Boycott Halal, They Said

Independent senator Jacqui Lambie is not the first to raise the halal certification issue in federal parliament. WA Liberal MP Luke Simpkins also claimed that halal is converting unwitting consumers to Islam. LNP MP George Christensen further linked halal certification to religious extremism.

Activist groups are also telling consumers to boycott halal products. They also claim that certification is part of a campaign to introduce sharia law. Animal activists are going so far as to call it animal slaughter.

Armed with all these frightful assumptions, Aussie Insider embarks on a mission to find out what drives these fears.

We found "Halal" is an Arabic word meaning "permissible". Nothing strange there since many Western nations have non-permissible foods too. For example, the food colourings Amaranth and Black Vegetable Carbon are not permitted in the US.

And in Australia, we also have many food regulations that determine the permissible methods food should be prepared under before it can be sold to consumers, irrespective of whether the main ingredients are permitted or not.

To clear up any other misconceptions about halal certification, it's necessary to compare - for example - organic certification. The primary reason a consumer might lean toward purchasing more expensive organic foods over cheaper counterparts is usually due to the social following of being against GMO's. Others simply lean that way because it seems like a healthy choice.

While the farmer or manufacturer may adhere to 'organic' rules it doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it to eliminate the GMO industry or to promote more healthy food. They may simply be trying to tap a market that increases the value of their produce ten-fold. They may have other farms/establishments elsewhere that also produce GMO and unhealthy food. Essentially, there are no guarantees intentions will be aligned just because the sticker reads 'organic'.

Likewise, the primary reason a consumer might lean toward purchasing more expensive halal foods over cheaper counterparts is usually due to religious following. That is to say - unless they're already involved with that religion - they don't have any reason to buy more expensive products. To suggest they are somehow unwittingly enticed to spend more without any particular motivation in the first instance defies consumer logic.

And again, just because a product bares the 'halal' sticker, does not guarantee the intentions of the producer are in line with the intentions of the end user. Nor does it guarantee someone at the farm or manufacturing plant doesn't involve themselves with shady dealings.

Look at Rio-Tinto's history for example, it has had shady dealings with every government in the world where it mines precious metals and fossil fuels ever since it began in 1873. It stands to reason, consumers of Rio-Tinto products aren't going turn into genocidal maniacs just because their preferred product ships with a Rio-Tinto/BHP label.

There is also mounting evidence to suggest Obama and Clinton engaged in shady dealings with extremist organisations in the recent past, where there is absolutely no evidence - not even circumstantial - that connects halal certification in Australia to such organisations.

We have found nothing that justifies scaring or harassing end consumers and sellers of halal certified products. Short of evidence, all that's left is a couple of mouth-pieces taking advantage of fear-mongering, while riding the back of anti-GMO and animal activism in order to score a few more political points.

For all the animal activists, vegetarians and vegans out there who are also jumping on the band-wagon: religion has nothing to do with your cause, animals are slaughtered and eaten by all sections of society - stick to the facts guys!

Peace and good-will, people!