MPs call for meat labelling reform as cross-party consensus emerges

MPs from across the political spectrum, and from a range of religious and non-religious backgrounds, have united in support of reforming meat labelling laws to give consumers clearer information about whether animals have been humanely slaughtered. A Westminster Hall debate on 4 June was triggered by a petition calling for a ban on non-stun slaughter which received over 100,000 signatures. While the debate showed that MPs remained divided on whether a ban on inhumane non-stun slaughter should be introduced in England, there was broad consensus that clearer labelling is both necessary and achievable.

Humanists UK campaigns to close the loophole to animal welfare laws which permit livestock to be slaughtered without pre-stunning, citing overwhelming scientific evidence that this causes avoidable pain and distress. This position is shared by the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA. Humanists UK and animal welfare groups have also long called for mandatory regulations to give consumers greater choice about what farming practices they support when buying food.

Non-stun slaughter is unlawful in several European countries. Slovenia introduced an animal welfare-focused ban in 2012, followed by Denmark in 2014, and by most of Belgium in 2019 through laws passed in Flanders and Wallonia. In 2020, the European Court of Justice upheld the Belgian bans, finding they were grounded in scientific evidence about animal suffering and based on a sincere concern for animal welfare. In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights likewise ruled that Belgium’s approach did not violate the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Cross-party move for ‘compromise’

Jamie Stone MP (Liberal Democrats) led the debate, and proposed that mandatory labelling would be a ‘welcome compromise’ that ‘all sides could accept’.

Most MPs who opposed removing the religious loophole – which in practice applies to roughly 20% of halal slaughter and 100% of kosher slaughter – nevertheless endorsed labelling. Yasmin Qureshi (Labour) said:

‘I am very happy for it to be labelled; it is very important that there should be clear labelling—I do not think anybody has any problem with that—so that people know what they are getting.’

Ayoub Khan (Independent) echoed the point, calling labelling ‘paramount’ to consumer choice.

Others, such as Josh Newbury (Labour), expressed personal opposition to non-stun slaughter but emphasised the broader goal of empowering consumers:

‘I am keenly interested in improving labelling for consumers, particularly welfare labelling, which would give a far broader perspective on welfare than simply “stun” or “non-stun”.’

Shadow Transport Minister Jerome Mayhew and Shadow Health Minister Dr Caroline Johnson emphasised the need for better data and clearer labelling, noting that most consumers remain unaware of how the meat they eat is produced. The previous Conservative government consulted on introducing labelling in 2021, with Johnson pressing Labour to respond soon:

‘The current Government said they would respond [to the consultation on labelling], but they have now had more than a year to do so… they need to get on with it.’

‘Ambitious programme for animal welfare’

MPs on both sides of the non-stun slaughter debate pointed to the poor conditions faced by many livestock animals and urged, alongside meat labelling to improve consumer choice, a package of measures to improve animal welfare.

Former veterinary surgeon Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat) restated that the Liberal Democrat party policy in favour of labelling was ‘grounded in science, evidence, and animal welfare, not in prejudice.’

He said:

‘Our goal is simple: to give people the information that they need to make informed choices – not to stigmatise any group, but to raise welfare standards across the board…

‘I was on the policy committee of the British Veterinary Association, and we looked at farm assured schemes and welfare standards at different stages of animals’ lives on farms. The science is clear: the evidence shows that stunning animals before slaughter is the most humane method available. Stunning renders animals unconscious and insensible to pain prior to slaughter, and slaughter without stunning causes avoidable pain and distress.’

On behalf of the Government, Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner confirmed that it would publish its response to the meat labelling consultation ‘shortly,’ which it did the following week. In its published response, the Government confirmed it would ‘consider the potential role of production labelling reform’ as part of a wider promise to introduce ‘the most ambitious programme for animal welfare in a generation’. The consultation showed that 100% of respondents had urged the Government to adopt meat labelling, with 99% feeling this principle should extend beyond the retail sector as well, with ‘no impact’ on religious groups or other protected characteristics. Mr Zeichner’s response in Parliament promised that the Government’s animal welfare strategy would be published later in 2025.

Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:

‘We’re pleased to see such a strong agreement among MPs – representing all parties, and all religions and beliefs – that consumers need clearer labelling of meat by method of slaughter. This is a vital measure to improve consumer choice and help to close the gap between public concern for animals and what happens out of sight in abattoirs. 

‘We agree with some MPs that this issue is at times hijacked to exacerbate anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism. But we must not shut scientific evidence about animal suffering from our public debate. Religious preferences alone cannot justify the suffering of sentient creatures.

‘The Government should take note of the strong consensus around labelling. We look forward to seeing labelling alongside a full package of measures in the Government’s forthcoming animal welfare strategy.’