Both camps spent the debate arguing for something the question never offered: an outright ban. Separate shops narrowly won, and the most-respected Yes case was a single sentence of reluctance: “I’ve said yes, but non-stun slaughter should be banned totally.”
Other Yes voters framed segregation as second best. One argued that meat from the exemption “regularly enters the general food chain unlabeled”, so separate sales would let shoppers know what they are buying. Another said selling it alongside other meat “creates the impression that it’s the norm”. The tone elsewhere was blunt and angry, with several calling the practice barbaric.
The No side held the ★ arguments, and they split. Two demanded abolition: “Meat from animals which have not been stunned should not be sold. Full stop.” The third, equally respected, wanted labelling instead, “so that those who wish to can avoid it.” Several No voters said much the same, rejecting separate shops while pressing for clear labels.
That is the odd shape of this result. The 2026 Commons labelling bill is what the No labellers had in mind, while Yes and No abolitionists shared a goal and differed only on the fallback. One Yes voter spotted it: “a clear ban would have a bigger majority”.
In the end, voters on both sides said the same thing: if the meat stays, they want to know what it is.
112 Opinions
I’ve said yes, but non-stun slaughter should be banned totally.
The religious exemption was created specifically for certain communities, yet this meat regularly enters the general food chain unlabeled. Segregated sales simply protect consumer choice, ensuring people know exactly what standard of welfare they are buying.
Why is this even a vote?? Why is it allowed in a civilized 1st world country? Ban it altogether. Barbaric practices have no place here, or anywhere!
Meat from animals which have not been stunned should not be sold. Full stop.
No, but it should be very clearly labelled so that those who wish to can avoid it.
No. It should be banned altogether. Not sold separately. Religion cannot be an excuse for cruelty. They are, quite rightly, discussing a ban on the gassing of pigs, which is a cruel practice. So there is no reason for allowing halal or kosher slaughter to continue. The reasons for it to exist had some basis in science back in a time when there was no refrigeration. There is no excuse for it in an enlightened age of science. Religion needs to evolve.
We tie ourselves in knots over fox hunting. Proudly banned live animal exports after leaving the EU. Stopped the fishing of sand eels to protect puffins. But allow the torture of animals for niche religious exemptions. I'm baffled. Edited
Animals should always be stunned before slaughter. Slaughter without stunning has no place in the UK. If you don't want that meat, don't eat it. Animal slaughter MUST be humane.
Stop non stun slaughter entirely.
Not in separate shops, but it should be very clearly labelled (if available at all).