Activists and Scientists Push to Redefine 'Wool' to Include Plant-Based Alternatives in Dictionaries

A growing movement of activists and scientists is pushing to redefine the word 'wool' in major dictionaries, demanding that plant-based alternatives be included as valid entries. The push, led by organizations like PETA, argues that the term has long been associated with animal-derived materials but must now evolve to reflect the rise of eco-friendly, animal-free fabrics. 'Wool doesn't need to be taken from suffering animals,' said Yvonne Taylor, PETA's vice president of corporate projects. 'It can be warm, stylish, durable, and entirely made from plants.'

The Oxford English Dictionary currently defines 'wool' as 'the soft, curly hair forming the fleecy coat of sheep and other animals.' However, campaigners insist this definition is outdated, ignoring centuries of plant-based alternatives like hemp, linen, and bamboo. These materials, they argue, have been used for millennia and are now being joined by cutting-edge fibers derived from food waste, flowers, and fruit. 'Plant wool'—a term PETA is advocating for—would encompass these innovations, they claim, reshaping the fashion industry's relationship with both animals and the planet.

Environmental concerns are central to the campaign. Sheep farming is a significant source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and the industry's impact has led to wool being ranked as a 'Class E' material in the Made-By Environmental Benchmark for Fibres. In contrast, plant-based alternatives like hemp are classified as 'Class A,' reflecting their lower environmental footprint. 'Plastic-free plant wools match—and often outperform—animal wool for warmth and comfort,' Taylor said. 'They are less harmful to the planet and kinder to animals.'

The call for change comes amid a broader cultural shift. PETA's letter to the Oxford English Dictionary emphasizes that 'we are in the throes of a fashion revolution,' one driven by a desire to prioritize sustainability and animal welfare. The organization highlights that plant-based materials are not only ethical but also practical, offering durability and style without the ethical compromises of traditional wool production. 'We can work with nature to grow wool, rather than steal from animals,' Taylor argued.

This is not the first time PETA has challenged dictionary definitions. Last year, the group sought to update the Cambridge Dictionary's entry for 'rat,' arguing that the term's informal use as a synonym for a 'deceitful person' was unfair to the animals. Similarly, in 2019, PETA's ad claiming 'wool is as cruel as fur' was banned for being 'false and misleading.' Now, the focus is on redefining 'wool' to align with modern values. 'The OED notes that 'pine wool' has been used since the 1850s,' Taylor said. 'Why not include plant wool as part of this legacy?'

The push for change has also extended to other industries. In 2022, PETA called for 'World Milk Day' to be renamed 'World Bovine Mammary Secretion Day,' highlighting the ethical implications of dairy farming. 'Cows don't make milk because they're cows, but because they are mothers,' said Elisa Allen, PETA's vice president of programs. 'The milk meant to nourish calves is stolen and sold to humans.'

As the debate over language and ethics continues, the Oxford English Dictionary has yet to respond to PETA's request. For now, the definition of 'wool' remains rooted in its historical context, even as the world around it shifts toward more sustainable and compassionate practices. Whether the dictionary will follow suit—and how the fashion industry will adapt—remains to be seen.