Erkens calls for open debate on ban on slaughter without stunning
The state secretary calls it bitterly ironic that the statutory exception still exists and wants to give the announced PvdD bill serious consideration.
State Secretary for Agriculture Silvio Erkens has spoken out in favour of an open debate on a possible ban on slaughter without stunning for religious reasons. His spokesperson says the Party for the Animals plans to submit an initiative bill to the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) next week.
Erkens finds it difficult to reconcile the Netherlands’ desire to further improve animal welfare with the fact that slaughter without stunning for religious purposes is still permitted. According to his spokesperson, he calls this bitterly ironic, but he has not yet committed himself to a definitive government position.
The PvdA? No, the announced bill comes from the Party for the Animals. The party previously announced that it wanted to ban slaughter without stunning for religious reasons. Erkens says he wants to assess the proposal seriously and with an open mind once it has formally been submitted to the House.
In the Netherlands, stunning before slaughter is the statutory standard. There is an exception for slaughter according to Jewish and Islamic rites. Such slaughter may take place only in approved slaughterhouses, by specially trained slaughterers and under the supervision of the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA).
Under the current rules, an animal must still be stunned if it has not lost consciousness within forty seconds of the neck incision. The government says these conditions are intended to protect animal welfare, but opponents argue that the exception itself does not provide sufficient safeguards.
A ban would affect not only animal welfare, but also freedom of religion and the availability of halal and kosher meat. Earlier attempts to restrict the exception foundered on legal and constitutional objections. The House will have to weigh up those considerations again if the initiative bill is submitted.
In previous answers to the House, Erkens has stressed that slaughter with stunning is the norm and that the NVWA supervises implementation. The main new political development is that a responsible government minister has said he is prepared to reconsider a ban on its substance. There is not yet a decision or a majority.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Erkens is open to a substantive assessment of an announced PvdD initiative bill.
- The Netherlands has a statutory exception to the requirement for prior stunning in religious slaughter.
- The NVWA supervises implementation of the rules.
- A ban has not yet been adopted and its legal consequences have not yet been established.
Left
Arguments The government should set animal welfare as the minimum standard and end the exception. Under this approach, religious slaughter could be brought into line with the same animal welfare standard as other slaughter.
Values Animal welfare, equal rules and limiting avoidable suffering.
Consequences A ban could clarify the standard for slaughterhouses, but could also affect religious communities and the availability of certain products.
Centre
Arguments The current rules should first be carefully evaluated, with room for consultation with religious organisations and an assessment of feasibility and fundamental rights.
Values Legal certainty, proportionality, feasibility and social cohesion.
Consequences A compromise could introduce new conditions or stricter enforcement without immediately imposing a total ban.
Right
Arguments The state should exercise restraint in interfering with religious practices and first demonstrate that existing supervision and stunning rules are inadequate.
Values Freedom of religion, freedom of choice and a limited government.
Consequences Under this approach, a ban could lead to legal proceedings, polarisation and less room for minorities.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article’s core is supported by a recent ANP statement and official government information. The uncertainties surrounding the bill and the parliamentary outcome are explicitly identified.
- confirmed Silvio Erkens has difficulty with slaughter without stunning and calls it bitterly ironic that it is still permitted. — Confirmed by ANP reporting on the statement by his spokesperson. source
- confirmed The Party for the Animals plans to submit an initiative bill to the House of Representatives next week. — Mentioned in the same recent ANP report. source
- confirmed Stunning is the statutory standard in the Netherlands, with an exception for religious slaughter. — Description on the Dutch government’s website. source
- confirmed If consciousness is not lost within forty seconds, the animal must still be stunned. — Mentioned in the official explanation of the applicable rules. source
Editor's note
The statement by Erkens’ spokesperson, the announced initiative bill and the current statutory exception are certain. The final substance, parliamentary majority and legal viability of a ban are still unknown.Sources
- Erkens vindt het 'wrang' dat onverdoofd slachten nog mag — ANP via ZeelandNet
- Dierenwelzijn landbouwdieren — Rijksoverheid
- Antwoorden op Kamervragen over cijfers onbedwelmd ritueel geslachte dieren — Rijksoverheid
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „dierenwelzijn rituele slacht”
- De Telegraaf — „dierenwelzijn rituele slacht”
- AD — „dierenwelzijn rituele slacht”