H. Res. 1110 is a non‑binding House resolution that expresses the House of Representatives' disapproval of killing dogs and cats for human consumption and encourages Japan to enact a nationwide ban on the practice.
The text frames the issue as inconsistent with shared U.S.‑Japan values, cites examples of other jurisdictions that have banned dog and cat meat, and urges continued bilateral cooperation on animal‑welfare initiatives.
This resolution matters because it records an institutional U.S. stance without creating legal obligations. As a public expression of Congress, it becomes part of the diplomatic record and can be used by U.S. diplomats, NGOs, and advocates in bilateral discussions and public advocacy, even though it cannot compel Japanese domestic lawmaking or trigger enforcement mechanisms.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution formally declares the House’s disapproval of slaughtering dogs and cats for food and 'encourages' Japan to adopt a nationwide ban. It affirms shared values with Japan, urges continued bilateral cooperation on animal‑welfare issues, includes a carve‑out protecting religious and cultural practices, and commends civil society advocacy.
Who It Affects
Stakeholders include U.S. and Japanese animal‑welfare organizations, U.S. diplomatic actors who manage bilateral messaging, Japanese policymakers who may face public pressure, and vendors or communities in Japan where dog or cat meat is produced or sold. It also signals priorities to international advocacy groups and donors.
Why It Matters
Although symbolic, the resolution consolidates congressional messaging into a single, quotable document that advocates can cite. It may amplify diplomatic pressure, influence public debate in Japan, and shape funding and outreach priorities for NGOs working on animal protection and bilateral cooperation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is a straightforward, short House resolution made up of 'whereas' recitals and six resolved clauses. The recitals reference U.S. domestic law that bans dog and cat slaughter for human consumption, point to examples of other Asian jurisdictions that have adopted bans or municipal prohibitions, and note growing public and legislative support for animal‑welfare measures inside Japan.
Those recitals are a rhetorical foundation: they frame the practice as contrary to shared U.S.‑Japan values and justify urging change.
The resolved clauses do three things in practice. First, they 'encourage' the government of Japan to adopt a nationwide ban.
Second, they affirm shared values and call for continued bilateral cooperation on animal‑welfare initiatives. Third, the resolution both expressly disclaims any intent to interfere with protected religious or cultural practices and condemns the killing and trafficking of dogs and cats for meat.
The text also singles out civil society groups, naming the World Dog Alliance, to praise their advocacy.Because the resolution uses hortatory language (encourages, urges, affirms, condemns) rather than directive language (requires, mandates), it creates no binding legal duties in U.S. or Japanese law. Its operational value is political and diplomatic: it can be cited by embassy staff, NGOs, and legislators as evidence of congressional concern, potentially shaping bilateral dialogues, funding priorities, and public campaigns.
The resolution contains no funding, enforcement mechanism, or reporting requirement; it is a posture intended to influence opinion and policy indirectly.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The text cites section 12515 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (7 U.S.C. 2160), which outlawed the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption in the United States.
The recitals list other jurisdictions with de facto or de jure bans, naming South Korea, Taiwan, Shenzhen and Zhuhai in China, and Jakarta, Indonesia as comparative examples.
Resolved clause (4) explicitly states the resolution 'does not seek to interfere with or limit religious or cultural practices protected under domestic or international law.', The resolution condemns the 'killing and trafficking millions of dogs and cats for meat' and specifically commends civil society organizations including the World Dog Alliance for advocacy to end the practice.
The resolution was introduced by Rep. Andrew Garbarino, cosponsored by Rep. Jeff Davis (NC), and was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Factual framing and comparative examples
The recitals anchor the resolution in three narrative claims: the U.S. has already banned dog and cat slaughter domestically (citing 7 U.S.C. 2160), several Asian jurisdictions have moved away from the practice, and there is growing public and legislative support for animal welfare inside Japan. Those recitals do persuasive work: they set the normative baseline the resolved clauses rely on and provide talking points for diplomats and advocates who will deploy the resolution.
Encouragement for Japan to enact a nationwide ban
This clause is the resolution’s core policy ask: it 'encourages' Japan to adopt a nationwide prohibition. That language is hortatory and non‑binding; it signals congressional preference without creating a legal obligation or prescribing a legislative model. Practically, the clause is intended as leverage in diplomatic and advocacy campaigns rather than as an implementable statute.
Affirmation of shared values and call for cooperation
These clauses affirm 'shared values' between the United States and Japan regarding protection of companion and service animals and urge continued bilateral cooperation on animal‑welfare initiatives. For U.S. agencies and diplomats, the clauses provide an explicit congressional endorsement for integrating animal‑welfare topics into bilateral human‑rights and soft‑power dialogues, grantmaking, and technical cooperation where appropriate.
Non‑interference, condemnation, and commendation
Clause (4) inserts a protective carve‑out for religious and cultural practices, limiting claims of overreach. Clause (5) uses strongly normative language to 'condemn' the practice and quantifies the problem as involving 'millions' of animals. Clause (6) praises civil society advocacy, naming the World Dog Alliance. Together these provisions balance a moral rebuke with an attempt at diplomatic sensitivity and by design provide NGOs a congressional citation for advocacy.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Japanese animal‑welfare advocates and sympathetic Diet members — the resolution supplies an elevated foreign imprimatur and talking points they can use domestically to build momentum for legislative change.
- U.S. animal‑welfare NGOs and international advocacy groups — they gain a congressional citation to support fundraising, public campaigns, and engagement with Japanese counterparts.
- U.S. diplomats and policy staff focusing on soft‑power cooperation — the resolution legitimizes incorporating animal‑welfare topics into bilateral programming and public diplomacy activities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small vendors, farmers, or local producers in Japanese locales where dog or cat meat is sold — they may face increased scrutiny, local regulatory pressure, or loss of market demand if pressure to ban increases.
- Japanese policymakers balancing domestic political sensitivity — domestic leaders may need to respond to an external legislative statement that can be portrayed as cultural intrusion, raising political costs for reform.
- U.S. diplomatic personnel — while the resolution is non‑binding, embassy and consular staff may be tasked with managing fallout, public messaging, and stakeholder engagement without additional funding or directives.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is influence versus respect: the resolution seeks to protect animals and to use congressional moral authority to press for change, but doing so risks infringing on Japanese sovereignty and provoking backlash that could make practical reform harder to achieve; choosing a strong moral stance yields symbolic clarity but limits diplomatic subtlety.
Two implementation gaps are central. First, the resolution has no coercive power: it does not allocate funds, require reporting, or create an enforcement mechanism to change Japanese law.
Its influence depends on soft‑power channels — NGO campaigns, public opinion in Japan, and diplomatic persuasion — all of which are uncertain and uneven.
Second, the resolution walks a tightrope between moral condemnation and respect for cultural sovereignty. By condemning the practice in absolute terms and using an unquantified figure ('millions'), the text risks inflaming nationalist pushback in Japan or enabling opponents to portray reform advocates as foreign interlopers.
The carve‑out for religious and cultural practices reduces that risk but leaves open difficult questions about where advocacy ends and interference begins. Finally, the resolution names and praises specific NGOs, which may politicize what would otherwise be technocratic exchanges and complicate cooperation with Japanese civil‑society actors that do not share the same approaches or priorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.