The Short AnswerThe Yulin dog meat festival has not been banned nationwide. Taiwan prohibits dog and cat meat, South Korea’s central prohibitions become enforceable in 2027, and Jakarta has acted locally. China, Indonesia and Cambodia should now adopt comprehensive national bans.

Nine dogs were rescued in June 2026 when a slaughterhouse outside Yulin, China, closed for good — some still wore collars. Humane World for Animals said the site had killed more than 15,000 dogs during its years of operation and helped broker the closure. The group called it a major win. It was not the end of the trade.

The Yulin dog meat festival remains the best-known symbol of dogs killed for food. It draws attention each June around the summer solstice. As of September 2026, it has not been banned, and China has no nationwide dog meat ban. But the dog meat trade in China has shrunk over the past decade under public pressure, and legal action in Asia is changing the wider debate.

Taiwan's dog meat ban has been in place since 2017. South Korea's dog meat ban is moving toward full enforcement under a national law that becomes fully enforceable on February 7, 2027. Jakarta has banned the trade and slaughter of dogs and other rabies-spreading animals for food. Campaigners in Indonesia and Cambodia are pressing their governments to follow suit.

What Is the Yulin Dog Meat Festival?

The Yulin Lychee and Dog Meat Festival refers to a period of higher dog meat sales in Yulin, a city in China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, timed to the summer solstice — usually starting around June 20 or 21. Some consumers traditionally pair dog meat dishes with lychees and liquor.

Despite claims that the event is ancient, animal welfare groups and news reports trace its modern start to around 2009 or 2010, when dog meat traders began promoting it as a commercial event to lift sales. Humane World for Animals describes it as commerce, not culture.

There is no single official venue, no gates or tickets, and no government-run program. Yulin authorities have long denied sponsoring the event and have distanced themselves from the controversy. What is commonly called the festival is, in practice, a concentrated period of dog and cat meat trading, slaughter and consumption across restaurants, food stalls, slaughterhouses and markets in and around the city.

At its peak, activists estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 dogs were killed during the core festival period. Humane World now puts that figure at about 2,000 to 3,000 during the most concentrated days. The group also warns that any estimate should be treated carefully because the supply chain is not transparent. Even so, the trend is clear: pressure from inside and outside China has reduced the event's visibility and scale.

Reduced is not the same as ended. Dogs and cats are still killed for meat in and around Yulin throughout the year, with demand rising each June. Some slaughter has moved from central streets to guarded sites on the outskirts, and limits on signs and public displays have made the trade harder to see — without making the animals any safer.

Is the Yulin Dog Meat Festival Banned?

No. As of September 2026, neither the festival nor the wider dog meat trade has been banned under nationwide Chinese law.

Reports of a coming ban have surfaced repeatedly over the years. In 2017, activists said Yulin authorities planned to stop dog meat sales shortly before the festival; the trade continued anyway. A major policy change in 2020 was also widely, and wrongly, reported as a national ban.

That year, China's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs removed dogs from the country's official livestock and poultry catalogue. In its explanation of the change, the ministry cited dogs' modern roles as companions, guides, police animals and rescue animals, along with changing public attitudes. The move was an important step, but it did not create a full ban on owning, selling or eating dog meat.

Two cities went further. Shenzhen and Zhuhai banned dog and cat meat consumption in 2020, showing that Chinese local governments have both the legal power and the practical tools to act. Neither rule applies to Yulin or the rest of mainland China.

Other laws can still apply to parts of the trade — animal theft, unlicensed slaughter, food-safety violations and transport without required health papers can all trigger action. That can rescue individual animals and disrupt trafficking networks. But without a direct ban on the market itself, traders still have a strong reason to find new routes and stay out of sight.

Does the Yulin Festival Still Happen?

Yes, though it no longer looks like the crowded public spectacle seen in older photos.

Dog meat sales and consumption continue around the summer solstice, while the large public displays tied to the festival's early years have been cut back. Restaurants and markets still sell dog meat. Slaughter is increasingly out of public view. Local officials keep their distance, and police presence and monitoring have reportedly increased.

The June 2026 closure of a slaughterhouse about 30 kilometers outside central Yulin showed both sides of the picture. It confirmed that the supply chain was still operating near the annual event, and it showed that traders can leave the business when real support is available. The owner entered a legally binding agreement to close and move to another livelihood through a program backed by the Chinese animal protection group Vshine and Humane World for Animals.

Public opinion data adds another layer. A 2025 survey in Yulin by Vshine, reported by Humane World, found that 87.5% of respondents said they never or rarely ate dog or cat meat, and 88% said a ban would not affect their lives. Because an advocacy group commissioned the survey, its method should be read with care. Even so, the findings weaken the idea that ending the trade would be an attack on a widely loved local custom.

China has more than 1.4 billion people, including a large and growing community of dog guardians, vets, rescuers and animal advocates — many of whom have taken personal and financial risks to document the trade and push for change.

The Dogs Behind the Word 'Meat'

Unlike a clear, regulated livestock system, the dog meat trade in parts of Asia often draws on animals of uncertain origin. Advocates have documented free-roaming community dogs, animals with no shots and suspected stolen pets moving through the same supply channels. Dogs are often hauled long distances in packed cages without enough food, water or vet care, and by the time officials inspect a truck or slaughterhouse, ownership can be hard or impossible to prove.

It is not possible to prove that every dog in the trade was stolen, and unverified figures should not be repeated as settled fact. But collars found on dogs at slaughter sites are direct proof that at least some animals had lived with people. Advocates say every stolen dog creates two victims: the animal, and the family left searching for answers.

The welfare concern does not depend on proving theft in every case. Dogs bred for meat can suffer just as much as stolen companions, and animal welfare experts generally treat sentience, not ownership status, as the key standard.

Public Health Is Part of the Case

Animal suffering is the main argument against the dog meat trade, but public health is now a major second reason.

Rabies is almost always fatal once symptoms appear, though it is preventable. The World Health Organization identifies dog vaccination, population management, bite prevention and access to post-exposure treatment as the main tools for ending dog-borne human rabies.

An unchecked trade works against those goals. It gathers dogs whose vaccination and health history are often unknown, moves them across communities and puts traders, drivers, slaughterers and market workers in close contact with frightened animals. Public health officials say the main risk is not eating properly cooked meat, but exposure during capture, transport, handling and slaughter — including bites and contact with infected tissue.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also noted that unchecked dog trafficking and consumption make rabies control harder across Southeast Asia. A 2023 systematic review of rabies in Southeast Asia separately identified occupational exposure among dog butchers and illegal dog movement as risks that need attention.

Tracking is another concern. When animals enter a supply chain with no clear origin, regulators cannot confirm what diseases or contaminants they may have been exposed to, or whether slaughter and storage met basic sanitary standards. Jakarta's 2025 regulation frames the issue in terms of zoonotic disease and food safety, along with animal welfare.

Taiwan: A Nationwide Ban Since 2017

Taiwan offers one of Asia's clearest nationwide legal models. In April 2017, the government amended its Animal Protection Act to ban killing dogs or cats for meat, and to ban selling, buying, eating or possessing their carcasses, organs or any food made with their parts. Article 12 says no one may use an economic purpose to justify those acts. Violations bring fines, and unlawful killing can trigger stronger penalties.

The law tackles supply and demand at the same time. A rule against slaughter alone would leave the market in place, while a rule against sales alone could push deals underground. Nearly a decade into enforcement, Taiwan's dog meat ban gives other governments a working model to study, not a blank page to start from.

South Korea: Dismantling an Industry by 2027

South Korea's Special Act on the Termination of Breeding, Slaughter, and Distribution of Dogs for Consumption was promulgated on February 6, 2024, and generally took effect on August 7, 2024. Article 5 bans breeding, slaughtering, distributing and selling dogs for food. Those central bans become enforceable on February 7, 2027, after a three-year transition period.

The law targets the commercial system — farms, slaughter, distribution and sales — rather than individual consumers, on the idea that removing legal supply will end consumption in practice.

Implementation is well under way. In May 2026, South Korea's Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs said 82% of registered dog meat farms had closed, and it announced inspections, steps against new or resumed breeding, and consulting support to help farmers move into other work.

The transition has not been smooth. Farmers and animal advocates have disagreed over compensation, timelines and the fate of dogs still on farms as the deadline nears. Officials say preventing renewed breeding, arranging humane care and adoption, and avoiding abandonment during closures remain open problems. Even so, the scale of the shift is striking: a government-backed industrial dog farming system is being dismantled by the same government that helped build it.

Jakarta Has Acted; Indonesia Has Not — Yet

Indonesia has no nationwide dog and cat meat trade ban, but its capital has moved on its own. Jakarta Governor Pramono Anung issued Regulation No. 36 of 2025, which took effect on November 24, 2025. It bars trading rabies-transmitting animals — including dogs, cats, monkeys, bats and civets — for food in live, raw or processed form, and it bans slaughtering or killing them for that purpose. Penalties range from written warnings and confiscation to business closure and license loss.

The rule has already prompted on-the-ground action. On June 17, 2026, West Jakarta food and public-order officials conducted an inspection and education operation at a restaurant in Cengkareng serving dog-meat dishes.

Because Indonesia's system is decentralized, Jakarta's rule does not apply nationwide, and local areas have taken mixed approaches — leaving dogs protected in some places and at risk in others. National momentum is growing anyway: at a June 5, 2026 event, officials from Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture, lawmakers and civil society groups discussed a petition with more than 700,000 signatures calling for an end to the dog and cat meat trade across the country. The ministry's account of the meeting cited animal welfare, public health and social harmony.

Cambodia: A Provincial Ban, No National Law

Cambodia has a similar gap between local and national policy. In 2020, Siem Reap became the country's first province to ban the dog meat trade — a major move in a top tourism area and proof that Cambodian authorities can act on the issue. Campaigners have since warned that local enforcement alone may push parts of the trade into other provinces or deeper underground.

In May 2026, the group Animals of Our World launched a campaign calling for national action. A Cambodianess report cited cruelty, trafficking, missing companion animals, weak enforcement and rabies risk, while also noting that poverty and livelihood concerns must be addressed along with any ban.

Why Local Bans Are Not Enough

Local bans matter because they establish a legal principle: dogs and cats should not be traded and slaughtered for food. They can also stop sales within a city or province, give enforcement officers a clear mandate and change what residents see as socially acceptable. But a local law cannot fully control a trade that crosses municipal and provincial borders.

When one city acts alone, suppliers may reroute trucks, move slaughter to a neighboring district or sell through less visible channels. Restaurants may change names or buy meat from outside the jurisdiction. Animals still travel through the same untraceable network, and enforcement becomes a patchwork in which protection depends on which side of a boundary a dog happens to be found.

A national law closes those gaps. It can establish one definition, one deadline and one set of rules for breeding, transport, slaughter, sale and possession. It can also assign responsibility among agriculture, public health, food safety, police and local government agencies. Without that coordination, even committed local officials can be left trying to solve a national supply-chain problem with local authority.

That is why the bans in Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Jakarta and Siem Reap should be treated as models for broader action rather than substitutes for it. Each has shown that change is legally and politically possible. The next step is consistent national protection.

Why Dogs Should Not Be Sold as Meat

For dog lovers, the moral case is deeply personal. Dogs recognize familiar voices, form attachments, seek safety and experience pain and fear. They work beside people as guides, medical-alert dogs, search-and-rescue partners, police dogs and therapy animals. In homes around the world, they are family.

That bond does not mean every society has viewed dogs in exactly the same way. It does mean governments can respond to what people know now about animal sentience, welfare and the modern place of dogs in human life. Laws change as public values change. Taiwan's 2017 reform and South Korea's national phaseout make that point more powerfully than any outsider's lecture could.

Opposing the trade must never become an excuse for attacking Asian people or reducing many countries and cultures to one practice. Most people in Asia do not eat dogs, and some of the most determined opponents of the trade are Chinese, Korean, Indonesian and Cambodian rescuers, veterinarians, attorneys and ordinary citizens. Effective advocacy respects and supports those voices while remaining clear about the suffering animals endure.

The principle is straightforward: no animal's suffering becomes acceptable merely because a market exists for it. Dogs do not become less capable of fear because they were bred for sale, and a stolen companion does not stop being part of a family when a trader puts the dog in a cage.

Other Food and Livelihood Options Exist

Food security and income are real concerns, especially for small traders and rural families. A serious ban should acknowledge those concerns instead of pretending that closing a business has no consequences. But economic hardship does not make the continued slaughter of dogs and cats necessary.

Protein is available from many other sources, depending on local diets and access: beans, lentils, soy foods, peas, eggs, dairy, fish, poultry, nuts and seeds. Governments can strengthen access to affordable alternatives while enforcing food-safety standards that protect consumers. The argument is not that every person must follow one diet. It is that dogs and cats do not need to remain part of the food system when other choices exist.

The same practical approach applies to livelihoods. Transition programs can provide training, small-business grants, restaurant-conversion assistance, agricultural support and access to new supply chains. Help should be conditional on verified closure, a halt to breeding and cooperation with animal-welfare inspections. Payments without safeguards could reward expansion; enforcement without transition support could push the trade underground.

South Korea's phaseout offers governments a chance to study what works and what does not. A humane transition must protect the people leaving the industry, but it must also prioritize the dogs already confined within it.

A Ban Must Include Humane Enforcement

Passing a law is only the beginning. Authorities also need a plan for the animals found on farms, trucks, in markets and at slaughter sites. Large seizures can overwhelm local shelters within hours. Without veterinary teams, quarantine space, food, transportation and responsible placement, an enforcement action intended to save dogs can create another welfare emergency.

Effective implementation should include trained animal-handling teams, disease screening, emergency veterinary care, temporary housing and a process for identifying and returning stolen pets when possible. Rescue groups can be valuable partners, but governments should not shift the entire financial burden onto charities and volunteers. If a country prohibits a trade, its enforcement budget should include the cost of caring for the animals affected.

Transparency matters too. Agencies should publish the number of businesses registered, closed and inspected; the number of animals removed; enforcement actions taken; and the outcomes for confiscated dogs and cats. Clear reporting helps the public judge whether a ban is producing real change or merely moving the trade out of sight.

What Comes Next

Advocates and officials involved in these efforts broadly agree on what an effective national ban needs: rules that cover the whole commercial chain, from breeding and transport to sale and possession; enforcement with real penalties; funded plans for veterinary care, sheltering and adoption of animals already in the system; conditional transition help for traders and farmers so they do not rush to expand at the last minute; and public education tied to the legal changes.

South Korea's 82% farm-closure rate and the Yulin slaughterhouse conversion are both cited by advocates as proof that traders will leave the business when the alternative is made workable, not just when enforcement gets tougher.

China has no announced timeline for a nationwide dog meat ban. Indonesia's petition and ministry meetings have not yet produced draft national legislation. Cambodia's national campaign, launched in May 2026, is still in its early stages. Advocates in all three countries say local precedents — the Shenzhen and Zhuhai bans, Jakarta's regulation and Siem Reap's provincial ban — show the legal and political tools already exist. What remains, they say, is national action to close the gaps between them.

Sources

Q&A

Question: Is the Yulin dog meat festival illegal in China?

Short answer: No. As of September 2026, neither the Yulin dog meat festival nor China's wider dog meat trade has been banned under nationwide Chinese law. Some local governments, including Shenzhen and Zhuhai, have banned dog and cat meat consumption, but those rules do not apply to Yulin or the rest of mainland China.

Question: If China removed dogs from its livestock catalogue in 2020, why did the trade continue?

Short answer: The 2020 change was important because it officially recognized that dogs are not conventional livestock and reflected changing views of dogs as companions and working animals. But the policy did not create a full national ban on owning, selling or eating dog meat, so enforcement still depends on other laws such as those covering theft, food safety, unlicensed slaughter or transport violations.

Question: Has the Yulin festival become smaller?

Short answer: Yes. Activists once estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 dogs were killed during the core festival period, while Humane World now estimates about 2,000 to 3,000 during the most concentrated days. The article stresses, however, that less visibility and a smaller scale do not mean the trade has ended; slaughter and sales continue, often farther from public view.

Question: Why is public health part of the argument against the dog meat trade?

Short answer: The public health concern is mainly tied to unchecked capture, transport, handling and slaughter, rather than the eating of properly cooked meat. Dogs with unknown vaccination and health status may be moved across communities, creating risks for rabies control and exposing traders, drivers, slaughterers and market workers to bites or infected tissue.

Question: Which places in Asia have taken the strongest legal action against dog and cat meat?

Short answer: Taiwan has had a nationwide prohibition since 2017 covering killing, selling, buying, eating or owning dog and cat meat. South Korea passed a national law in 2024 to dismantle its dog meat industry, with central bans becoming enforceable on February 7, 2027. Jakarta has banned the trade and slaughter of dogs and other rabies-spreading animals for food, while Cambodia's Siem Reap province has a local ban but no national law.

About Stephen Gill

Stephen Gill is the founder and chairman of Inspired by Tyson. He writes about dog welfare, responsible ownership, animal advocacy and life with dogs.

Stephen Gill’s profile →

Yulin Dog Meat Festival: Why Asia Must End Dog Meat