Eating human flesh is generally considered illegal and immoral in our minds, but in certain circumstances, this issue becomes quite intriguing.
Firstly, eating human flesh itself is absolutely legal in the United States (except Idaho), the UK, most of Europe, Japan, and other places. However, as Cornell Law School points out, the US indirectly makes obtaining and consuming human flesh impossible through a series of laws. For many other countries, the act of eating human flesh is not illegal per se.
In most parts of the world, desecrating a corpse is a crime. Even if human flesh is obtained legally, the eater can still be charged with offenses like “disturbing public order” or “obstructing lawful burial.” 
However, there are exceptions to every rule. If someone manages to avoid all possible legal pitfalls and obtains some human flesh, then even if they eat it in front of the police or write “I ate a person” on their chest, they would not be arrested or convicted.
Although this might seem extreme, there have indeed been real cases like this. Canadian performance artist Rick Gibson once made earrings from a pair of human fetuses, put them on a mannequin, and described it as “cute” modern art.
As for his “art” of eating human flesh, he himself said:
“A friend from London gave me a jar of human tonsils. He hoped I could make earrings out of them. However, I chose to eat them. These tonsils, preserved in alcohol, were the perfect ingredient for making canapés (small appetizers served on bread slices).”
“On the afternoon of July 19, 1988, at 1:30 PM, at the corner of Erskine Road and High Street in Walthamstow Market, I ate this appetizer, making me the first person in British history to legally eat human flesh in public.”
Despite public outrage, the police were forced to admit that he had not broken any laws. In the end, Gibson celebrated his innocence by eating a human testicle in front of the police station.
The key point in this entire incident was that Gibson’s human flesh came from organs legally removed during surgery, which he managed to persuade hospitals to gift to him.
In another similar event, Japanese man Mao Sugiyama, at the age of 22, removed his own testicles, scrotum, and penis, divided them into six dishes for a meal, and sold each for $250.
The outcome was similar to the previous case; since Japan, like most countries, has no specific laws against cannibalism, Sugiyama faced no legal repercussions.
Regardless, most places around the world do not have direct laws against cannibalism, which means courts must prosecute cannibals through other legal means.
The most notorious case is that of Armin Meiwes, who posted an ad on a fetish website looking for a volunteer willing to be eaten. Eventually, 43-year-old chip designer Bernd Brandes answered the call, was killed by Meiwes, and 20 kilograms of his flesh were consumed.
These horrific acts naturally shocked the world, but since eating human flesh is not illegal in Germany, and the victim had consented to be killed and eaten, the court initially convicted Meiwes of manslaughter and sentenced him to eight years. Later, considering the public outcry and social harm, Meiwes was ultimately convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cases involving cannibalism are highly controversial, and we find that almost no one is punished solely for the act of eating human flesh.
But what about extreme survival situations? From a legal perspective, the most famous case is the Dudley and Stephens cannibalism case, a landmark case where a young cabin boy was murdered and eaten after their ship, the Mignonette, was destroyed in a storm.
Although this is a classic case in Anglo-American common law, it might not be familiar to us. In 1884, Captain Dudley, First Mate Stephens, sailor Brooks, and cabin boy Richard Parker set sail from Southampton, England, to Sydney on the yacht Mignonette. During the voyage, they encountered a storm, abandoned the ship, and took to a lifeboat.
Due to a lack of fresh water and food, Dudley and Stephens eventually made the horrific decision to kill and eat Parker. The other survivor, Brooks, refused to participate in the murder but later admitted to consuming Parker’s flesh to survive.
After being rescued by a passing ship, Dudley and Stephens quickly confessed to killing Parker. However, both defended themselves in court, claiming Parker was already near death from drinking seawater and would not have lasted much longer even without being killed.
Both survivors believed that killing Parker was a reasonable survival decision under the circumstances, citing “maritime custom,” where sailors in distress were thought to draw lots to decide who would be killed and eaten, a practice that did exist in the past.
However, the fact was, no lottery was held on the ship. Stephens and Dudley even admitted that they had to hold Parker’s legs down to prevent him from struggling when they slit his throat with a folding knife.
The British court did not consider the killing of Parker “necessary,” as they could not determine that waiting for rescue from other ships was impossible. Moreover, the control they exerted during the killing suggested Parker was not yet on the brink of death.
On this point, a judge later explained that it must be proven that everyone was in a state of imminent death to justify the killing of Parker as necessary and reasonable.
It’s also worth noting that in previous cases, the so-called “maritime custom” of drawing lots to decide who would be eaten often involved lower-status individuals like sailors, cabin boys, and slaves.
This led to questions about whether the lottery was truly as fair as survivors claimed. Therefore, the case of Stephens and Dudley actually set a legal precedent for how such cases should be handled.
Ultimately, the court found both men guilty of murder, which at the time was a capital offense. However, public opinion seemed to side with Dudley and Stephens, and the jury was reluctant to condemn them, as they had only done what was necessary to survive in an extreme situation.
As for Brooks, who refused to participate in the murder, he was not convicted, despite publicly admitting to eating Parker’s flesh; no one pursued charges against him.
Dudley and Stephens were initially sentenced to death for murder, but due to public pressure, their sentences were later commuted to six months in prison.
This case indeed set a legal precedent; in such circumstances, there is no need to defend a crime or murder, and the law has now firmly established that killing another person for survival is not legally permissible. However, in most cases, eating the flesh of someone who is already dead for survival is entirely legal.
Of course, law is one thing, and morality is entirely another.
For example, another infamous event was the crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 in 1972, where survivors cut flesh from the deceased passengers to sustain themselves. Initially, most refused to eat human flesh due to religious beliefs, but they eventually succumbed to hunger.
Survivor Roberto Canessa recalled the horrific experience:
“Our common goal was survival, but we lacked food. We exhausted all the food we could find on the plane, and there was no vegetation or animals to eat nearby. Just days later, we felt our bodies weakening from consumption, and soon we would not recover from the hunger. Food was the biggest issue.”
“We all knew the answer, but it was terrifying to even think about. The bodies of our friends and family were preserved in the snow outside, which was the protein that could keep us alive, but could we eat it?”
But in summary, in terms of the laws of most countries/regions, people in desperate situations who eat the dead are almost always considered innocent.
Most importantly, even outside of extreme survival scenarios, if someone manages to legally obtain human flesh, they are likely to get away with eating it in public.
In recent years, this fact has been advantageous for some, as eating one’s own placenta after childbirth has gradually become a trend, sometimes shared with partners or family, which is also generally considered a form of cannibalism.
Of course, there is much debate about whether consuming specific parts of the human body counts as cannibalism. If you search carefully, you’ll find many interesting discussion topics, like whether swallowing human semen constitutes cannibalism, as in a way, it’s also a form of flesh…
