Introduction
The issues concerning animal welfare have seen rising awareness from the public, resulting in protests and the establishment of organizations that aim to protect the rights of animals. For instance, among the most vital issues are those that pertain to violence. For instance, canine meat is consumed as part of a South Korean tradition termed Bok-Nal, or the days that involve eating dog meat to boost endurance during the hottest months of the calendar year (Maxwell et al. 1). Some nations still allow the intake of dog meat by humans due to custom, ceremony, and purported health benefits. Approximately two to three million dogs are thought to be farmed, killed, and consumed in South Korea each year (Maxwell et al. 1). Yet dog breeding is unregulated because dogs are not considered to be cattle, raising questions about the welfare of the animals. Therefore, it is an essential problem that needs rigorous regulation due to the number of dogs who suffer and the present views of the modern community who resist cooperation with nations that condone such actions.
History and Traditions of Eating Dog Meat
The history of eating dog meat has existed for hundreds of years and has transformed into a tradition. For millennia, Koreans traditionally kept dogs both as pets and as cattle (Dugnoille 8). For example, Korean historians Mark Byington and Martin T. Bale claim that human-dog interaction and the use of canine meat may be dated back to the earliest Puyo dynasty or from the 2nd century BC to 494 AD (Dugnoille 8). It was explicitly mentioned that there are archaeological remains discovered at a location in Dahaimeng, central Jilin, wherein carcasses of dogs and chickens were found, together with signs suggesting the species had been eaten as sustenance (Dugnoille 8). These remains, which date to the 3rd century BC, indicate that eating dog meat has a long history in northeast Asia (Dugnoille 8). Therefore, such a tradition did not form recently and is ingrained into the Asian community.
However, it is noteworthy that dog meat consumption was accepted as fully legal only 70 years ago. Due to the 1950–1953 Korean War’s attendant food scarcity, it was only recently adopted as a food supply (Maxwell et al. 2). Dog meat consumption has indeed been condemned on a global scale, yet it is still common in places like South Korea, where it is believed that 2.5 million canines are killed for food every year due to custom and its alleged benefits to health and vitality (— 4). Dog meat is consumed by 27% of Koreans, mainly elderly males (Maxwell et al. 2). More than 800,000 dog meat farms serve the market in South Korea, although dogs are not considered to be livestock under the law (Maxwell et al. 2). Dog well-being is not guaranteed by the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, and dog farming is mainly uncontrolled (Maxwell et al. 2). According to assessments, meat farm dogs are often kept in crowded quarters at high rates of the stocking with poor nutrition and medical attention (Maxwell et al. 2). Therefore, with such overwhelming figures, it poses a threat to the well-being of animals and raises concerns in society.
Present Views
Although the views on such kind of cuisine feature have been widely accepted in the previous century, it is highly debated nowadays. All farm animals have been recognized as sentient creatures as of 2008 (Rostami et al. 66). Article 8 of the Animal Protection Law, which is termed Dongmul boho beop in Korean, outlaws hanging animals and other inhumane techniques of slaughtering them, notably prohibits conventional forms of execution (Sevin et al. 240). In other terms, the law has been established to put a halt to violent murder methods right away. Dog meat consumers, on the other hand, are aggressive and insist on having their meat appropriately processed, that is, by having it lightly seared by putting steel pipes on the animals while they were being hung, alive, by the neck until they were tired. Therefore, even with a strong promotion of animal rights, it is quite complicated since the market of dog meat was established a long time ago.
Many might assume that such an attitude certainly implies that dog meat purchasers have little or no essential moral requirement for the policing of these regulations. This appears to suggest that increasing concerns for animal protection in Korea are predicated on impact instead of socially constructed ethics. Moreover, those issues, as well as possible adverse effects for the regard of an animal against food boundary, are outweighed by the significant symbolic importance of dog meat in connection to health philosophies in Korea.
Additionally, the concept of dogs as living beings that require safety or possessing them as companion animals is a relatively recent trend in South Korea. This happened as a result of the country’s political and economic turmoil, which forced the government to prioritize human survival and progress along with conservative values of animals as products (Alberro 670). However, as the nation’s political and financial climate changed in the middle to late 20th century, attitudes about pet ownership and the animal welfare movement also changed (Alberro 670). According to the South Korean Farm Ministry, there were 4.57 million pet owners in the nation in 2015, or almost 22% of total households (Alberro 670). One in five South Koreans, according to a 2017 national survey, own animals (Alberro 670). Thus, an intensifying tradition of dog meat consumption and the lack of pets in households led to the common perception of dogs as livestock.
Dog Meat Opposition
Nevertheless, it is not only modern Asian society that opposes the widely accepted dog meat consumption. Among the parties that support dog welfare are the Western countries and activists, along with governments. For instance, the Animal Protection Act’s content has undergone multiple revisions since its introduction in 1991, most noticeably in the 1990s, early 2000s, and 2010s, with the most recent version being in 2015 (Alberro 679). Although the size and scope of the adjustments varied from year to year, they were all typically made to increase the potential penalties and sanctions for infractions, prevent more defined behaviors, and define terminology and phrases. For instance, the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs explained why specific revisions were made to the Act in 2008, saying they would make it easier to determine when a breach had occurred (Alberro 679). The 2014 Animal Protection Act amendment aimed to define the terms “animal” and “animal cruelty” in a precise manner (Alberro 679). Therefore, it can be seen as increasing support of dog welfare due to better definitions with narrow scopes to protect the animals from violence and maltreatment.
Moreover, countless concerns have been raised during international events. During the preparation for the Olympiad in 1988 and the FIFA in 2002, which were held in South Korea’s capital, there was much pressure on the Korean authorities (Kang 205). Prior to the World Cup, the representative of the organization wrote an open letter urging a prohibition on the sale of dog meat during the tournament (Kang 205). The letter was sent not only to the football organization in South Korea but the parliament. Nevertheless, advocates of the dog meat industry retaliated after South Korea was pressured internationally to outlaw the trade because of the championship (Hahm et al.). In advance of the tournament, the National Dog Meat Restaurants Association started a campaign to persuade spectators at the events in Korea about the essential nutrients of dog meat (Hahm et al.). Samples of the canine meat were distributed to promote the purchases and gain more support (Hahm et al.). As a result, every opposition was met with a group of people who supported the market.
Numerous rallies against the eating of dog meat have been held by Korean and foreign parties to bring awareness to the inhumane practices of the business. 2011 saw a demonstration at the South Korean embassy in San Francisco organized by the American group In Defense of Animals and the Korea Animal Rights Advocates (Joo and Chun 388). The statement they gave to the embassy had more than 15,000 signatures and urged the South Korean government to speed up efforts to halt the market (Joo and Chun 388). However, this was not the only demonstration, with Koreans taking the initiative. In order to protest the consumption of dog meat, activists in South Korea barricaded themselves in enclosures on the roads in the capital city in 2012 (Sinclair and Phillips 442). Finally, the Animal Welfare Institute held a demonstration in the U.S. as part of global demonstrations against the ingestion of dog meat in South Korea (Sinclair and Phillips 442). Thus, all parties made major efforts in order to show Korean and global opposition to dog meat commerce.
In this case, it is vital to note that in order to promote an effective national dialogue, Korean and international organizations seeking to end the market of dog meat must act carefully. Although raising awareness of the suffering involved in the dog meat industry is a crucial first step in putting a stop to the eating of dog meat, the argument should stay that only South Korea can resolve to owe to its own development. Therefore, while it requires a collective effort, there must be a unity of opinions in South Korea.
Conclusion
Hence, given the number of dogs who suffer and the current attitudes of the modern community, which oppose collaboration with countries that support such actions, it is an important issue that requires strict regulation. Koreans have kept dogs as both pets and livestock for millennia. It was only recently used as a food supply because of the 1950–1953 Korean War’s associated food shortage. Although there was broad acceptance of this element of food in the previous century, it is currently the subject of intense controversy. Since 2008, all farm animals have been acknowledged as sentient beings. Governments, campaigners, and Western nations are a few groups that support dog welfare. Additionally, other issues have come up during international competitions. However, even though it calls for a collective effort, South Korea must have a consensus on all matters.
Works Cited
Alberro, Andrew. “The State of Modern South Korean Animal Cruelty Law: An Overview with Comparison to Relevant United States and Swiss Law and the Future.” Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Review, vol. 18, no. 3, 2019, pp.665-690. Web.
Dugnoille, Julien. “To Eat or not to Eat Companion Dogs: Symbolic Value of Dog Meat and Human–Dog Companionship in Contemporary South Korea.” Food, Culture & Society, vol. 21, no. 2, 2018, pp.214-232. Web.
Hahm, Jeeyeon Jeannie, Asli DA Tasci, and Deborah Breiter Terry. “The Olympic Games’ Impact on South Korea’s Image.” Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, vol. 14, 2019, 100373. Web.
Joo, S., and M. S. Chun. “A Discourse Analysis on Eating Dog Meat in South Korea for 20 Years.” In Transforming Food Systems: Ethics, Innovation and Responsibility. Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2022, pp. 387-391.
“‘I heard a dog cry’: More-than-human interrelatedness, ethnicity and zootherapy in South Korean civil society discourse about dog meat consumption.” Ethnography, vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, pp.68-87. Web.
Kang, Hyunmee. “Same World Cup, Different News Frames.” The Athens Journal of Sports, vol. 9, no. 4, 2022, pp. 195-214. Web.
Maxwell, Natalie, Callum Buchanan, and Neil Evans. “Hair Cortisol Concentrations, as a Measure of Chronic Activity Within the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis, is Elevated in Dogs Farmed for Meat, Relative to Pet Dogs, in South Korea.” Animal Welfare, vol. 28, no. 4, 2019, pp.389-395. Web.
Rostami, Ali, et al. “Meat Sources of Infection for Outbreaks of Human Trichinellosis.” Food Microbiology, vol. 64, 2017, pp. 65-71. Web.
Sevin, Efe, Kadir Jun Ayhan, and Diana Ingenhoff. “Capturing Country Images: A Methodological Approach.” The Journal of International Communication, vol. 27, no. 2, 2021, 237-257. Web.
Sinclair, Michelle, and Clive JC Phillips. “The Cross-Cultural Importance of Animal Protection and Other World Social Issues.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 30, no. 3, 2017, pp.439-455. Web.