The Power of Language in Shaping Our Food Choices: From Advertising to Naming Practices

SDG #2: ZERO HUNGER

The Power of Language in Shaping Our Food Choices: From Advertising to Naming Practices

Last week we in  RESPONSUS (Responsibility, Language and Communication) embarked on a series about the crucial role language plays in shaping sustainability. This week I explore the  significant role language plays  in shaping  SGD#2 – the main aim of which is to achieve food security. This is a pressing issue: the Earth’s population is growing but resources are diminishing. The politics of food production and food distribution are more prominent than ever. 

And language plays a key role in this process. Research has shown that we perceive taste differently depending on how a food is labelled: evidently 75% lean burger tastes better than a 25% fat burger! Fancier menu descriptions do not only sound higher quality – we are ready to pay more for the food too!

Conscious linguistic choices (or food rhetoric) – like describing something as “juicy” or “tender” can make a food seem more appealing, while labelling something as “healthy” or “organic” can make it more attractive to health-conscious individuals. 

The language effect is very powerful – as many players in the food production and distribution chain will attest. No wonder that the dairy and meat industries have so vehemently opposed the use of animal product terms for plant-based alternatives in ads. According to EU legislation, oat “drink” is now preferred to any mention of “milk” (although this is not the case in the US). So far, in most EU countries, plant-based alternatives are still allowed to be called sausages and steaks, but there are signs that this could be changing. This heated debate over the words used to describe products illustrates the importance of word choice. Clearly, the language chosen has the potential to have a great impact on purchasing attitudes, which is why vested interests have fought so hard to remove these labels. 

Naming practices can also affect our relationship to the natural environment. For example, we generally avoid naming animals directly when we talk about eating them. Instead, we use words such as “meat”, “beef”, “pork”, and “steak”. In high-profile international and national reports, animals are discursively represented as objects for us to use due to the fact that they are unquestionably part of our food system. This is done by their construction as ‘either aggregated—as livestock, units of production and resources, or materialised—as meat and protein.’ (p69). From food labelling and packaging and social media influencers to public policy, texts and visual language play a fundamental role shaping our perception of taste, health benefits, and cultural significance. By analysing these texts critically, we can uncover the power dimensions and interests behind certain decisions around naming practices, highlighting the importance of language in shaping our attitudes and behaviours towards food.

Join us again next week,   RESPONSUS (Responsibility, Language and Communication) group and follow the Agricola School for Sustainable Development for further info!