Information about activities. How to join the TT. Discussion list, for members and others! Species-specific Care sheets Articles from our Newsletter. Links to important sites. Links to members' sites. Search our site! What has been updated, and when.

TESCO AND INHUMANE SLAUGHTER: THE MYTH AND THE REALITY

 

by A. C. Highfield

"Our Standard Operating Procedures require that the animals are slaughtered in ways that immediately kill the animals and minimise the risk of suffering"

Statement issued by Tesco Plc when questioned about their involvement in the Asian live food trade.

"Our Standard Operating Procedures require that for turtles and tortoises, the head is amputated, instantly killing them.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us at customer.service@tesco.co.uk
Kind Regards
Helen Duke
Tesco Customer Service"

The use of specific terms such as "immediately kill" and "minimise the risk of suffering" in this context are extremely interesting to anyone with any technical knowledge of this subject, because it is accepted, almost universally, that these objectives have so far proved impossible to achieve anywhere in the world as far as small to medium-sized turtles are concerned. That Tesco are making claims like this to consumers who express concerns about their involvement in this trade is highly disturbing, as it reveals either a) Complete ignorance on their part as to the reality of the trade they are now involved in or b)  A deliberate attempt to mislead customers who are concerned about animal welfare issues.

The fact is that there is no viable method of causing immediate, painless, stress-free death in a smaller or medium-sized turtle. Very large turtles of certain species, such as the Green sea turtle, can sometimes be killed humanely using a captive-bolt gun, but this method is totally impractical for physical and physiological reasons on smaller animals.

The actual method generally employed in Chinese markets is as follows:

"First we try to get it to stick its head out, and then when it does, we chop it off right there and then. But if we can't, we'll break the shell and then take his head off, which usually takes a minute and a half."

I have personally witnessed this kind of slaughter. It is extremely unpleasant. The animal withdraws its head, and it is very rare that rapid decapitation is achieved: even if it is, the severed head can retain awareness for a very extended period (some reports cite an hour or more)*. This is due to the aquatic turtle's exceptional tolerance of anoxia (lack of oxygen in the blood). I have seen buckets of heads still gaping, with their eyes blinking and moving.  In most cases, the still-living turtle is simply chopped up fully conscious.

Softshell turtles are killed by "de-carapacing" with a sharp knife. This is an agonising procedure in which the living internal organs are exposed and removed. The turtle remains fully conscious throughout and dies - many minutes later - as a result of blood loss as internal organs are removed one by one. Turtles turn their heads to bite at the hands inflicting such agony upon them. The  whole process is highly distressing to witness.

Graphic videos of these processes exist. Few are able to watch them without feeling very sick indeed.

A good summary of the problems of humanely slaughtering turtles in a market situation was provided by Dr. Thelma Lee Gross, DVM, to a meeting of the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare in the US, which was considering the matter in connection with the Asian foodmarkets which proliferate in the city of San Francisco. These minutes are highly illuminating as they provide an independent, dispassionate and expert scientific analysis of what is really involved in selling live turtles for food. We reproduce them here:

    COMMISSION OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND WELFARE

    Mailing Address: 1390 Market Street, Room 822

    San Francisco, CA 94102

    MINUTES OF MEETING - MARCH 14, 2002

    Dr. Thelma Lee Gross, DVM, will discuss scientific evidence that indicates against live animal market practices, the moral obligation to render the suffering of animals used for human consumption null, and misconceptions concerning several previously presumed humane methods of slaughter.

    Thelma Lee Gross, DVM, has been a boarded veterinary pathologist for 20 years who specializes in surgical pathology and dermatopathology. Currently she is an adjunct professor of dermatopathology in the Department of Medicine and Epidemiology at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Davis, California.

    Dr. Gross addressed the Commission at length, and the following are highlights only of her presentation:

    Dr. Gross discussed the increased importance of analgesia in veterinary medicine, and noted that the issue of pain has often been neglected in lower animals because of a lack of knowledge and an inability to recognize pain in those species, but noted that the inability to recognize pain does not mean it does not exist.

    She felt that the ignorance of pain perception in animals has colored societal attitudes, and one example is the live markets where she feels animal abuse abounds and involves the infliction of pain on these lower animals, and further noted recently seeing the cutting of fish while still alive, piling up of frogs in plastic bags, fish placed out of water on display, crowding of birds and turtles awaiting sale, and felt that the public remains largely uninvolved in these issues.

    She noted that the study of pain and analgesia in lower vertebrates has recently enlarged, and the veterinary community has come to the increasing realization that these animals feel pain as we do, and that this is both from direct experience in handling these animals as doctors and through scientific research.

    She noted that the perception of pain occurs only in the conscious animal, and that would be the main issue in most of her presentation. She then discussed the four processes of nociception (pain) and noted that all four processes have been shown to exist in lower vertebrates, birds, amphibians, reptiles. She further discussed the correlative findings for pain in lower vertebrates.

    She then discussed the "Origination of Pain in Live Markets," and noted that injury to tissue by poor handling practices increases sensitivity to pain, and noted this occurring in the live markets to frogs, turtles, birds and fish, who can be damaged by pressure or scraping or piling up due to crowding and rough handling, and even inadequate hydration. She further noted that a dehydrated animal is more susceptible to trauma which will induce pain, that the mucous layer of the skin requires hydration which is easily lost in frogs and fish, making them susceptible to injury which results in pain. She also noted, more importantly, that if there is pain in one localized area, that increases pain sensitivity to other noninjured sites, thus sensitivity to pain is heightened and that sensitivity can spread to noninjured sites.

    She further discussed Inhumane Killing, and noted that according to the 2000 Report by the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia, that any physical killing method that does not include previous or concurrent rendering of unconsciousness is unacceptable and inhumane.

     

    She then noted humane methods of killing would include: Decapitation followed by pithing; or stunning followed by decapitation; and further noted the importance of having an animal be unconscious either simultaneously just before or just after a method of killing. She noted that decapitation alone is not acceptable, because the brains of lowers vertebrates are tolerant to conditions of low oxygen and low blood flow, thus they can remain conscious even after decapitation.

    She then noted her opinion that it may be physically impossible to humanely kill a turtle using physical methods alone, because the head cannot be painlessly extracted from the shell.

     

This conclusion is supported by all other reports by veterinarians and physiologists of which I am aware. The only truly humane methodology would appear to be an overdose of lethal drugs - an impossibility if the animal is to be eaten. We are left with the unpleasant realisation that intense pain and distress are an inevitable component of the trade in live turtles for food. This raises many moral and ethical issues. If such severe suffering as this is unavoidable, what possible justification can there be for inflicting it in the name of a mere delicacy? How can a company like Tesco which includes among its many claims statements such as " “We will continue to promote high standards of animal welfare” and “We demand high standards of animal welfare” possibly continue to defend and participate in practices such as these?

Reference:

*Cooper, J.E., Ewebank, R, Rosenberg, M.E: Euthanasia of Tortoises. Veterinary Record 114:635, 1984.

 

RETURN TO TESCO TURTLE TORTURE AND FROG ABUSE MAIN PAGE