• The Korean Journal of Food And Nutrition
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.72-83
• /
• 2003

Korea has its long history and tradition of eating dogmeat as food, but dogmeat was excluded from the animal procession law because of the criticism from foreigners, so it is being distributed without inspection of government. Government rejects people's demand for the legalization of edibility of dogmeat due to the protest from a few animal right activist groups, but 80% of nationals favor edibility of dogmeat, and urge the legalization of dogmeat, while 20 lawmakers in legislature submitted the bill to legalize the edibility of dogmeat, and judicature ruled dogmeat is edible meat. Westerners' criticism on dogmeat is, in part, from real protection of animal, but rather their intention seems to be from the racism of colors, the purpose to increase the export amount of beef, to divert the attention of utilizing the abandoned pet dog as animal feed, and to raise a fund for the animal right activist groups. Government distorts the public opinion of edibility of dogmeat, making use of the related animal protection group, and the ministry of Agriculture and Forestry controlling over the animal protection law sides for the concerned groups opposing to the edibility of dogmeat, not for farmers. Furthermore, government has no intention of solving the problem of edibility of dogmeat and can't even propose the solution without presenting any adequate measure, worsening the situation. As a result, the issue of edibility of dogmeat is on the dead angle of sanitation, and wastes of dog slaughtering are polluting the environment. To solve this problem, it is necessary to legalize the edibility of dogmeat in order to distribute it sanitarily, to protect the environment, to increase tax revenues, and to secure the national pride. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry should transfer the jurisdiction over the animal protection law to the Ministry of Environment, and government should execute a reliable policy on the bases of objective and accurate investigation and statistics. Also, it is needed not only to set up the exclusive public bureau to make the edibility of dogmeat known worldwide and research institute, but also to launch the non government organization under the auspices of government. Then dogmeat can become the world renowned food as that of representing Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Food And Nutrition
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.124-133
• /
• 2010

The total number of the dogs bred in Korea as of 2007 was 1,917,709, and among them, 77%, 1,476,776 dogs were edible dogs. Dogmeat has been legalized edible as food from Choseon dynasty, Daehan imperial state, Japan-occupied era till the present Korea. Dogs had been included in the article 2, Enforcement Ordinance of Processing and Disposal Rule of Livestock and Its Products until the end of Jan. 1979, but it was crossed out by the Notification No 3,005(Feb. 1 1979 effective) of the Minister of Agriculture and Marine Products, and as a result, the obligation that dogs should be slaughtered at the slaughtering ground was defunct. Thus, the arbitrarily dog slaughtering was empowered. As a matter of fact, the new law was not legalized in order to ban dogs from being slaughtered. The waste amount of slaughtered edible dogs amounts to 7,282 tons annually, and most of its waste from the arbitrarily-slaughtered dog is being illegally dumped without proper management and supervision. Edible dogs defecate 292,509 tons(calculates urine as dung) annually, but it is sanitarily disposed according to the Law of Management and Use of Livestock's Dung and Urine which took effective from Sep. 2009. Annual sales amount of edible dogs comes to 590 billion won on the basis of the shipment at breeding ground, but after passing through various level of marketing, and being processed as Gaesoju, and Boshintang, it forms 4 trillion won market when it reaches customers. The amount of food waste in Korea in 2007 came to 5,274,944 tons, and 633 billion won was spent for its disposal cost. Korean edible dogs of 1,476,776 heads consumed 1,266,705 tons, the 24% of total food waste. Edible dogs are the most effective means to convert food waste into food for man, not entailing the cost of disposal. On the other hand, pet dog culture brought about disposal cost, and the 51,188 dogs were abandoned at 2007, while 7 billion won was spent for the protection, euthanasia of them and the disposal of their dead bodies.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Food Culture
• /
• v.3 no.3
• /
• pp.245-258
• /
• 1988

A food life style itself is substrative relations with culture, and is concerned with our daily life. Especially a food taboo comes from the intelligence which resulted from an ancestor's life experience. Accordingly, we can say a food taboo began with human appearance, settled in convention of folklore society, and forms it's own boundary todays. Since a practice of a food taboo is combinded firmly with various sociological factors such as religion, custom, and so on, it is very hard to change, even though the belife of a food taboo is not true. According to the result, first, significant factors effecting on a practice of a food taboo was a level of age, a level of education, religion, family pattern, behavior of subject and her mother for food life management, education of subject and her mother, and religion of subject and her mother. Second, in analysis of factors according to classification of food taboo a practice of a food taboo which classified to food of animal, food of plant and the other food showed significant differences, comparing religion of subject with her mother. Third, a result examined practice frequency and review of science, non science indicated that foods such as Egg of Globefish, Lettuce, Coffee, Persimmon, dried Persimmon, Soybean and Sugar are tabooed on the basis of science, and foods such as Vinegary food, Thieved food, Soup of Tangle and Dogmeat tabooed on the basis of non science. But in the case of Puja, it's basis of science is not identified. These food taboos are tabooed by more then 50% of subjects including who answerd 'there is some case to practice it' Therefore, we should continue analysis of science for the reason of a food taboo, at the same time, provide the origin and try to have a rational food life.