“Park, Park, wherever you may be,
You eat dogs in your own country,
But it could be worse… You could be Scouse,
Eating rats in ya council house!”

This odd, perhaps off-putting, chant was composed by Manchester United fans for the #13 midfielder, Ji-sung Park. Consumption of canine meat, an act often considered outlandish by foreigners, is, in fact, also highly controversial in the Park’s homeland. While the Korean code of law does not explicitly veto manducation, it prohibits the killing of kennels in an “inhumane” manner. Based on this constitution, a 2011 case found a dog farm owner guilty of slaughtering by electrocution. Despite the defendant’s claim that the execution was least painful and most effective, the Korean Supreme Court judged it to be “too cruel.” The litigation reflected the growing awareness of animal rights and revulsion towards butchering canines.

Revealed by President Moon’s comments in 2021, the activists’ emotional appeal—that dogs are peerlessly empathetic and intelligent—tantalises the congress to impose an according ban. Contrarily, dissidents of the ban criticise the hypocrisy of an attitude that promotes the infamous society where “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Indeed, horses and swine are evinced to be no worse than tykes. Additionally, repercussions of radical legislation accompany risk. It intrudes on the principle of democracy and freedom of choice. The state is essentially hierarchising the voices of animal rights activists and marginalising the outvoted without sound empirical reasoning. As a corollary, other entities from various fields would pressure the government to satisfy their demands. For instance, environmentalists and health activists could ask for the immediate extinction of gasoline cars and junk foods, which is simply implausible.

Accordingly, the officials are likely to resolve with stricter regulation in the domestication and butchering processes while still tolerating consumption. These include the aligned categorisation of canines as livestock and clarification of “brutal” slaughter, which is currently confined to gibbeting. In light of the longer term, the government would also envision an embargo to be superfluous as the demand continues to plunge and activists call the dogs off against a trivial dog-eating minority.

Further, the wider livestock market awaits a tectonic shift in the next half-century. The meat industry accounts for more than 14% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, which is, over two decades, 86 times more noxious to the earth than CO2. Notwithstanding the ecological concerns, I maintain that strict legislation is expendable.

Intensive farming is prevalent at present primarily because it is the optimal method of production in the face of high demand. Hence, an organic drift away from conventional meat can ameliorate both environmental and animal rights issues. Providentially, with meat analogue products blossoming and meat consumption languishing, everything’s coming up roses for healthier agriculture. The treatment of animals, in a market where economies of scale are less salient, would be enhanced as organic farms and smaller herds gain currency. Accordingly, the lawmakers could regulate the industrial farms and break down oligopolies to accelerate the shift.

“Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.” Those in Manor Farm didn’t forbear to retaliate against Mr Jones. In reality, creatures do not convey their perception of the existing regime quite as aggressively. Nonetheless, any alteration of animal welfare law based on mankind’s construal of righteousness is ultimately nugatory. Changes in societal attitude will be naturally conveyed by the consumers and markets without the need for legal authority. Rather, I foresee a broader reform in animal rights law around consent, wherein neoteric insights on zoological behaviour promise greater extrication for non-humans to exercise autonomy. All in all, I am hopeful of a 2072 more harmonious than 2022.

References:

[1] Taylor, K. (2010) “Why we don’t eat dogs” The Guardian, 6 Apr [Online]. Available at: theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/06/disgust-morality-ethics (Accessed: 26 Feb 2022)
[2] Shim, E. (2015) “New attitudes toward dogs and meat drive animal activism in South Korea” United Press International, 8 Sep [Online]. Available at: upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/09/08/New-attitudes-toward-dogs-and-meat-drive-animal-activism-in-South-Korea/5841440989281/ (Accessed: 26 Feb 2022)
[3] Jung, H. & Jung M. (2018) “Top court rejects dog electrocution” The Korea Times, 16 Sep [Online]. Available at: koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2019/03/371_255643.html (Accessed: 26 Feb 2022)
[4] (2020) “New poll shows 84% of South Koreans reject eating dog meat as HSI rescues nearly 200 dogs from meat farm that “smells of death”” Human Society International, 22 Oct [Online]. Available at: hsi.org/news-media/new-poll-shows-majority-of-south-koreans-reject-eating-dog-meat-as-hsi-rescues-nearly-200-dogs-from-meat-farm/ (Accessed: 26 Feb 2022)
[5] Parry, R. (2021) “South Korea will consider ban on eating dog meat” The Times, 25 Nov [Online]. Available at: thetimes.co.uk/article/south-korea-will-consider-ban-on-eating-dog-meat-h5rcsk5r0 (Accessed: 26 Feb 2022)
[6] Park, S., Lee, S., Sung, S. (2021) “소도 눈물 흘리는데 왜 개만 갖고 그러나? [Cows also cry, so why is this debate only about dog meat?]” Money Today, 28 Sep [Online]. Available at: news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no= (Accessed: 26 Feb 2022)
[7] Wright, A. (2014) “Pig-headed: How Smart are Swine?” Modern Farmer, 10 Mar [Online]. Available at: modernfarmer.com/2014/03/pigheaded-smart-swine/ (Accessed: 26 Feb 2022)
[8] Baba, C., Kawai, M., Takimoto-Inose, A. (2019) “Are Horses (Equus caballus) Sensitive to Human Emotional Cues?” Animals: an open access journal from MDPI, 9(9), 630
[9] Park, B. (2021) “개 식용까지 국가가 간섭할 일인가 [Should the government be interfering even with what people eat?]” MBN News, 30 Sep [Online]. Available at: m.mbn.co.kr/news/4606300 (Accessed: 26 Feb 2022)
[10] (2021) “Climate change: Do I need to stop eating meat?” BBC News, 12 Nov [Online]. Available at: bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-59232599 (Accessed: 27 Feb 2022)
[11] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe [Online]. Available at: unece.org/challenge (Accessed: 27 Feb 2022)
[12] Balmford, A., Amano, T., Bartlett, H. et al. (2018) “The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming” Nature Sustainability, 1, 477–485. Retrieved from: doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0138-5
[13] Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations [Online]. Available at: fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/ (Accessed: 5 Mar 2022)
[14] Rivera, L. (2017) “Organic September: Why dairy is a good place to start” Independent, 28 Aug [Online]. Available at: independent.co.uk/indy-eats/why-dairy-is-a-good-place-to-start-with-organic-food-a7911056.html (Accessed: 5 Mar 2022)
[15] Kateman, B. (2021) “Healthier Plant-Based Meat Is on The Rise” Forbes, 10 May [Online]. Available at: forbes.com/sites/briankateman/2021/05/10/healthier-plant-based-meat-is-on-the-rise/?sh=2189da3820fd (Accessed: 27 Feb 2022)
[16] Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. (2018) “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers” Science 360 (6392), 987-992.