Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30379818›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Attitudes of the public towards halal food and associated animal welfare issues in two countries with predominantly Muslim and non-Muslim populations.

Nur Syazwani Abdul Jalil, Amanda Vrinda Tawde, Sarah Zito, Michelle Sinclair, Claire Fryer, Zulkifli Idrus, Clive J C Phillips

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nur Syazwani Abdul JalilCentre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
Amanda Vrinda TawdeCentre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
Sarah ZitoCentre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
Michelle SinclairCentre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3811-034X
Claire FryerCentre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
Zulkifli IdrusInstitute of Tropical Agriculture, and Department of Animal Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
Clive J C PhillipsCentre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Halal food is that which is permissible or lawful for Muslims to consume. Meat products must abide by a number of requirements in relation to their preparation, condition and content to be considered halal. We conducted a survey in order to assess the knowledge of, and attitudes towards, halal meat products in two contrasting countries, one with a majority non-Muslim population (Australia, respondent n = 565), where the most commonly followed religion is Christianity, and one with a majority Muslim population (Malaysia, n = 740). The most common reasons for avoiding halal food were animal welfare, religion and meat quality. Malaysians generally believed that halal processes led to improved meat quality, whereas Australians did not. The general consensus was in favour of legally controlling animal welfare during slaughter, supported by both Muslims and Christians. Malaysians were more aware of the main tenets of halal slaughter than Australians. However, some non-compulsory, incorrect practices were thought to be required practices by respondents in both countries, but especially in Australia. Muslims were more concerned about humane treatment of animals during halal slaughter. They generally believed that stunning is never allowed and that this view was acceptable, whereas people from other belief systems generally held the view that this was unacceptable. Religion and education were the most common factors associated with attitudes, beliefs and consumer habits concerning halal. Information from this study can help to improve understanding of attitudes to halal and provide insights to policy makers seeking to address animal welfare concerns.

Indexed as

AttitudeAbattoirsAdultAge DistributionAnimal WelfareAustraliaFemaleFood QualityHumansIslamMalaysiaMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsPublic OpinionQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID30379818
PMCPMC6209144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.