Phil Powell's letter ("Rights of meat eaters", Mailbox, August 20) concerned "freedom of choice" and said that consumers should be informed about the "method of slaughter, halal, kosher or standard approved UK process".

By the latter, I assume Mr Powell is referring to stunning, whereby there is an assumption that this causes instantaneous unconsciousness. Unfortunately, there is evidence that this assumption may not be warranted and, furthermore, that stunning causes pain.

In industrial slaughterhouses animals are stunned in an assembly line and stunning is not always done properly. Some slaughterhouses still pay staff according to the number of animals killed in a day. It is estimated that between five per cent and 10 per cent of cattle alone are not stunned effectively (that's 230,000 cattle a year).

An abattoir vet said: "Not many animals stand still. They are all upset, some frightened and move violently. Sometimes the slaughterman misses, wounding the animal instead of stunning it. It may happen that the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering for quite some time."

If people are concerned with freedom of choice I wonder if they extend these rights to the animals they eat? A proposal for a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare states that there should be recognition "that animals are living, sentient beings and therefore deserve due consideration and respect".

Elizabeth Allison, Aylestone.