THE British Veterinary Association (BVA) rejects any claim that the BVA is being "negligent in [its] duty to protect animals" ("Jewish group attacks veterinary body over call to ban non-stun slaughter of animals", The Herald, February 23).
Our campaign to end non-stun slaughter is driven by our commitment to improving animal welfare where there is an opportunity to change the law to prevent unnecessary suffering, but it's certainly not the only animal welfare issue that we campaign on.
Our members play an active role in not only preventing suffering but actively providing for the welfare needs of all animals throughout their lives.
The veterinary profession is not complacent and we consistently lobby Government to ensure existing legislation is enforced effectively, to identify and plug gaps in legislation and to promote best practice. We have and will always work to improve the welfare of animals at every stage of the lifecycle.
The recent cases of abuse uncovered in slaughterhouses are unacceptable and we expect them to be thoroughly investigated, with appropriate action taken by the authorities.
Such abuse warrants sanctions under current welfare legislation irrespective of whether it occurred in an abattoir implementing stunning or non-stun prior to slaughter.
BVA's e-petition to end non-stun slaughter now has more than 115,000 signatures and clearly shows the strength of feeling about animal welfare at slaughter.
Our campaign is not about religion, but about the welfare compromise of non-stun slaughter.
BVA has long argued that all animals should be stunned before slaughter to render them insensible to pain and we will continue to promote better welfare for all animals.
John Blackwell,
President,
British Veterinary Association,
7 Mansfield Street,
London.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article