Language is part of how speciesism is made ordinary. The words used to describe animals can either hide their individuality and normalise their use, or help us speak more truthfully about them as sentient beings with their own lives and interests. This guide offers practical principles and examples for replacing speciesist language with language that recognises animals as individuals, not objects, resources or products.
This guide gives practical guidance on using language that respects animals as sentient individuals rather than objects, resources or property.
It is not intended as a list of arbitrary rules or isolated word substitutions. The examples are applications of broader principles: animals are individuals, their lives matter to them, and language should not reinforce their use, ownership or objectification.
Some guidance is clear and direct. For example, animals should not be called 'it'. Other areas are more contextual, because language changes over time and different words can carry different meanings in different settings.
The aim is not to create a new jargon. The aim is to communicate clearly and truthfully, using language that challenges speciesism rather than repeating it.
When in doubt, ask whether the words used recognise animals as individuals or make their exploitation easier to ignore.
Non-speciesist language is based on several core principles.
First, animals are individuals, not objects. They should be referred to in ways that recognise their own lives, experiences, relationships and interests.
Second, animals should not be defined by their use to humans. A cow is not a 'dairy cow' by nature. A hen is not an 'egg layer' by nature. A fish is not 'seafood'. These terms describe the purposes imposed on animals by humans.
Third, language should not hide exploitation, especially through industry terminology. Words such as 'processing', 'harvesting', 'depopulation' or 'dispatching' are used by animal-using industries to make killing sound detached and impersonal. Non-speciesist language should describe what is being done clearly.
Fourth, language should not reinforce welfare framing. The issue is not only whether animals are treated harshly. The deeper issue is that animals are owned and used for human purposes.
Fifth, language should not frame veganism as a personal preference, consumer identity or lifestyle trend. Veganism is a matter of justice and an ethical response to the exploitation of animals.
Animals-first language is one way to apply these principles. It names animals before the human use, industry category or condition imposed on them. For example, 'cows used by the dairy industry' is usually better than 'dairy cows', because it names the animals first and describes the industry use as something done to them.
Active language can also help make responsibility clear. Instead of using passive wording that makes animal use sound as if it simply happens, name the human practice, industry or institution responsible where this is relevant. For example, 'the dairy industry separates calves from their mothers' is often clearer than 'calves are separated from their mothers'.
Use language that is accessible to people who are new to these ideas. Non-speciesist language should invite understanding without softening the ethical issue or hiding the reality of animal use.
Once these principles are understood, it becomes easier to recognise and avoid language that objectifies animals or normalises their use.
Animals should be referred to as individuals, not things.
Where possible, use animals-first language, by naming the animal first, then describing what is being done to them.
The phrase 'our fellow animals' is often preferable to 'non-human animals'. While 'non-human animals' may be useful where a precise distinction is needed, it still makes humans the reference point. 'Our fellow animals' recognises our shared animality while affirming that other animals have their own lives and interests.
Use 'he', 'she' or 'they' rather than 'it' when referring to animals. When an animal's sex is known, 'he' or 'she' may be appropriate. When it is not known, or when speaking generally, 'they' avoids turning a living being into an object.
Avoid
The cow was moved to another paddock because it was unwell.
Prefer
The cow was moved to another paddock because she was unwell.
Avoid
Cows that are separated from their calves.
Prefer
Cows who are separated from their calves.
This language recognises animals as subjects of their own lives, not objects of human description or control.
Much speciesist language comes from the industries and institutions that use animals. Their terminology is often euphemistic and describes animal use from the perspective of production or profit. It hides what happens to animals by making exploitation sound technical, administrative or routine.
Non-speciesist language describes animal use clearly and honestly and from the perspective of the animals themselves.
Avoid
Prefer
Avoid
The flock was depopulated after disease was detected.
Prefer
The hens were killed after disease was detected.
Avoid
The animals were processed at the facility.
Prefer
The animals were killed at the facility.
Avoid
The farm produces pork.
Prefer
The farm breeds and kills pigs for human consumption.
Avoid
Animals are sent to abattoirs.
Prefer
Animals are sent to slaughterhouses to be killed.
The aim is not to use shocking language for its own sake. It is to avoid language that hides animals and what is done to them.
Industry terminology is not neutral. It reflects the viewpoint of systems that treat animals as resources. Non-speciesist language should describe animals as individuals and make clear what is being done to them.
Welfare framing is very common in society, but it presents the problem as poor treatment rather than animal use itself.
Terms such as 'humane', 'higher welfare', 'responsible farming', 'ethical meat', 'cruelty-free', 'free range' and 'cage-free' can suggest that animal exploitation becomes acceptable if it is carried out less harshly or under approved conditions.
Non-speciesist language should avoid reinforcing the idea that the goal is better conditions within systems of exploitation. The issue is not only how animals are treated, but that they are used at all.
Avoid
The campaign calls for more humane slaughter.
Prefer
The campaign should make clear that animals should not be bred and killed for human purposes.
Avoid
Free range eggs are a more ethical option.
Prefer
All egg production uses hens and treats their bodies and reproductive systems as resources.
Welfare language can make people more comfortable with animal use by suggesting that exploitation becomes acceptable when it is regulated, certified or described as humane. Non-speciesist language should instead keep attention on the rights of animals and the need to end animal use.
Veganism should be described as an ethical response to animal exploitation, not merely as a diet, lifestyle, trend or consumer preference.
Avoid
Veganism is a personal choice.
Prefer
Veganism is an ethical response to the exploitation of animals.
Avoid
Veganism is a plant-based lifestyle.
Prefer
Veganism is a commitment to avoiding the use and exploitation of animals, as far as possible and practicable.
Avoid
Choose vegan options.
Prefer
The word 'vegan' should be used where veganism is meant. 'Plant-based' may be appropriate when referring only to food or ingredients made from plants, but it should not replace 'vegan' when the issue is animal use, rights or exploitation.
Language about people who are not vegan should be clear without normalising animal use.
Avoid words that make non-vegan behaviour seem natural, neutral or fixed. Terms such as 'omnivore' can imply that eating animals is a biological identity rather than a social practice that can change.
Avoid
Omnivores often find vegan food unfamiliar.
Prefer
People who are not vegan often find vegan food unfamiliar.
Avoid
This guide is for vegans and meat-eaters.
Prefer
This guide is for vegans and people who are not vegan.
Care should also be taken not to describe vegans as a narrow or unusual group. Veganism should be presented as normal, practical and ethically necessary, not as a niche identity.
Food terms can also hide the animal whose body is being described. Words such as 'beef', 'pork', 'veal', 'mutton', 'lamb', 'bacon', 'ham', 'steak', 'seafood' and 'poultry' can make animal flesh sound like food first, rather than the body of a once-living animal.
These terms are widely understood, and sometimes may be needed for clarity. But non-speciesist language should recognise that they can distance the product from the animal. Where appropriate, use language that names the animal and what has happened to them.
For example, 'beef' hides the cow whose body is being described. 'Cow flesh' or 'the flesh of a cow' makes that reality clearer. Instead of 'pork', say 'pig flesh' or 'the flesh of a pig'. Instead of 'seafood', name the animals, such as fishes, prawns, crabs or other aquatic animals.
Some words normalise animal use not only in industry and food settings, but also in everyday speech, media, education and public discussion. They describe animals according to roles imposed on them by humans.
The preferred wording should not simply rename the category. It should help reveal the relationship of use. For example, 'animals used in laboratories' is clearer than 'laboratory animals' because it shows that the role is imposed on them.
Similarly, 'animals who are farmed' is more explicit than 'farm animals' because it describes what humans do to them, rather than suggesting that the farm is their natural place or identity. The shorter phrase 'farmed animals' may also be useful, but 'animals who are farmed' more clearly recognises animals as individuals.
Language can also help make veganism visible, ordinary and easier to understand.
Use 'vegan' where it is accurate and relevant. Avoid replacing it with weaker or narrower terms when the issue is veganism.
'Plant-based' may be useful when referring specifically to food made from plants, especially in nutrition, food service or product contexts. But it does not necessarily mean vegan, and it does not express the ethical basis of veganism.
'Animal-free' may be useful where the focus is the absence of animal ingredients or animal use, especially in product or technology contexts. But it should not replace 'vegan' when the ethical meaning of veganism is relevant.
'Meat-free', 'dairy-free' and 'egg-free' are narrower than vegan. They may be accurate in specific contexts, but they should not be used as substitutes for 'vegan'.
'Cruelty-free' should be used with great care. It often refers only to animal testing and may still allow animal-derived ingredients. It can also reinforce the idea that the problem is cruelty rather than animal use itself.
Some words are not always wrong, but they can carry assumptions that conflict with non-speciesist language.
Avoid describing veganism as a 'choice' where the rights of animals are at issue. When veganism is framed as a choice, the discussion can become about human preference rather than what animals are owed.
These words can make human feelings or virtues the focus, rather than justice and the rights of animals. Love and compassion may be positive feelings, but they are not substitutes for respecting rights.
The word 'cruelty' can suggest that the problem lies mainly in individual malice, bad motives or excessive harshness. Veganism is not a complaint against people with bad intentions. It is a challenge to the normalised belief that animals may be used by humans.
'Abuse' can imply that there is a proper or acceptable way to use animals. If the problem is described as abuse, the solution may seem to be better use. In many contexts, 'use' or 'exploitation' is more accurate.
These terms can imply that the problem is only large-scale or intensive animal agriculture. Veganism opposes all animal use, including animal agriculture, not only the most visibly harsh forms.
'Sustainable' can make animal use seem acceptable if it is presented as environmentally managed. Environmental impact matters, but it does not determine whether animals may be used.
Non-speciesist language is still developing. This is expected, because language changes as ethical understanding changes.
Some terms are already clearly speciesist, such as calling an animal 'it' or defining animals by their use to humans. Other questions are still evolving, including how best to refer to groups of animals, plural species names and words that have long been treated as neutral in law, science, media or everyday speech.
The aim is not perfection or rigid policing of language. The aim is to become more aware of how language works and to use better expressions where we can.
When uncertain, ask:
Language will continue to change. The principles remain the same: animals are individuals, not objects; their lives matter to them; and language should not make their exploitation easier to ignore.
The following examples summarise common changes. They are not a substitute for the principles explained above.
| Instead of | Use |
|---|---|
| it | he, she or they |
| that or which | who, when referring to animals |
| livestock | farmed animals or name the species |
| poultry | chickens, hens, ducks, turkeys or the relevant species |
| seafood | fishes or aquatic animals, depending on context |
| wild animals | free-living animals |
| farm animals | animals who are farmed or farmed animals |
| laboratory animals/rats | animals/rats used in laboratories or animals/rats who are experimented on |
| dairy cows | cows used by the dairy industry or simply cows, depending on context |
| laying hens | hens used for egg production or simply hens, depending on context |
| meat animals | animals bred and killed for food |
| processing animals | killing animals |
| harvesting animals | killing animals or taking animals' bodies, depending on context |
| depopulation | mass killing or the hens were killed, depending on context |
| humane slaughter | killing animals |
| free range eggs | eggs from hens kept in so-called free range systems, or explain that all egg production exploits hens |
| ethical meat | language that makes clear that the rights of the animals are being violated |
| cruelty-free, where animals may still be used | specific language such as not tested on animals or vegan, depending on what is meant |
| plant-based, when veganism is meant | vegan |
| vegan choice | vegan food, vegan product or vegan access, depending on context |
| omnivores | people who are not vegan or people who eat animal products, depending on context |
| kind to animals | respectful of animals' rights or consistent with justice for animals |
| animal welfare, where animal rights is meant | animal rights, animals' rights or the rights of animals |
The purpose of these examples is not to memorise preferred terms, but to apply the principles of non-speciesist language with care, accuracy and respect.
Unsubscribe at any time. Your details are safe, refer to our privacy policy.
© Vegan Australia | Registered as a non-profit charity by the ACNC | ABN 21 169 219 854