Labelling Products

In response to Andrew's question/answer post on 3/24/2013:

I agree that labelling animals used in scientific research does indeed affect people's perceptions of their moral statuses.  The effect is akin to one of dehumanisation, although of course that term does not fit because the objects of it are not human.  Deanimalisation?  Regardless of linguistic minutiae, it helps people turn a blind eye to actions which they might otherwise find highly objectionable.  While the scientific community provides one example of such a process, I think that the meat industry (once again!) takes the cake for most its most distasteful implementation.

The word 'pig,' according to both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, primarily refers to a domesticated version of the animal known as a swine.  The Oxford also says that 'pig' can refer to the meat of this animal.  The word 'pork,' in contrast, refers only to the meat of a swine, specifically that meat when used as food.  Neither the Oxford nor the Merriam-Webster says that 'pork' can correctly be used to refer to a living animal.  And yet, the meat industry encourages us to do just this.  Large pigs, such as those exhibited at fairs, are 'porkers.'  Gazing out on field occupied by a group of pigs, a meat enthusiast might mention how fine that pork looks.  Some advertisements refer to whole, living pigs as pork, before digitally separating the images into cuts of scrumptious meat with no gore or violence before viewers' eyes.

Pigs are not the sole victims of this odd terminological persecution.  The words 'beef' and 'cattle' certainly existed as separate concepts long before the meat industry gained such a hold in American culture, but 'beef' referred to the corpses of cattle, not the living beasts.  This blurring of lines between animal and product further contributes to the objectification of sentient non-humans raised for consumption.