Dog-eating controversy

[Guest guest]

It is strange that people who are so sensitive about reports on mad

cow and even bird flu diseases, are rather indifferent to the

perennial controversy over dog meat, largely related to its sanitary

status as much as morality. A government measure to " sanitize and

rationalize " the supply of dog meat has again generated a hot public

debate on the desirability of the dog-eating culture but it would not

significantly affect the consumption of " gaegogi " here.

 

The government step to prohibit cruel ways of slaughtering dogs and

to strengthen hygienic overseeing of dog restaurants through the

revision of pertinent statutes is definitely not an effort to

discourage eating dog meat, as animal protection activists argue. On

the contrary, it could boost the business at those restaurants by

allowing people to enjoy dog soup and other canine specialties with

less moral compunction and hygienic apprehension.

 

Dog meat is now the fourth most consumed meat in Korea after pig, cow

and chicken, although it is not sold in ordinary supermarkets but is

supplied to restaurants through special channels. Official statistics

on dog meat circulation have not been updated since the late 1990s

but available figures show that some 9,000 tons are being served at

about 6,500 establishments across the country annually. This does not

include the many dogs that are killed and consumed privately at dog-

eating parties in the countryside and the large volume of dog meat

that turns into a sort of " extract " considered as a health medicine

cum food.

 

Defenders insist that the dogs eaten by Koreans are different from

the kinds raised as pets, as different as cats are from dogs, that

Koreans love pet dogs as much as any other people elsewhere in the

world, proven by the numerous dog hospitals and dog cafes in cities,

and that criticizing dog-eating custom here is nothing but " cultural

imperialism " which tends to overlook even queerer culinary practices

in Western countries, and so on. They may be right in these

arguments, but we need to give some thought if it is really so

desirable to keep dog soup as one of the high-priced items on

restaurant menus in these times when we have already shed many old

practices to live in the modern global community.

 

It is obvious that the younger people, who regard dogs more as their

friends than as a source of food, have much less appetite for dog

cuisine than the health-conscious older generation. So it can be

expected that the passage of time will gradually push dog menus out

of the Korean eating culture. However, more conscientious and active

efforts aside from revising a few clauses in existing acts are called

for at the government level to lead the people away from the culinary

habit that hurts the image of Korea. That our bureaucrats and

legislators include quite a few dog eaters should not deter such

official endeavors.