayed over, he should abstain from eating it in case it causes another to stumble.

    The animal rights issue is of concern to both Christians and secular Westerners, but many people who’re greatly concerned about animal rights abstain from eating meat altogether, and those who do eat meat often buy it from markets where they know it lived and was slaughtered in a way that suits their conscience. And it’s contentious to say that standard, modern Western slaughter is more humane: in a slaughterhouse, it’s often said that animals aren’t fully unconscious, but merely stunned on the conveyor belt: they are not brain dead while their meat is being harvested. A number of people actually seek out “traditionally” slaughtered meat because they consider it more humane.

  18. Caledonian says:

    Let me put it this way, if Jews and Muslims and Atheists can pitch a bitch about a Christmas tree or a creche in a public area, why shouldn’t this subsidy cause a bit of consternation?

    Because it’s not a public arena?

    The only real reason I can think of for anyone to be offended by this is if a person has a prohibition against eating foods that have been sanctified or offered up in the context of other religions – something that Christians are explicitly NOT required to do since the days of Paul/Saul.

    This is no different than kosher – a stupid religious tradition which doesn’t harm anyone except the people who feel they have to keep it. I can think of quite a few such practices which are far more onerous, but which few get upset over.

    The earlier posters were right – this is about ‘Muslim cooties’, nothing more.

  19. panglos says:

    Falterer,

    The captive bolt guns used for slaughtering destroys enough cerebelum to render the animal incapable of “living” in any sense of the word.

    Furthermore, they do not display the wide eyed bellowing for the minutes it takes to collapse after having their throats slit.

    Kosher or hillel slaughtering causes an unacceptable degree of distress and thats why modern techniques were developed.

  20. Muffy says:

    My understanding is that Sikhs are not allowed to eat ritually slaughtered meat, including kosher/halal. Of course, nobody cares much about Sikhs in the USA, and I’m not aware of Sikhs making a fuss out of this issue.

  21. falterer says:

    Thanks for the correction, panglos. It’s embarrassing to be shown I’m so deeply misinformed, so I’ve been reading up elsewhere. Apparently, penetrative captive bolt guns are banned by the USDA because brain matter can enter the blood stream with the possibility of contaminating the meat with BSE. In America, we use non-penetrating stunners, which don’t kill the animal or destroy brain matter but do concuss it into unconsciousness. (This may explain the origin of my “not fully unconscious” belief–something I heard from the vegetarian wing of animal rights.) More interestingly: apparently, many Muslim authorities find this acceptable for Halal purposes, so long as the animal is bled to death after being stunned.

    I dug around a bit online trying to find out if cows were stunned during the slaughter process of the New Zealand meat. Google brought me to the blog of a UK Christian conservative (one I’ve visited in the past), where a commenter who claims to work for one of the slaughterhouses says these cows were indeed stunned:

    http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-zealand-lamb-is-halal.html#5185826599165285226

    So perhaps it’s not as bad as all that?

  22. falterer says:

    Muffy, Sikhs only eat jhatka meat, where the animal’s head is fully severed from its body in a single stroke, as opposed to Islamic ritual slaughter where the animal is bled to death by having its jugular vein sliced open.

  23. panglos says:

    Falter,

    Besides the humane issues, animals that are not killed quickly will provide meat that is tainted with adrenalin and in extreme cases, lactic acid. This is an important consideration when hunting and for shot placement.

    In this sense, the higher cost of kosher or halal meat is not warranted.

    Modern techniques for slaughtering chickens are interesting. They are gathered and hung on conveyors upside down in rooms lit with UV lights which lulls them into a state of near sleep. They go past a blade that partially severes the head which elicits remarkably little reaction.

Comments are closed.