I went to a Chinese restaurant this afternoon for lunch and this question came up.
If you do not try to hide the origin, is it legal to serve dog meat?
This is assuming that the dogs are raised for meat, and slaughtered in accordance with USDA guidlines for something like cattle. Also the dog would have to be clearly marked on the menu as such.
I have done a search on this and can not find anything that specifically says it’s illegal.
you wouldn;t think so, if the dogs were up to USDA and FDA standards. purebread, and disease free; but I can tell you one thing, there would be more PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) activists, than PETA (people eating Tasty Animals) activists.
After numerous articles were written about the “barbarism” of eating dog, reflecting the ideas of those who eat cows, pigs, and fuzzy, cuddly little rabbits, the state of California passed a 1989 law that made it illegal to eat dog stew. Thus, every person who possesses, imports into California, sells, buys, gives or accepts any dog carcass with the intent to use it for food, is basically “going to the pound” under California penal code 598 b. The person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months imprisonment or a $1,000 fine. And regardless of any nutritional, medicinal or cultural purpose the intended dish is supposed to serve, California citizens may not eat something that is traditionally kept as a pet.
Originally, penal code 598 b was worded to include just cats and dogs. It was later reworded under pressure from the Vietnamese community to include any animal that is traditionally and legally kept as a pet or companion. However, the California penal law still allows the killing and consumption of wild game and does not prevent a person from eating, slaughtering or selling livestock.
Although cooking up dog stew in California is illegal, other states have not created a similar law. Under federal legislation it is permissible to consume dog like any other meat, but if a person intends to slaughter dogs for meat sale, they must get a license according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Yes, wasn’t it around 1987 that a large number of vietnamese
were allowed to enter the US & a lot of them in SF. Pets were disappearing from the Parks in SF. I remember this pretty well. I suppose that’s why the new law in 89 came into effect. No offense to anyone, but check it out, Im sure its historically accurate.
I am not surprised there are ordinances prohibiting the consumption of dog meat in some communities. In America, the family dog (along with the family cat) is nearly as sacred as the cow in India. Dogs are our surrogate children, our children’s playmates and protectors, our companions, our hunting companions, our co-workers. They are (sometimes) the only people who love us uncritically. When we were children, they taught us the value of being gentle with those weaker than us; that we could love someone who doesn’t look like us, doesn’t speak the language we do, and can’t do many of the things we take for granted. I recall one comedian suggesting that dogs think we’re gods because we can open the refrigerator and get food any time we want!
I suspect the reason that don’t-eat-dog laws are not more pervasive is that most communities simply don’t percieve the need for such an ordinance. Unless they have allegations of people stealing pets or capturing stray dogs for consumption, most community members wouldn’t even think of the possibility that someone might look at Fido and see lunch on the hoof (more properly, paw).
I speculate that reports of dogs missing from Golden Gate park were sparked less by actual incidents of Vietnamese immigrants’ desire for “a taste of home” than by fearful conjecture and demonization (conscious or not) of these new strangers in the community. An influx of immigrants from someplace we aren’t quite familiar with always seems to give rise to rumors, generally untrue, (or misrepresented facts) of the strange, quaint, and/or repugnant practices of these new neighbors. I would suggest that nearly every instance of canine consumption by Vietnamese immigrants is a product of xenophobia – an urban legend who’s purpose is to demonstrate how they are somehow inferior to us.
Back in the mid-to-late 80’s, I believe I had a little dog at a Vietnamese dining establishment in CA. It didn’t taste bad at all (probably because of a good sauce) but the smell was offputting, tho I can’t imagine why.
That law you described straykat- seems to me that rabbits are kept as pets, yet I have savored them on several occaisions. Does CA consider them food first, pets second, and dogs as pets first, food second?
I had always understood that the flesh of carnivores is usually pretty bad eating, because the meat is full of purines and buteric acid. I once knew a hunter who shot a black bear-and he said the meat was disgusting. Actually, for the little amount of meat that a dog would provide, would it be worth it?
I am inclined to agree with Balloo in believing that racism and anti-immigrant feelings may have been responsible for the “no-dogs as food” laws. There was California ballot proposition a year or two ago that would have made it specifically illegal to sell horses for the purposes of food. I believe it was defeated. Many places in California it is illegal to kill or remove the wild birds in public parks. Many cities are completely “bird sanctuaries” so that it is illegal to harm a bird in any way. I’ve been told that it was because some group of Asian immigrants were catching and eating the ducks in public parks. I guess it was legal where they came from.
Never having lived with a companion rabbit, I don’t have a problem with eating fuzzy little bunnies. The idea of eating a dog, however, weirds me out almost as much as the idea of having sex with my brother. Ick.
While I was in the USAF in Korea I saw many resurants that serve dog meat. It is concidered a delicacy. Interestingly enough, they only serve to men, “dog is man’s food” they would say.
I tried it once and I thought it was surprisingly similar to beef.
Back around 1895 or so, O. Henry published a satirical poem (it was doggerel, ah ha ha) in his Texas newspaper. Today it would be considered shockingly racist, but in those days whiteboys could publish any racist thing they pleased. When I was a kid in the 60s, I found an old copy of the Complete O. Henry in my grade school library.
My guess is that O. Henry was inspired by an attack of indigestion after eating a greasy tamale from a street vendor.
The poem was about a Mexican “greaser” who comes to the United States. His grandfather had been killed in the Mexican War, so he is bent on taking revenge on the gringos. He starts selling tamales on the street. He catches the stray dogs and alley cats and secretly grinds them up for his tamales.
With his stout lariat,
Then he caught swiftly
Tomcats and puppy dogs,
Caught them and cooked them,
Don José‚ Calderón,
Vower of vengeance,
Now on the sidewalk
Sits the avenger
Selling tamales to
Innocent purchasers.
Dire is thy vengeance,
Oh, José‚ Calderón,
Pitiless Nemesis
Fearful Redresser
Of the wrongs done to thy
Sainted grandfather. *
O. Henry concluded by saying,
You have greased all of us,
Greased a whole nation with your tamales.
I also was wondering about the rabbit question. I’ve eaten them AND had them for pets. I’ve done the same with chiken and ducks too. For some reason that doesn’t creep me out like having fried Fido, or pureed puppies. Despite the fact that I wouldn’t be eating my OWN pet like I have with the chickens.