Slaughtering animals in Bhutan and the Livestock Bill 2025 proposal
Recently, I wrote about my visit to Bhutan last month, and “personal investigation” (requested by a sponsor) regarding the presence of vegan (or vegetarian) hotels, cafes and restaurants there, as well as meet and find out more about the vegan monastery and outreach activities of Lama Kunzang Dorjee Rinpoche, Bhutanese Buddhist teacher and founder of Jangsa Animal Saving Trust, an organisation that promotes the protection of animals and saving their lives.
As I detailed in that article, and as people who read my website will know, I have long been an advocate and supporter of animal rights, veganism, protecting the environment and reducing huge waste of land, water and food to support the mass slaughter of animals in commercial profit slaughterhouses (see my website section on the topic here). Thus, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Bhutan has effectively banned commercial slaughterhouses for food since its foundation as a nation.
In addition, HH 70th Je Khenpo promotes vegetarianism in Bhutan and in 2024 wrote a 115 verse instruction on why killing and eating animals cannot be justified in Buddhist cultures.
Yet, everywhere I went meat dishes were everywhere, with few if any vegan/vegetarian only places. So I wondered how that were possible if killing animals was banned. Someone then informed me that Bhutanese consumed meat mainly imported from also Hindu/Buddhist/Jain India where vegetarianism (particularly for yogis) has been the main diet for centuries. Here is a 2025 report on the Meat import statistics.
𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘉𝘩𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘷𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘵. 𝘙𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 88.9% 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘩𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘵-𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 11.1% 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯- 𝘕𝘈 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘓𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘩𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘯, 2025.”
The debate in Bhutanese parliament: and a Bhutanese education Minister’s “unhealthy” and biased perspective on meat being essential for children and youth’s health
After publishing the article, Lama Kunzang Dorjee Rinpoche then informed me personally , that there was now a debate being put forward in relation to the Livestock Bill 2025 by MPs in the Bhutanese government who want that ban on commercial slaughterhouses in Bhutan to be lifted and the killing of animals for profit and food to be allowed. He informed me that such people were saying that there already are small, privately-run slaughterhouses in Bhutan, so that the ban on mass commercial slaughterhouses should be lifted. In March 2025, The Bhutanese online news resource reported that Bhutan’s only small-scale slaughterhouse was being investigated for outdated practices.
Thus it is seen by animal lovers, environmentalists and Buddhists in Bhutan as a “critical moment” and that Buddhists who oppose the slaughtering of animals for food for various reasons needed to mobilise support to counter this motion and educate people about why meat is harmful, not Buddhist and also not healthy or necessary for health. I was informed that the discussion may go on for about a year before they decide and they still have time to lobby to stop it.
This discussion of the third reading of the Livestock Bill of Bhutan 2025 at the National Bhutanese government yesterday was reported widely in the Bhutanese media (see Kuensel report here), and social media, which ignited a heated debate over meat production and consumption vis-à-vis the country’s Buddhist ethos of protecting the welfare of all sentient beings, including animals.
The Bhutanese Education and Development Minister, Yeezang De Thapa, asserted (and was criticised for saying) that eating meat for school children was essential for health (protein) reasons. A bizarre claim to make considering how much evidence is now available that shows that is false, and that also eating meat three times per day every day is positively unhealthy for humans (if health of humans were the only issue worth worrying about, which it is not).”
For example, the World Health Organisation has stated that eating meat (especially red and processed meat) increases health risks of cancer heart disease and more. From a Buddhist/yogic perspective, it is not healthy to consume the “energy” of flesh of diseased, scared, sad, depressed, tortured animals (pumped full of antibiotics) for food.
In addition, as the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje (a wise and compassionate environmental and animal rights advocate and who took a lifetime vow to not eat animals ) recently taught that almost all children and young people all react with huge aversion and disgust when taken to visit slaughterhouses.
This is why some animals rights campaigners assert that is why an essential component in a well-rounded education on food and animals, is for educators to take all young people to slaughterhouses to see where there meat comes from. However, many adults do not want that to happen because they say it is traumatising for the children. Exactly. As Sir Paul McCartney said: “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all be vegetarians.” Well maybe not all, but many perhaps.
Ban on commercial slaughterhouses a shining and clear example of Buddhist principles and ethics in Bhutan
From the Buddhist perspective, the issue is not up for debate. Buddha clearly taught in the Vinaya, Mahayana and even Vajrayana teachings that eating slaughtered animals for health, desire, pleasure was never acceptable, even for monastics offered it while begging for alms.
In fact, in the renowned Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra and Mahaparnirvana Sutra, as I wrote about in my article Buddhist Teachings on Eating Slaughtered Animals (Buddhist Door Global, 2025), the Buddha gives many examples and reasons why eating the flesh of murdered animals is karmically negative, not just because of the killing of sentient beings involved (who we should regard as our mothers/children) but because of the negative consequences for health and more. Buddha spells out the reasons why killing, buying and eating slaughtered animals was a negative action, regardless of who did the killing.
This is why the ban on the killing of animals in Bhutan is on one hand admirable in clearly setting the Buddhist principle as a national way of life. However, as I (and others on social media) pointed out it is rather odd and hypocritical to think that just because the animals were killed by other people in a different country and imported to Bhutan, means the negative karma is less or not there. After all Buddha taught that slaughtering animals for profit/food was one of the eight wrong livelihoods he taught, and thus should not be supported by food consumers.
Bhutanese reactions on social media to the proposals to change the constitution
One Bhutanese social media writer on Buddhism (whom I also spontaneously met in person for the first time when meeting Dorje Phagmo Rinpoche!) Phub Dorji Wang, wrote yesterday on Facebook of this Grave Betrayal of Bhutan’s Soul:
On the one hand, what Dorji Wangchug says is correct and it would be sad if Bhutan followed the bad example of the rest of the world and lost their shining example of a Buddhist country drawing a clear ethical boundary on mass killing of animals for food. However. as other Bhutanese “reasonably” took issue with the current ban as being illogical, “hypocritical” and contradictory idea that exporting the killing of animals to India, who then import that meat to Bhutan somehow circumvents the act of killing and supporting the “unethical and non-Buddhist livelihood” of trading in animals and meat. As he says:
In that respect, it would be far healthier, for humans, the planet, animals and natural resources for meat to be banned altogether, no killing inn Bhutan and no import of meat either. Lama Kunzang Dorje told me that is ideal, but unrealistic for now at least, and they are focusing more on encouraging Bhutanese to “eat less meat” and reduce the demand for it, which would then graduallt encourage people to abandon eating meat altogether.
Conclusion: Less meat? Sounds like telling a smoker to smoke less
However, as I debated with Lama Kunzang (and others who say less meat), that sounds like someone telling a smoker to smoke less, when the harmful effects of smoking not being fully dealt with. Nonetheless, I also see that practically speaking he may well have a point. If it is difficult to even get “devout” Buddhists to abandon eating animals for health, environmental and compassionate reasons, then even more difficult for those whose daily habits and “addiction” to meat is strong.
As Dorji Wangchug concludes:
“In conclusion, the Livestock Bill’s slaughter provisions are a dangerous gamble that Bhutan cannot afford. We must uphold our legacy as a beacon of compassion, rejecting this legislation to protect not just animals, but our nation’s soul. Let us choose life over death, harmony over hubris—for in the end, true prosperity flows from kindness, not killing.”
Indeed, but that also includes kindness and not killing animals in other countries too and importing such heartlessly murdered flesh to Bhutan. After all, let us not forget the horrific reality of slaughterhouses for the animals and the workers themselves.
