The term “animal-friendly” (or “more animal-friendly”) in relation to the promotion of animal products suggests that an animal used for economic gain receives a certain kindness from the human who exploits it.
This framing distracts from the reality that the animal is being used. The animal’s life and body subordinated to human interests.
If you replace “animal-friendly” with “woman-friendly” in a context where women are oppressed, the problem becomes obvious. It would imply that one can oppress a woman in a friendly manner. The term shifts attention away from the oppression itself and, crucially, from the behaviour of the oppressors. Behaviour that is being masked under the notion of “being good to animals.”
“Animal-friendly” is therefore a term that helps maintain unequal power relations between humans and animals. It implies that exploitation and friendliness can coexist.
To describe reality more accurately, we need language that exposes the power imbalance rather than obscuring it. As using an animal is fundamentally an act of domination, calling such an act “friendly” is misleading at best.
Exploitation can never be done in a “friendly” way. And this applies to the exploitation of animals just as much as it does to any other oppressed group.