Show caption ‘British English is littered with nonsensical phrases inspired from a variety of places and eras. Each one offers a mini time capsule that reflects how we used to live and work.’ Photograph: Alamy Opinion Thanks for the vegan idioms, Peta, but there are bigger fish to fry Jessica Brown Trying to enforce non-meaty alternatives to phrases like ‘bring home the bacon’ will only harm the veganism cause @Jessica_E_Brown Thu 6 Dec 2018 05.00 EST Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email 1 year old

In 1801, Vice Admiral Nelson is said to have deliberately raised his telescope to his blind eye and insisted he couldn’t see a sign from his superior telling him to withdraw from the Battle of Copenhagen. This is where the phrase “turn a blind eye” is said to have originated. However, future idioms may not have such a colourful story of origin, thanks to those arguing we should rephrase those that mention meat and animals into anodyne, plant-based phrases.

The animal rights group Peta says that many common phrases in the English language perpetuate violence toward animals. The organisation caused a stir when it argued on Twitter that phrases such as “bring home the bacon” trivialise cruelty to animals, going so far as to compare such phrases to using racist, homophobic or ableist language. Peta encourages us to swap our linguistic assaults for phrases such as “bring home the bagels”, “take the flower by the thorn”, and “feed a fed horse” instead of “flog a dead horse” (which still sounds cruel to be honest). Peta isn’t the first to make this suggestion – a Reddit thread going back to 2015 offered suggestions for “veganised” idioms. But this time it coincides with a tribunal that will decide if veganism is akin to a religion, and therefore proponents can be discriminated against, after a vegan worker was sacked for misconduct.

Veganism has gone from fringe to fashionable in a relatively short time. According to the latest count, around 3.5 million people in the UK, 7% of the population, are vegan. Long compared to cardboard, meat-free burgers have taken on international cult status in the form of the Beyond Burger brand, while supermarkets and restaurants are becoming increasingly vegan-friendly (that is, with vegan menus – there’s no data on staff eschewing meaty idioms). It’s easy for vegans to get excited by these recent shifts, but those who think veganism is so ingrained in the UK as to justify changing our language and law are in danger of getting too big for their fake leather boots. The downside of having supportive communities for vegans to go to for advice and support, both online and offline, is that it can easily create an echo chamber: we must remember that around 93% of the population is still non-vegan.

These are precarious times for veganism. Some of the most obvious changes have happened across supermarkets and restaurants, which have quickly responded to a shift in eating behaviours. But while it’s in everyone’s interest for the pattern to continue (I’m a veggie striving to be a vegan), there is a chance that the pace could slow – or worse, go into reverse. For a cause like this to have longevity, we need solid arguments effectively communicated. Slow and steady change is for the best: there is a mountain of research arguing we can’t scare or guilt people into making positive change for the planet.

The chance that idioms such as “kettle of fish” may offend vegans is not an argument grounded in evidence or common sense. It suggests people aren’t capable of distinguishing a neutral phrase embedded in the English language, used to communicate a complex idea in a colourful and efficient way, from something genuinely offensive. And a comparison to racist language, and the structural problems that enables, is downright offensive.

Shareena Hamzah, a researcher at Swansea University, argued in an article for The Conversation earlier this week that increased awareness in veganism will be reflected in language, but that may take some time. It also points out that not all vegans would welcome this change, given the rise of “bloody burgers”, which suggests the cultural associations we have with meat may stick around long after our diets have shifted.



British English is littered with nonsensical phrases inspired from a variety of places and eras. Each one offers a mini time capsule that reflects how we used to live. To take just one example, to have one’s head in the clouds is suggestive of a time when aviation was unfathomable. Suggesting we can purposefully change our language not only seeks to eradicate our omnivorous history, it also hints at a chicken-and-egg/jackfruit-and-scrambled-tofu debate. On the whole, culture precedes language change, not the other way round.

When it comes to idioms, we can’t just go cold Tofurky – they’re ingrained in our language, for better or for worse. Attempting to abruptly change them would do more harm than good. Even Hamzah’s reasonable observations received backlash online, suggesting there is still a lot of reputational damage that needs mending, and a lot of work to be done untangling the negative associations linked with veganism – the stereotypes of being moralistic and militant – which tarnish the good-humoured vegan majority.

This campaign only serves to reinforce those negative impressions. While veganism is the most effective change we can make as individuals towards reducing our carbon footprint, there are much bigger fish to fry than veganising idioms.