Maintaining a degree of separation between consumers’ ethical concerns and their purchasing behaviours is crucial for the animal product industry’s continued profitability. To maintain their sales, the industry needs to subtly ensure that guilt does not deter people from buying their products. They achieve this by shielding the public from the realities of how meat is produced. 

The meat industry separates consumers from the harsh realities of production by locating slaughterhouses in remote areas, using marketing tactics that depict animals in idyllic farm environments, or using empty language that implies humane treatment. 

Researchers Kunst and Hohle investigated a phenomenon known as the ‘Meat Paradox.’¹ This paradox refers to the conflict between wanting to eat meat and not wanting to harm animals.

They explored whether distancing meat from its source animal could help people alleviate this cognitive dissonance. Social scientific insights support their investigation. Their study revealed several key findings. When participants were presented with processed meat compared to unprocessed meat, they showed less empathy toward the slaughtered animal. Moreover, participants exposed to lamb chops advertisements with a picture of a living lamb exhibited increased empathy and decreased willingness to consume the meat, emphasising the connection between visual representation and consumer attitudes.² 

The use of euphemistic language in labelling and describing meat products is especially noteworthy. Yet, it remains a largely overlooked aspect in the context of cognitive dissonance.

Kunst and Hohle also investigated the role of euphemisms in psychological distancing from meat animals. They found that framing industrial meat production as “harvesting” instead of “killing” or “slaughtering” diminished empathy among participants. Moreover, substituting “beef/pork” with “cow/pig” on a restaurant menu increased both empathy and disgust, leading to a reduced willingness to consume meat and increased openness to choosing a vegetarian dish.³

Ecolinguistics examines the intersection of language and ecological issues, and explains that euphemisms are not merely alternative terms but serve a crucial social function. Euphemistic language plays a key role in facilitating moral disengagement, a concept well-documented in human social dynamics and attitudes towards animals. Pioneered by renowned psychologist Albert Bandura, moral disengagement is the psychological tactic that enables individuals to justify and participate in unethical behaviour. 

In his groundbreaking work in social psychology, Bandura explains that one of the several mechanisms for moral disengagement includes ‘using sanitising and convoluted language that disguises the harm being done’.⁴ His seminal 1999 study highlights how euphemisms significantly contribute to the process of moral disengagement, fostering negative attitudes and even violence towards animals.

It’s intuitive that  the more egregious practices of factory farming and slaughterhouses, typically associated with cows, pigs, and chickens, are more likely to be masked by euphemistic language. For instance, the term “veal” describes meat from calves less than a year old, usually male calves from dairy herds not used for milk. It’s essentially a nicer way of saying “calf meat.” 

However, there’s no special term for lamb meat; we simply call it lamb whether it’s alive or as meat. This raises a question: why don’t we disguise the fact that lamb comes from baby sheep? While not yet researched, it’s plausible that the absence of euphemisms for animals like lambs might relate to the relatively humane conditions under which they are imagined to be farmed. Perhaps it’s because we don’t associate factory farming as much with sheep as we do with cows. When you imagine a baby sheep heading for slaughter, do you envision a small farm or a big industrial operation? And what about cows?

Interestingly, despite the marked unacceptability of common chicken farming practices, chickens are also notable for the lack of linguistic disguises. One reason for this may be their physical dissimilarity to humans, which can lower the moral concern we extended to chickens and other alien-looking animals such as fish and insects. More specifically, we are less likely to extend consideration in terms of welfare, rights, fairness, and justice toward chickens merely on their lack of physical similarity to humans, despite their complex social and cognitive skills. ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ This observation underscores the intricate ways in which language shapes and reflects our ethical stances towards various animal species.

Other factors such as perceived intelligence can also prompt a need for abstraction. As illustrated in the graph below, animals like pigs and cows, who are perceived as more cognitively capable than animals like chickens and fish, are also more likely to be referred to euphemistically. 

Dehumanisation serves as an effective tool for moral disengagement by categorising others as ‘less than human’ and stripping them of positive human qualities. This tactic not only diminishes the humanity of victims but also erodes the moral compass of perpetrators, fostering a cycle of dehumanisation and moral disengagement that has been observed in contexts such as war propaganda and racial discrimination. 

The concept of ‘deanimalisation’ mirrors dehumanisation, but applies to animals. ¹⁰ Deanimalisation is often reinforced by the use of euphemistic language. For instance, terms like “livestock,” “harvesting,” or “processing” are commonly used in the agricultural industry to describe sentient beings and their eventual slaughter in a manner that sounds less violent and more palatable. Through deanimalisation, animals are stripped of their intrinsic value and rights as living beings. Often, the commodification of animals accompanies or prompts deanimalisation. By viewing animals as mere commodities for human use, humans can diminish or disregard the suffering and death they face. It creates a psychological barrier where the animal’s individuality and suffering are overshadowed by its utility.

Exploring the historical evolution of meat-related terminology in England reveals a linguistic division stemming from post-Norman Conquest England in 1066. The distinction between livestock terms like “pig” and “cow,” used by Anglo-Saxon peasants, and their meat counterparts like “pork” and “beef,” employed by the Norman-French aristocracy, reflects societal class differences. Furthermore, the term “meat” itself underwent a semantic shift, originally encompassing all food in 16th and 17th century England before narrowing to specifically denote animal flesh,¹¹ illustrating language’s adaptability to changing societal norms and influences.

It’s notable that the intention behind the adoption of the words ‘pork’ and ‘beef’ was not to create dissonance by dissociating meat from its animal source or deanimalize food animals. Rather it was rooted in social and linguistic stratification. Nonetheless, intention and outcome don’t always align, instead, it has more to do with social and language differences. However, regardless of intention, the continued use of these terms in modern times inadvertently serves the purpose of obscuring the connection between the meat on our plates and the animal it comes from. 

Using meat terms is psychologically comforting. Moreover, it underscores a critical point: that the impact of language on perception and behaviour can transcend original intentions.

Cultural nuances play a pivotal role in the efficacy of the dissociation mechanism, with consumer familiarity with unprocessed meat influencing its potency. In comparing American and Ecuadorian participants, researchers found that significant differences emerged in their dissociation tendencies and emotional responses toward meat origins. The study found that In Ecuador and the US, people were shown a pork roast either with or without the head. When the head was shown, people felt more connected to the animal and felt more disgusted and empathetic – this was especially the case in the US, where participants were far less accustomed to seeing whole dead animals than those in Ecuador.¹² 

However, irrespective of cultural differences, disgust and empathy consistently predicted a reduced willingness to eat meat and increased openness to vegetarian dishes ¹³ – underscoring the universality of empathy toward animals. 

Food traditions, often tied to religion, shape what animal products are acceptable in different cultures. Taboos exist, such as avoiding pork in Judaism and Islam or beef in Hinduism.¹⁴ The language used for these foods can hide where they come from, especially where there’s demand for them. In countries like France, Italy, and Spain, food traditions are crucial for national identity. Terms like ‘foie gras’ and ‘prosciutto’ are deeply cultural, making people attached to meat and resistant to vegetarian messages. This resistance is stronger in national contexts, like ‘gastronationalism’ ¹⁵ in France, where protecting the foie gras industry is about preserving culture. Euphemisms, like those for foie gras, disconnect people from the animal origin, reinforcing cultural ties to meat consumption.

Consumers are often disempowered in their choices through the industry’s use of euphemisms. Understanding the origins of terms like ‘beef’ and ‘pork’ and their historical contexts can help demystify these abstractions. 

If such terminology is unsettling, it calls for an interrogation of personal feelings towards these accurate descriptions.

The current labelling restrictions in the EU, along with their growing presence in the US, combined with the euphemistic language surrounding animal products ¹⁶  ¹⁷, hide the true nature of animal exploitation in meat, egg, and dairy production. These factors highlight entrenched perspectives within the industry.

The disparity in labelling restrictions between animal products and plant-based alternatives raises concerns about fairness and transparency. While traditional animal products often enjoy protection from revealing their origins, plant-based substitutes face stringent censorship, particularly in countries like France and Italy.¹⁸ This double standard not only violates principles of free-market economies but also risks creating confusion among consumers. Restricting terminology for plant-based products may lead to vague language, hindering consumer understanding and defeating the intended purpose of labelling regulations.¹⁹

The censorship on plant-based product labelling not only violates constitutional principles in the US, and undermines free-market economies but also reveals a significant hypocrisy. It is crucial to accord the same consideration to concerns of consumer confusion for plant-based alternatives as is given to the comprehension of their animal product counterparts. For example, replacing ‘coconut milk’ with ‘coconut beverage’ can lead to ambiguity, leaving consumers uncertain about the product’s texture, while animal products often enjoy obscured origins without similar scrutiny.

Efforts to increase consumer awareness of food origins can be aided by recognizing the abstracting role euphemisms play in our food systems . By emphasising the animal origins of meat through explicit language, we can foster empathy and encourage  individuals to try plant-based alternatives. Future research should delve into specific euphemisms like “pig” versus “pork,” to quantify their role in supporting the meat industry. This can provide a foundation for informed consumer decision-making and effective advocacy strategies.

Substituting euphemistic meat terms for explicit animal ones on menus has been shown to enhance empathy and disgust, decrease meat consumption, and increase preference for vegetarian options. This research underscores how our habit of disconnecting meat from animals influences our food choices, and how linguistic nudges can aid animal product reduction efforts. 

Animal advocates and food labelling authorities should prioritise replacing euphemistic terms with explicit ones to enhance transparency about the origins of meat and animal products. Research on Dutch consumers revealed that using the term ‘harvest’ instead of ‘slaughter’ positively influenced attitudes towards livestock processing,  emphasising the impact of language on perception. 

Nudging is another powerful tool for influencing consumer choices. In behavioural economics, a nudge refers to any element in the architecture of choice that influences people’s behaviour without significantly restricting their options or altering economic incentives.²⁰ Interventions that involve nudging have been utilised in public eating spaces to encourage consumption of plant-based foods. 

For example, at catered events, implementing plant-based default options proves effective in reducing animal product consumption. However, the role of nudges in discouraging meat consumption remains underexplored. Drawing on Kunst and Hohle’s insights on euphemisms as psychological tools can help assess the impact of explicit versus euphemistic labels on consumer choices. Combining multiple nudges may also provide additional ways for social researchers to guide individuals towards plant-forward meal choices.

Advocates and the plant-based industry should draw from social science insights to comprehend how language shapes our relationship with meat consumption and influences our moral perception of animals. Understanding the psychological and social mechanisms behind linguistic choices can illuminate the potential for language to either reinforce or challenge the disconnect between meat and its animal origins.

1. Conduct research into consumer comprehension of meat and dairy origins in contrast to their plant-based counterparts.
2. Nudges that (a) direct consumers to plant-based options using default menu options and (b) discourage meat and dairy options by substituting euphemism for explicit labelling.
3. Agricultural literacy campaigns – educational programs that encourage understanding of meat and dairy origins.
4. Advocates can use the euphemisms argument to push back on labelling restrictions and censorship disputes.

Throughout the research process, we noted euphemisms throughout the sources we read. A few sources in particular were especially useful for identifying euphemistic terms (Schulz, 2022; Surge, 2022). ²¹ To supplement this list, we then enlisted the help of OpenAI’s language model ChatGPT to generate some additional common euphemisms for animal products. The resulting word cloud is a visual snapshot of some of the language that often veils the reality of animal-derived food products in everyday discourse.