Approximately 200 South Korean farmers engaged in breeding and raising dogs for human consumption rallied near Seoul’s presidential office on Thursday, urging the government to abandon plans to ban the centuries-old and controversial practice. Despite attempting to drive trucks with caged dogs to the presidential office, dozens of farmers were thwarted by police inspections.
President Yoon Suk Yeol’s ruling party has introduced a bill advocating the prohibition of breeding and selling dogs for consumption, offering financial compensation to those compelled to cease their operations within a three-year grace period. The move aims to resolve the longstanding debate surrounding dog meat consumption, with support from both the opposition party, currently in control of parliament, and the general public.
In a country where over 6 million households own dogs as pets, President Yoon and his wife, Kim Keon Hee, who own six dogs themselves, are at the forefront of advocating for the ban. A Gallup Korea poll revealed that nearly two-thirds of respondents opposed eating dog meat, marking a decline in popularity, with only 8% admitting to consuming dog meat in the past year, down from 27% in 2015.
Ju Yeong-bong, a representative of the industry group leading the rally, argued that politicians lacked the right to shut down an entire industry or dictate dietary choices. He emphasized disagreement with the notion of dog meat consumption being labeled as barbaric, citing traditions in other countries.
The farmers, feeling excluded from discussions on the proposed ban, criticized the insufficient financial compensation, asserting that it would jeopardize their livelihoods. During the protest, farmers clashed with outnumbering police, resulting in the detention of three protesters, including Ju.
While the consumption of dog meat has waned in popularity, farmers and restaurant owners supporting the practice continue to fight against its prohibition. Accusations have been made against First Lady Kim for allegedly exerting improper pressure on the government and ruling party to endorse the ban, a claim refuted by the presidential office.
