"Delivery Apps Ban Bosintang" vs "Don't Even Eat Chicken" Dog Meat Consumption Controversy

"Stop the Sale of Dog Meat Through Delivery Apps"
"Stop Chicken, Beef, and Pork Too... Why Only Bosintang Always?"

[Asia Economy Reporter Han Seung-gon] "Why do people always oppose Bosintang while eating chicken?" , "Stop the barbaric consumption of dog meat!"

Recently, a controversy over the pros and cons of dog meat has erupted after it was revealed that a dog meat-selling restaurant was listed on a food delivery application (app). Animal rights groups criticized it as a clear illegal act. Among citizens, there is a heated debate. The controversy centers on why delivery is allowed for beef, pork, and chicken, but Bosintang is opposed.

The Animal Freedom Coalition stated in a press release on the 9th of last month, "So-called 'dog meat' is clearly an illegal food under current law, and businesses selling it are committing illegal acts," adding, "Urgent measures are needed to address the distribution of illegal food."

The organization had previously publicized the fact that dog meat-selling restaurants were listed on delivery apps in March and urged corrective actions. According to the group, some dog meat-selling restaurants and menus have since been removed from these apps.

Opinions among citizens are divided. Some believe it was wrong for delivery app companies to register restaurants using illegal ingredients, but others question why there is opposition only to Bosintang while delivery is allowed for chicken, beef, and pork dishes.

Kim, a company employee in his 30s who opposes Bosintang delivery, said, "I understand the reason for opposing Bosintang is because dogs are not classified as livestock that we can eat," adding, "Beyond these regulations, there seems to be a social sentiment that makes it somewhat difficult for us to accept."

On the other hand, some think this controversy is not a problem at all. Lee, a worker in his 40s, said, "There are people who are particularly sensitive about Bosintang," and "The degree of controversy seems to have varied depending on the times." He added, "I don't understand why people keep opposing Bosintang when they eat other animals."

While the controversy over allowing Bosintang delivery through apps is ongoing, the distribution of dog meat remains illegal for now. However, due to a long-standing customary practice in our society, it is difficult to impose clear punishments.

Dog meat is not recognized as a food ingredient by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Therefore, the Animal Freedom Coalition's claim that Bosintang is illegal can be considered factual.

Ingredients that can be used in food must be listed in the 'Food Ingredient Classification' or included in the rules as 'ingredients that can be used in food' or 'ingredients that can be used in food with restrictions.' However, dog meat, which is used in Bosintang, does not fall under these categories.

Among animal-based ingredients in the food ingredient classification, livestock meat includes commonly known beef, pork, chicken, lamb, goat, rabbit, horse, venison, pheasant, duck, and others. Therefore, making and selling food using ingredients that are not recognized as food ingredients violates the Food Sanitation Act.

Violations can result in administrative actions such as cancellation of business permits or registration, suspension of business, or closure of business premises. Additionally, offenders may face imprisonment of up to five years or fines up to 50 million won (both punishments can be applied simultaneously).

However, in reality, it is complicated to punish Bosintang restaurant owners simply for selling dog meat for consumption. Although selling meat for consumption is not fundamentally legal, considering the long-standing customs in Korean society, social consensus is needed before actual punishment can be enforced. Also, it is difficult to punish delivery apps themselves, as they are communication sales brokerage companies providing delivery services and are not subject to the Food Sanitation Act.

Meanwhile, the controversy over dog meat consumption continues. On July 16th last year, during Chobok (the first of the three hottest days in summer), the debate intensified. Fourteen animal organizations, including Nabiya Saranghae, Dasom, Daegu Animal Protection Coalition, Happy World with Animals, and Animal Rescue 119, held a press conference in front of the Blue House fountain in Seoul that morning, stating, "Every year on the hottest days, many citizens come out into the blazing sun to call for the end of dog meat consumption," and criticized, "However, the government and the National Assembly hide behind the excuse that 'social consensus is needed,' dampening the momentum to end dog meat consumption."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.