Behind the scenes of the dog meat trade

My latest article for The Scavenger, Behind the scenes of the dog meat trade, spotlights the barbaric trade in dog meat and the legal inadequacies that are helping it to continue. 

Thank you very much to John Dalley, Co-founder and President of Soi Dog, for his interview. 

I first met John back in 2008, when I was a volunteer at Soi Dog's shelter in Phuket, Thailand. 
----------------


Every year, billions of animals endure fear and pain in the meat industry due to their status as food. Susannah Waters spotlights the trade in dog meat and the legal inadequacies that help it to continue.

24 April 2014

Panicked cries cut through the rancid and humid dusk air. Rusty cages stacked four deep detain the noisy and terrified cargo.

From the far corner, Sunny howls in pain. Her tiny frame is being crushed under the weight of several writhing bodies, and she struggles to breathe.

Her cries go unanswered.

The sky darkens. Sunny falls quiet. The truck accelerates into the night…

Market of misery

In Thailand alone, it has been estimated that 500,000 dogs are slaughtered or trafficked live over borders each year to supply the dog meat industry.

In Asia more widely, as many as 20 million dogs suffer the same fate. Vietnam presents one of the most lucrative marketplaces for the doomed canines, where several million are consumed annually.

The dogs endure a gruelling journey to market. They are often deprived of food and water, and overcrowding can see more than 15 dogs crammed to a cage – a fate similar to cows and sheep in the live export trade and the billions of animals in the western factory farming system.

Unsurprisingly, deaths and injuries en route are common. Those who survive the ill-fated trip face abuse, torture, and an excruciating death. Soi Dog Foundation reports that dogs are often skinned or boiled alive in the belief that it enhances the flavour of the meat.

Soi Dog Foundation has been at the forefront of the campaign to eradicate the dog meat trade since 2011. Co-founder and President of Soi Dog, John Dalley, says that witnessing dogs waiting to die in cages is a “horrendous experience”.

“Dogs are brutally killed in front of others, and seeing them trembling in fear is an image that will always remain with you”, he tells The Scavenger.

Dalley says the dog meat trade is a business steeped in greed and corruption. In Thailand, the majority of dogs sold into the industry are stolen companion animals and community dogs, rounded up and traded by criminal syndicates thirsty for profit.

“The trade is about money. It involves high profits from the dogs, and bribes to officials”, Dalley says.

Those operating the trade in Thailand admit that the industry rakes in one billion Thai Baht – or 30 million US dollars – annually.

Lax laws

In Vietnam and China, where dog meat is considered a delicacy which bestows healing and aphrodisiac benefits, it is legal to slaughter and consume dogs.

In Thailand, dog smugglers can be prosecuted under laws prohibiting the illegal trade and transportation of animals, with a maximum penalty of two years’ prison time and a 90,000 Baht (USD $2,800) fine. But lax law enforcement means traffickers rarely see the walls of a prison cell.

With no direct animal cruelty legislation in Thailand, a charge of animal cruelty under Criminal Code laws is one other avenue that prosecutors could potentially – but rarely do – pursue. However, with a maximum penalty of one month in prison and/or a fine of 1000 Baht (USD $30), it doesn’t deliver much of a deterrent.

A proposed Animal Welfare Bill, which would offer the dogs some genuine protection under the law, has stalled in legislative channels despite a dedicated campaign by animal activists to keep the bill alive. Dalley concedes that the current state of Thai politics may thwart the prospect of it being enshrined in law.

In frustration, animal advocates have urged Thailand’s Prime Minister to clamp down on the operatives behind the trade.Sunnier future?

Soi Dog employs a multifaceted strategy in its efforts to ban the trade. It has embedded undercover agents in Thailand and Laos who gather intelligence on the movement of dogs, and of the operations of tanneries and butchers.

The organisation has installed thousands of posters throughout north east Thailand offering rewards for information leading to arrests, offers monetary rewards for successful interceptions, works with police and other authorities, and also provides shelter and ongoing care for dogs rescued from the trade.

Dalley does believe there is cause for hope that the trade in dogs will one day cease, but he acknowledges that it won’t happen overnight.

“I believe the trade will diminish. As more people within countries where it operates become aware of the incredible cruelty involved, they will put pressure on their own governments to act. That is why education is so important”, he says.

He also believes that the recent surge in companion animals in Asia may help to change attitudes over the longer term.

Public health concerns may also have a lasting impact. A pledge by ASEAN nations to eliminate rabies by 2020 has sparked cooperation between governments to attempt to tackle the illegal smuggling of dogs across borders.

Recent developments indicate that the industry is becoming increasingly untenable in Vietnam. Soi Dog has already made solid progress to halt the smuggling of dogs there.

Demand for dog meat in Vietnam is also slowing amid health concerns over the spread of rabies, and debate by a public who is questioning the ethics of a practice which doesn’t actually have firm roots in the country’s history.

Also, recent closures of numerous dog meat restaurants in Hanoi, a city considered the hub of dog meat cuisine, signal change may be on the horizon.

Change will come too late for dogs like Sunny, who have been sold, subjugated and commodified at the behest of a ruthless trade. But the unwavering compassion and commitment displayed by animal advocates such as Dalley provides hope that this brutal industry will soon disappear.


Visit the Soi Dog Foundation website for information on how you can help end this cruel trade.

Susannah Waters is Associate Editor at The Scavenger.

Images: Courtesy of Soi Dog Foundation

Monsanto: Vandal or saviour?

Agricultural biotechnology companies such as Monsanto are keen to position themselves as custodians of global food production. But, they are actually responsible for reinforcing and encouraging a food crisis. 

---

It’s the late 21^st century. Food supply is collapsing under the weight of an exploding world population, and people face poverty, hunger, decay and disease on a massive scale.

Then, three corporations are granted the power to control the Earth’s entire food supply. But strains of genetically modified “super foods”, rather than providing salvation, cause a new epidemic of disease. The food industry receives approval to create genetic alterations to humans so they can tolerate the super foods. However, legislation also gives them ownership rights of the DNA and bodies of those augmented…

The events depicted above certainly seem dramatic, even beyond contemplation. This frightening scenario is the subject of proposed dystopian sci-fi film, SANTO 7.13.15.

However, agricultural biotechnology corporations such as US-based Monsanto make no secret of the fact that they crave domination over world food supply. In fact, they are intent on convincing governments and the public that the future of humankind relies on genetically engineered foods.

Sowing the seeds of domination

GM foods have firmly taken root in the US, where 70% of items in food stores contain genetically modified organisms. Monsanto, which is responsible for the financial ruin of countless farmers, controls a large proportion of the US seed sector, with its genetically modified soybeans, cotton and corn edging out most other players of those markets. The company, whose products comprise 40% of all crop acres in that country, has also made vast inroads into other countries’ agricultural systems – for example, it monopolises the Indian cotton seed market.

Its genetically modified seeds have also cropped up without welcome in several places, such as Hungary - where despite GM seeds being banned nationally, 1000 acres of GM corn “mysteriously” materialised, and was subsequently incinerated by government order – and US state Oregon, where GM wheat, which isn’t approved for growing or sale in the US, surfaced last year.

Although SANTO 7.13.15 paints an ominous picture of a fictional future world, it is worth considering the attitudes championed by Monsanto’s PR apparatus and asking: is the concept really so far-fetched?

Steeped in spin

Just a cursory look over Monsanto’s website reveals that it fancies itself as guardian of life on planet Earth.

Monsanto goes to great lengths to cultivate an image of saviour of the planet’s food woes, and protector of human life. Webpages feature indulgent feel-good (yet highly questionable) claims, including “improving lives”, “encouraging prosperity for all” and even quotes referring to world peace.

The arrogance of Monsanto’s world view is disturbing. But let’s be clear: this is a company that advocates full corporate control of the world’s food supply, and aims to sway us to the apparent virtues of this objective via its carefully crafted PR spin. 

Once you scratch the surface of its slick marketing collateral, it becomes clear that its goals align to disempower citizens. Monsanto doesn’t benefit from an informed, empowered citizen who questions its agenda and motives. It is intent on driving home the message that future life and security on Earth is contingent on the widespread uptake of its technologies.

Creating a problem or a solution?

Monsanto refers to itself as a “sustainable agriculture company”. But, the company admits it is focused on “producing more” to keep in step with population growth and to address limited arable land. It contends that “experts predict we will reach 9 billion [people] by 2050. To feed everyone, we’ll need to double the amount of food we currently produce”.

Monsanto is, unsurprisingly, not genuinely preoccupied with sustainability. In reality, sustainability is not conducive to the large scale profits that the company seeks.

Agriculture is currently responsible for approximately 70% of all worldwide fresh water usage, and approximately 60% of the Earth’s arable land. Animal-based agriculture utilises 55% of the world’s fresh water and occupies up to 45% of Earth’s land surface area.

Monsanto maintains that in order to adequately address the supposed predicted food shortfall, we have to become more “efficient”, since it is “mathematically impossible to double the amount of land and water we already use”.  

While this may be the case, it is not impossible for the planet to reduce demand for the most resource-intensive food products. A 2010 report by the United Nations Environment Program states that “a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products” is crucial to reducing our environmental impact.

Monsanto cites an increase in demand for protein foods in China and India, as people there become more prosperous. But since food animals “require multiple pounds of feed for each pound of meat they produce, a modest increase in the demand for protein is actually a huge increase in the demand for grain, water and land”.

Monsanto is right: an astronomical amount of food crops are diverted to animal feed. But they don’t actually challenge this situation. Syphoning tonnes of wheat, soy, and plant crops through “food” animals in a context of diminishing resources, water shortages and population growth is reckless – even criminal.

Of course, it doesn’t suit Monsanto’s agenda to question an increasing reliance on animal food products, which wreak a significant environmental toll. Monsanto needs a food crisis in order to justify its existence.

A force to be reckoned with

In a similar way that geoengineering “innovations” may allow us to (temporarily) defer action on addressing the source of global warming – for example, by reducing pressure on governments to enact legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions - so too genetic engineering may diminish an incentive to sufficiently address the causes of the looming food “crisis”.

Clearly, tinkering with nature via technological intervention can reap immense monetary rewards. This is why Monsanto has global ambitions. Its monopoly on many (poorer) countries’ seed sectors and encroachment into their agricultural systems is disturbingly reminiscent of an imperialist agenda.  

The scope of its investment into research and development (over US$2.6 million a day) indicates a long term intention to be recognised as gatekeepers of the modern day industrial food complex.

It’s certain that the company won’t relinquish these aspirations without a fight. If its past (overwhelmingly successful) lawsuits are anything to go by, it has already secured support from many people in high places and frequently operates with impunity.

But the spectre of a bleak future similar to that dreamed up in SANTO 7.13.15 is not assured. 2013’s “March Against Monsanto” drew over two million protestors across 52 countries, with more worldwide protests planned for this coming May.

The resistance to Monsanto’s world view is a force to be reckoned with, and demonstrates that people aren’t simply going to acquiesce to the corporate giant and its relentless pursuit of profit.

--

Originally published April 2014 in Discordia online zine.