Seoul Metropolitan Government plans to ask the government to include dog meat in the national livestock rules:
The Seoul metropolitan government will ask the central government to include dogs in the legal definition of livestock, in a bid to ensure hygienic butchery and processing of what some Koreans regard as a delicacy. A Seoul official said there are 528 canine meat restaurants in Seoul, temporarily rising to 600 in the summer, when people traditionally eat dog stew as a health booster. Therefore, including dogs in livestock is necessary to protect public health.
The government plans to win over opponents by arguing that including meong-meongi in the rules would help restrict cruel and unhygienic slaughtering practices.
(HT to reader)
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
Michelin guides anyone?
I always said that since they tolerate dog meat to be served (isn’t it still illegal), they should hold everyone involved to certain health standards. I’ve seen far too many trucks loaded with dogs of a variety of pedigree to believe that strays that have been eating garbage for a couple of months aren’t being served at some restaurants. Besides, I still remember all too clearly an article I read about 10 years ago about two guys being arrested for selling the carcasses of laboratory animals to restaurants (enough to feed 500 000 people, if I remember correctly).
But, there will always be people who will take advantage of this. If enforcement is lax and stiff penalties aren’t given out, the only thing this will accomplish is give people the wrong impression that dog meat is always safe to eat.
Maybe they should consider getting themselves classified as livestock instead?
I cannot condemn anyone’s eating preferences without condemning my own, since I do eat meat and spend too little time worrying about the treatment of the animals. I do trust (perhaps too much) that agencies are in place to enforce health regulations. The legalization and classification of dog meat may go a long way in improving the treatment of the animals, but I fear it will only encourage more people to seek to make a profit by rounding up strays and selling them to “certified” breeders who could easily slip them into their stock.
If enforcement is lax and stiff penalties aren’t given out…
Enforcement..? Stiff penalties..? In Outpost Korea..? Hahahahaha…
Well, how well are cows, pigs and chickens treated?
Hygiene? Waz meanz?
This is so bizarre in the so called ‘civilized’ 21 st century….guzzling down your throat man’s best friend, the faithful and trusting dog, is truly a practice that belongs in the Dark Ages and not befitting a country that aspires to become an advanced modern society. As long as Korea continues condoning this barbaric practice it will not be accepted globally, no matter how they try to cover it up with such superficial gestures as classifying dogs as “livestock.” Dogs are FAR closer to humans than livestock! What a bloody insult to dogs!!
As far as I’m concerned, if it’s okay to eat cows, chickens, goats, reindeer/caribou, snakes, lambs, frogs, rabbits, fish, geese, kangaroos, or vegetables, then there is no moral reason not to eat dogs–and of course it should be done humanely.
Whether it tastes that great is another matter. (The one time I had bosintang it smelled like a dirty, wet dog.)
As far as dogs being closer to humans–what are you smoking?? I grant you, though, for some individuals, the converse is true.
“I fear it will only encourage more people to seek to make a profit by rounding up strays and selling them to “certified” breeders who could easily slip them into their stock.”
That’s exactly what I was telling one of my students. As I was explaining to him, I trust that the pork and beef I buy at the grocery store is safe because I’ve never seen stray pigs or cows on the streets of Seoul.
My problem isn’t so much that they eat dogs, but that they break their bones or use other cruel methods to get their adrenaline pumping before killing them.
I’ll play, Barney. Why is eating dog so ‘barbaric’? And remember, we’re talking about the actual practice of eating dogs, not the animal abuse that some Korean retailers feel is necessary (aka beating up, breaking bones… which should be remedied by this legislative move).
#8
“As far as dogs being closer to humans–what are you smoking?? I grant you, though, for some individuals, the converse is true.”
In MOST OF THE MODERN WORLD he would not be considered to be smoking anything. The person who would prefert to eat a dog at all would be the one looked at as if they were less than an animal themselves. That is just a fact. This is why their is a huge stigma surrounding Korean meat products. Many foreigners in Korea adapt to this custom and then pretend to themselves (dillusion) that it would be commonly accepeted for them to publicly eat a dog back at home and not go to Jail. They also know that back in the States and most parts of Europe if they went around casually and spoke with their fellow countrymen about the pleasures of eating dogs they would be deemed freaks and outcasted.
Funny, I don’t remember being labeled as freaks and be outcasted. And unless my actions involve words like “mass murder” or “molestation”, most people in the modern world would refrain from looking at me or anyone like I was less than an animal.
Common reaction seems to be more like “I probably won’t try it, but I don’t have a problem with it.” People who go “Eww! How can you do that? That’s barbaric” are not quite many, even under the impenetrable protection of internet anonymity. It seems you’re falsely assuming that your belief is widely held.
In addition to that, why assume that what is widely held is true in the first place?
Isn’t blatant ethnocentrism fun?
Dogs were bred from wolves for purposes of work and companionship, since the dawn of humanity by most accounts. Pigs, cows, etc. are being and have been bred for consumption for millenia. Dogs are not for eating. They literally are not. Man created dogs, through domestication and breeding, to help him hunt and to keep him company. Not to eat.
Hey, it’s not my fault generations of mankind failed to realize just how yummy they are.
What a ridiculous thing to say! Some dogs have been bred for hunting and companionship. How do you know what the intentions of Caveman Blarg and his tribemates were when they domesticated dogs?
Re 14 . . .
oh, pish! There’s ample evidence that dogs have historically been bred as livestock animals around the world, particularly in Polynesia and and the Americas as well as in Asia. Evidence on tapeworm transferrence to human hosts points to dog consumption (and cannibalism!) in Africa. And while humans have had a definite impact on the development of the dog, and have essentially dictated its modern forms, historical and archaelogical evidence for humans domesticating dogs goes back about at earlist to 15,000 years ago (although that’s only if you stretch it . . .7000 years ago is a more definite date), but genetic evidence for divergence from a common ancestor with wolves and other canines goes back more like 100,000.
In other words, we can’t take full credit for making the dog, but we can take credit for discovering he’s awfully tasty. Maybe not as tasty as our other friends, pigs, but lets not let the fact that pigs are anatomically much closer to humans (a reason for their popularity as disection specimins) and smarter than dogs deter us from eating them. After all, they’re not as cute as dogs and don’t wag their tails.
@16 – Give me any evidence (predating 1900, say) that dogs were ever bred for food purposes. There are hunting dogs and retrievers, bloodhounds and (forgot to mention) sled dogs and other dogs used for transportation, racing dogs. Then there are purely “pet” dogs: the toy breeds, poodles, etc. There are no “food dogs.” The ones that people in Korea claim are “food dogs” are just mutts.
@17 – No good, on a number of levels. Genetic evidence is much more reliable than archaeological; of course the genetic evidence goes back earlier. Sure there have been wild dogs like hyena, jackals, etc. but dogs as we refer to them today (and the things we are talking about eating) are essentially a human creation/modification. And the evidence you give for people eating dog comes from a time and a place when people were eating people, too, as you mention. Should we bring back long pig because somebody at one time used to eat people?
You said, “humans … have essentially dictated its [the dog's] modern forms…” Exactly. And we are talking about eating modern dogs. If you want to eat dingoes, then go ahead I guess.
BTW, on a related note: the RSPCA site includes the sentence on their Korea page: “Cats are boiled into a tonic which is sold as a treatment for arthritis.”
I’ve heard this from a few other sources but I never saw it myself in Korea, and my wife says she hasn’t heard of it. Can anyone confirm or deny?
#18 – The Poi Dog and the Xoloitzcuintli are two breeds of dog that were both said to have been bred specifically (or at the very least, as one of their many purposes) as food dogs. And of course you’re also ignoring that humans have largely dictated the forms that their livestock animals have taken, as well. If we take your logic to its fullest extension, (eating a dingo is better than eating a golden retriever) then eating modern chickens and cows should also be essentially verboten.
No, obviously, because what I’m saying is that chickens and cows have been bred for food.
Both of the kinds of dogs you have mentioned, which, as you say, “were said” to have been bred for food, are extinct. If those dogs were indeed bred from wild dogs for food purposes, fine, but they no longer exist, and therefore have little relevance to what I’m saying.
“And of course you’re also ignoring that humans have largely dictated the forms that their livestock animals have taken, as well.”
I’m not ignoring it. It’s what I’m saying; it’s the main thrust of my argument.
Ah, my mistake. The xoloitzcuintli (Mexican hairless) is not extinct. I was thinking of the itzcuintli which is an ancestor or relative, it seems. At any rate, these dogs are not the ones at issue here. I should have been more precise: the dogs that are being eaten have not been bred for food.
So why should we care what people thousands of years dead intended when they were breeding their dogs? What’s the difference between a dog bred for food, and one bred for sport?
@#19:
I cannot confirm the exact medicinal uses of kitty, but I can confirm that cats and kittens are sold for consumption. Kyeongdong Market in eastern Seoul specializes in medicinal products and there were (when I was living in that area back in the 90s) a couple of stalls selling live kittens and the occasional adult cat. The cats were dirty and definitely not intended as pets. Butchering equipment was visible in back. There was a restaurant right outside the west gate of Yonsei that occasionally kept a kitten tied up on the premises. After a couple of weeks of fattening up, kitty disappeared. There are also men who ride bicycles equipped with wire baskets around neighborhoods calling for cats. My guess is that these cats are sold to dealers like the ones in Kyeongdong Market.
Many younger middle-class Koreans are completely unfamiliar and disbelieving of the existence of cat medicine. Its use may be disappearing.
There is a Korean folk song that names various animals and their edible uses. Cat, dog, and others get a mention. Anybody know the name of this song?
So what? If someone were to decide to capture some children and fatten them up for consumption (perhaps some witch in the woods), it would be all right to eat those children.
And, as Zonath argues, some dogs are bred for sport. Ask Michael Vick how that’s turned out. Like cannibalism and dog-fighting, considerations other than “that’s what they’re bred for” ought to come into the picture. Don’t give us the red herring of “that’s what they’re bred for”.
@24 – Thanks for the info.
@23 – One is bred for sport, one is bred for food. That’s the difference.
@25 – Don’t you perceive a difference between fattening something up and breeding an animal for generations? Maybe I’m too much of a country boy, but the differences are immediately obvious to me. As for dog fighting, pitbulls are indeed bred to be badasses. That’s why they are good for and legitimately used as guard dogs, attack dogs, etc. Anyone who knows much about dogs wlll tell you that dog fighting is nothing but a waste of good, useful dogs.
Let me turn the cannibalism question back on you. If historical precendent makes dog-eating okay, what about cannibalism? There are plenty of historical precedents for that. Same goes for the cultural imperialism argument. Who are we to tell those folks on those islands (can’t remember who exactly) that eating people is wrong?
If you can’t draw a distinction between dogs and, say, pigs, then how can you draw one between pigs and people?
“If you can’t draw a distinction between dogs and, say, pigs, then how can you draw one between pigs and people?”
Sounds like somebody has finally entered the mental realm of PETA…
What is the logical justification of eating dog = bad then? I’m pretty sure there are quite a number of justification on why cannibalism is wrong (probably runs in the same course as say, why murder is wrong).
It seems that eating is wrong, but somehow neutering, surgically removing vocal cords, and killing the dogs at the shelter are A-OK.
It’s not like anyone here is condoning horrid abuse employed in the back alley shops or stealing other people’s precious pets, now are we?
#26 – Still don’t see the distinction you’re trying to make… A dog is a dog, whether its ancestors were considered delicious by the local natives or not. I really don’t see how eating a ‘dog bred for sport’ is any different than eating a ‘dog bred for food’. I suppose you might have a point if people were talking about eating the family dog, but as far as I can tell, you’re drawing the line at some sort of historical/originalist place that really has me baffled. Maybe the question really should be why a golden retriever would be less acceptable to eat than a dog expressly bred (as in raised up through generations as a food dog) for the purpose of consumption, assuming that both were actually born and raised for the express purpose of being cooked and eaten, and not just as the unlucky ones in the local pound/puppy mill.
@27 – Read my post again, several times. When you finally understand it, then reply.
@28 (who understands just fine) – Well, the question here is: why is it okay to eat a pig, but not okay to eat a dog? My answer to this question is that dogs might be the only animal in the world (except, possibly, horses, but don’t quote me on that) that is literally *not meant* to be eaten. As in, Golden retrievers (to use your example) were literally created by humans for specific purposes other than for food (in this case, for retrieving). That’s why, in my view, modern dogs should not be eaten: they literally are meant to serve other functions. That’s my argument; you may disagree.
#29
Uh huh…. so we’re going to give more regard to what some long-dead dog breeder thought than what our tastebuds tell us. But eating a dingo is okay, because they’re not ‘not meant to be eaten’. So, as soon as someone finds a use for an animal, and breeds for that use (other than eating), that immediately forecloses all the descendants of that animal from being eaten in a socially-acceptable manner? Better lay off the beef then, since cows have been used as draft animals (and bred as such) for thousands of years. Cows, just like dogs, are multi-purpose.
“Read my post again, several times. When you finally understand it, then reply.”
*rolls eyes*
I said logical justification, colontos. Your only justification is that dogs have been bred for the purpose of companionship, a claim refuted many times in the comments above by like 6 different people.
a) It’s impossible to know the ‘intention’ of the initial generations of breeders who bred dogs out of wolves. You are assuming a position of observation that you cannot possibly reach short of inventing a time machine.
b) Even if it were so, there is no moral imperatives one way or the other on the issue. Your argument, that we’re violating the purpose of dog’s existence, does not link to moral-assigning words like ‘should’ ‘ought’ or ‘wrong’.
(ex: Apples are meant to be eaten. If I play baseball with one, is that a morally condemnable action?)
The only way you would be able to assign moral values to this discussion is to somehow give more moral worth than other animals that we all seem to fit to consume. If we accept that the breeding purposes is the sole criteria, then any dog sellers/consumers can escape your argument by claiming that they have bred the dogs they are selling/eating for the purpose of consumption – after all, they hold no less importance than the breeders of distant past.
c) Because there are numerous countries with histories of eating dogs (with no famine), your contention that dog has been bred for companionship is not categorical – therefore, either your argument is false, or you exclude people of those countries from your definition of human.
All this talk about doggie meat is working up my appetite. I suppose I can resist the temptation, next week I’ll be out for $100 boshintang with some stock brokers anyway. -licking chops-
Hey, I’ve made my argument. You don’t have to buy it. Now, if you’ll allow me to do what I tried to do before:
**DISCLAIMER: The following is a DEVIL’S ADVOCATE argument.**
If we can’t distinguish between types of animals and the morality of eating this or that particular one (which is what I’ve been doing), then why is cannibalism wrong? What if I’m a witch doctor or whatever, and I come in here calling all of you cultural imperialists for condemning my favorite meal of person meat?
Well, for one, cannibalism is strongly linked to prion-induced neurological diseases. I can also argue that human beings have immeasurable worth (that’s why you can’t morally trade off human lives).
In any case, this legislation is a good move. Reduces health risks and animal abuse. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Regarding cannibalism, the argument may also be made that people are sentient ( or so we suppose), and as such should not be treated in the same fashion as non-sentient beings. This would also then protect us from being herded as food sources by “alien life forms”, even if they were to us intellectually, as we are to cows.
Having had dogs as pets all my life, (anthropomorphic thinking or not) I cannot conceive of them as livestock, and find them more humane than many people I have met ( who I wouldn’t eat either
.
An argument based on personal experience and preferance I know, but the more people I meet, the more I like my dogs.
You must log in to post a comment.