Still more labelling?

It is being suggested that meat which has come from animals killed according to "halal" practices should be labelled as such, so that anyone offended by that form of slaughter can avoid it.  This has arisen as a result of stories in the media that a significant amount of meat sold in supermarkets and used in restaurants (particularly fast food outlets) is halal.  I find it strange that, if you are prepared to have animals killed for your food, the actual details of the manner of their death should matter so much.  Basically we're talking chickens here, which are killed by having their throats slit, and the only difference between halal and non-halal is that under strict halal rules the chicken still has to be "fully alive" when this is done. The non-halal way is to stun the chickens first so that (theoretically) they are unconscious when their throats are slit.  I say theoretically because there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the stunning doesn't always work.  Equally, there are apparently halal butchers who do pre-stun (the argument being that fully alive does not necessarily mean conscious).  We kept chickens in the War, as many people did, and come Christmas my Dad had the horrible job of killing one of them for Christmas dinner.  He used to wring its neck and I know this used to upset him - but you either accept that meat on the table means that some animal has been killed to provide it, or you become vegetarian.