Communicating Transformation in Food and Agricultural Ecologies

“Eating for change” is a simple expression and complicated idea. Eating what? Changing what? Why eating? Beyond personal health and enjoyment, what can eating change? Understood as communicative, food has the potentially transformative power to reshape culture, identity, health, ecology, politics, economy, and much more. This transformation may occur across at least three interconnected levels: individuals, foodways, and food systems. Individuals’ food discourses, practices, and performances co-comprise and are comprised by foodways, or the food-related practices of a culture and its history (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2016), and food systems. Spanning institutions, processes, practices, places, and human and more-than-human interactions from seed to fork and beyond, the food system chain encompasses many environmental communication issues (Gordon & Hunt, 2019).

As people communicatively create, maintain, and alter foodways, they help shape broader food systems, which vary in ways not limited to their implications for sustainability and justice. Eating for change is therefore a shorthand reference to the reality that inevitably, what a person eats, how one eats, and the way that one eats function as situated affirmations, negotiations, or rejections of foodways, food systems, and their politics. Even when studying individual-level change, making connections between micro and macro levels is crucial for what our call for papers for this special issue describes as communicating transformation in food and agricultural ecologies. Multilevel theorizing of environmental communication problems and solutions to food issues productively attunes the discipline to a concept of transformation that is necessarily collective, structural, and entails deep reorientation to the ecological world.

This special issue spotlights cutting-edge research informing this kind of deep food system change. This environmental communication scholarship featured exhibits one of the field’s defining qualities, which is its application of a wide repertoire of theories and methods to disparate sites. This work encapsulates the distinct angle and rich reservoir of knowledge that our rapidly growing literature on food provides. Environmental communication research has made considerable contributions to the transdisciplinary study of food and society since this journal ran its first special issue on food in 2010 (Opel et al., 2010). Back then, food research in the field was almost non-existent. Although much has changed, the terrain for inquiry remains vast and precarious.

This history offers a lens for understanding this special issue as a retrospective prompt toward new directions. At least implicitly, transformation has always been a driving motivation in environmental communication food scholarship. When surveying some of the earliest works in this subarea, it is evident that the impetus for such work was not only to understand everyday food-nature-culture relations but also to compel, inform, and organize positive change. Scholars sought to join a food conversation that was academic as well as activist because it was inseparable from rising food movements.

By joining this conversation, the environmental communication scholarship has demonstrated its timely relevance to some of the world’s biggest and most perplexing problems. Indeed, petroleum-intensive industrial agriculture is one of, if not the, most ecologically destructive human enterprises in recorded history. It is logical, then, that various interlocked food crises have become burgeoning interests in one of “nature’s crisis disciplines” (Cox, 2007).

Like the broader discipline (Pezzullo, 2017), environmental communication food research must continue to not only be responsive in an immediate instrumental sense but also proactive and committed to cultures of care in a constitutive sense. This charge includes engaging communication’s role in what is being lost due to industrial agriculture and other forces, and attending to what may be reclaimed or regenerated. If food systems are among the gravest threats to ecosystem biodiversity and the rights of sentient beings, then their positive transformation stands to make among the greatest contributions to just ecological revitalization. To turn this potential into reality, scholars must adopt a transformative concept of environmental communication as materially regenerative and reconstitutive. We hope this special issue contributes to the excellent work that has already begun to move the discipline’s food scholarship in this direction.

Showcasing the special issue

In ways that espouse a sense of scale and urgency appropriate for these times of global ecological emergency, the 11 articles that follow address food as a potentially transformative site of nourishing environmental communication. Using disparate methods and theories, scholars delve into the dynamic communicative and structural relationships between individual and collective, and local and global levels. These pieces might be collectively read as an invitation to further grapple with what eating for transformative change means and should mean, and how to pursue better food futures accordingly.

The study by Freeman and Zimmerman (2023) investigates how seven international conservation organizations connect wildlife and biodiversity issues to the human food system. Using collective action social movement framing analysis and a critical animal theory perspective on environmental organization (EO) communication, this article details how EOs discursively address agricultural threats to wild animals and their habitats. This analysis suggests EO websites mainly stressed agribusiness, fishing, and palm oil industry consequences. Most EOs leveled structural critiques that avoided anthropocentrism and called for corporate responsibility and government leadership in food system reform. Also, without shaming people about what they eat, EOs often asked the public to help protect biodiversity by eating less to no animal-based foods, buying responsibly sourced food (especially fish species and palm oil), and reducing food waste. The article concludes by encouraging EOs to follow scholarly recommendations to match the environmental crisis’s urgency by making stronger contextualized calls for systemic shifts toward plant-based foods.

Moving from global to local discourse about food production, Rickard et al. (2023) use interviews to investigate the world’s fastest-growing food production sector. This article shows how residents from four local US communities perceive recirculating aquaculture systems’ (RAS) local siting risks and benefits. These systems, which raise fish in high-tech tanks, are a land-based hybrid of fishing and industrial farming. Prior research suggests that perceived naturalness is important to public support for novel food technologies. However, most literature is about agriculture rather than aquaculture. Rickard et al. find several connotations of naturalness affecting perceptions, ranging from a complementary “natural fit” within the fishing heritage or industry to facilities’ unnatural ecological harm. Assessments often compare past land or ocean-use archetypes, including RAS site’s land-use history and knowledge of “bad” fish farms. The authors invite closer attention to their finding that evaluations of aquaculture’s naturalness and broader food system tensions may utilize universal and local meanings.

Also examining aquaculture discourse, Ho et al. (2023) query factors predicting public support for developing environmentally sustainable aquafeed for aquaculture production (e.g. feed made from insects rather than fishmeal). Of interest is whether the public prefers alternative fish feed to be labeled as such. This study zooms in on alternative feeds in the form of okara, a by-product from the production of soy-based foods, and plastic-eating larvae. The researchers show that people with higher education, environmental involvement, high trust in regulatory bodies, low risk, and high benefit perception are more likely to be in favor of supporting funding to develop alternative feeds. People who prefer labeling are generally older, have high environmental involvement, high trust in regulatory bodies, low trust in news media organizations, and low deference to scientific authorities. These people discuss food technology less often with other people and have high risk and high benefit perception.

All the pieces noted so far underscore the importance of studying the food system’s production side. Although the environmental communication literature covers a range of food system voices, those of individuals and collectivities involved in food production are among the least understood. This is problematic because changing consumption is insufficient and theory building must be grounded in everyday practical realities across the food system. Chen et al.’s (2023) survey study of “agricultural producers” in animal and crop production, aquaculture, forestry, and logging across several US regions tackles this dilemma. Informing the Technological Acceptance Model and responsible implementation of innovation, this research gauges how producers perceive the risks and trustworthiness of artificial intelligence food technologies such as drones and GPS in an adoption context. Results show that producers define trustworthiness along different dimensions for different technologies. For example, trust may focus on the technology provider or privacy protection. This finding substantiates work emphasizing the need to study trustworthiness as a complex concept. Findings also support the past conclusion that risk perceptions are influential predictors of adoption for almost all technologies. A new insight is that compared to emotions and trustworthiness perceptions, risk has a larger effect size.

Engaging another fast-growing project of food system transformation, Broad and Biltekoff’s (2023) commentary considers how proponents of cellular agriculture communicate with the public about this field of applied synthetic biology’s vision of “abundant, nutritious, sustainable, and ethical meat and other animal products without animal slaughter.” The article critiques the use of a hybrid of science communication’s traditional (factual) deficit model and new understandings of the relationship between communication, culture, and diverse publics emphasizing communication of share values. This model acknowledges cultural worldview’s impacts on food technology perceptions and supports industry studying public opinion more carefully. However, it treats public opinion as an obstacle of misunderstanding. Broad and Biltekoff question this instrumental orientation and faith in market-driven technological innovation as the path to public acceptance. Considering that cellular agriculture is not only about new products, but a new food system, these scholars urge continuous public engagement.

This focal topic of public deliberation about sustainable food futures appears again in Hoppe and Königslöw's (2023) exploration of indirect food sustainability communication (i.e. not using the term but addressing the issue) in everyday online discussions of food. The article considers associations that the public makes in social media comments about food’s three core sustainability impacts: ecological, social, and economic. Using qualitative analysis of supermarket Facebook pages in five countries, this research reveals a disconnection between the term “sustainability” common within academic, institutional, and activist discourse, and language that the public uses. Sampled discussion posts from countries ranking high on the Environmental Performance Index did, however, raise numerous environmental issues, whereas comments from lower ranking ones did not. Interestingly, all discussions were non-political and addressed the present day rather than the planet’s future.

Cummings and Peters' (2023) study centers public viewpoints related to food system transformations as well. These scholars study US public opinion on gene-edited foods produced through recently emerging tools such as CRISPR-Cas. The results of this national survey show that most respondents indicated a poor understanding of this relatively new technology, and that they do not personally care about the issue of gene edited foods. In addition, most respondents said they are neutral to the issue and only a small percentage of respondents find gene edited foods acceptable or, on the other hand, unacceptable. On the question of labeling of foods that contain gene edited crops, a strong majority want foods to be labeled. Cummings and Peters conclude that people living in the US are divided in their perceptions of gene edited foods, except when it comes to the labeling.

In another piece concerning sociotechnical transformations of meaning in food production, Muller’s (2023) critical rhetorical analysis weighs the US animal-sourced dairy industry’s response to the increasing popularity of alternatives to animal food products. Extending environmental communication literature on naming and drawing from critical animal studies, this article theorizes rhetorics of un-naming surrounding the proposed DAIRY PRIDE Act. This federal legislation would mandate that non-animal sourced “imitation” dairy products are no longer labeled using dairy terminology (e.g. milk, cheese, yogurt). Muller argues that DAIRY PRIDE invites a “hypocognitive state” of non-contemplation by portraying livestock corporations as benign and even philanthropic. By naming its products “natural, normal, and necessary for human advancement,” the industry conceals animal-sourced dairy’s consequences. As a result, further inquiry into animal-based dairy industry representations should consider their function in relation to democratic discussion about food futures.

Kley et al. (2023) take a different approach to understanding this clash between animal-based and non-animal-based foods. Interested in how the public shifts from meat-eaters to vegetarians and vegans, these scholars probe possible associations between vegetarianism and veganism, and food-related news media consumption. This German study found that having vegetarian acquaintances and consuming news through social media were associated with following a vegetarian diet. The study also found that news consumption through social media goes hand in hand with increased food communication. Social media fulfilled two roles here. First, social media seemed to act as an information source. Second, it was a channel through which vegetarians communicated about food. The authors interpret some of these results as suggesting that the personalized news one receives through social media reflects the increased interest in food and topics pertaining to vegetarianism. That is, these topics are not likely to be covered as well in traditional media.

News is also the focus of Mroz and Painter’s (2023) article on UK online news sites’ portrayal of anti- and pro-meat-eating narratives. They found that anti-meat eating or meat production narratives were more common than the pro-meat narratives. In a large majority of the articles, these researchers found recommendations to consume less meat. In the articles that took an environmental perspective, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change were often mentioned in the anti-meat articles, and the solution presented the most was to eat less meat. This mirrors Kristiansen et al.'s (2021) finding that the US and UK media also put the strongest focus on dietary changes as a solution to the problem of the food system’s high environmental detriments.

Continuing this analysis of discourses about meat, Albas et al. (2023) follow past research establishing that people tend to behave in ways that converge with unwritten social norms of the people around them (Richter et al., 2018). Albas et al. discuss social norms as an important predictor for meat consumption and, since there are mixed effects in previous studies, they set out to further investigate the relative effectiveness of social norms related to meat consumption. These researchers conduct an experiment on change in meat consumption across time. Between different points in time and after participants filled out an online questionnaire about their meat consumption, participants received social norm feedback. The questionnaire contained statements such as “Based on your answer, it appears that your meat consumption is above-/below-average compared to the average Dutch resident.” The researchers found that social norm feedback, or unwritten and socially shared behavioral rules (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), did not change meat consumption.

Mapping future research

One pattern across these studies is that several appeal to both the urgency of lowering global greenhouse gas emissions and plant-based food’s significant capacity in this regard. Future research should continue to enhance our understanding of how communication may inform the construction of sustainable and just plant-based food systems and help the public make plant-based food choices. It is within this context that we identify specific avenues for future research.

Albas et al. (2023) suggest that experiments focusing on personalized and individualized messages and feedback on pro-environmental behaviors are needed to learn more about their success. Cummings and Peters (2023) draw attention to the media’s role in shaping public opinion, particularly in the context of gene-edited foods. Related to this, Ho et al. (2023) encourage qualitative studies that deepen our understanding of why people desire labels on food, an important element in promoting informed food choices. Kley et al. (2023) also raise methodological considerations, arguing for consumption diaries as the preferred way to record food consumption. Finally, Mroz and Painter (2023) highlight the necessity of integrating discussions of food and climate change into important forums such as the IPCC COP meetings, and stress making these discussions more prominent in journalistic texts.

Future studies should likewise continue to focus on how plant-based food adoption occurs and messages that preclude it. Experiments might investigate new ways for media and other communicators to engage audiences on this issue. Mroz and Painter (2023) contend government and corporations need to be held accountable to a larger extent, and that if consumers and voters are better informed, this is more likely to happen. As society navigates the complexities of helping the public make environmentally sustainable and just food choices, our research plays an important role. This research can help people make more informed food choices and take actions that make institutions more accountable.

As thematized in this special issue, food choices and the perceptions guiding them are functions of the names, acts of naming, and corresponding meanings repetitiously reinforced within food systems. Several articles in this issue raise and confront difficulties of changing the cultural meanings of food’s names and meanings across different food system voices. Rickard et al. (2023) explicate local perceptions of aquaculture’s “naturalness.” Muller (2023) examines the animal-based dairy industry’s contentious claim to exclusive ownership of dairy terminology. Broad and Biltekoff (2023) analyze challenges that cellular agriculture proponents face with redefining the entire food system. Freeman and Zimmerman (2023) show that while EO messages about food systems need to express greater urgency, they model positive practices such as not shaming people about food choices. By going beyond critique, future work giving this type of attention to positive communication practices aids transformation.

Yet several articles in this special issue show that productive scholarly critiques of food discourse will remain invaluable. Beneath normalized and naturalized appearances, the discursively contingent quality of food practices, meanings, and names gives hope for change. This contingency simultaneously renders names and meanings exploitable by unjust and unsustainable counterforces. Making this point, some scholars scrutinize corporations’ increasing use of language of food system transformation such as “humanely raised,” “local,” “natural,” “farm fresh,” “free range,” and “cage free” (Gorsevski, 2015; Singer et al., 2020; Todd, 2010). A competing view is that corporate uptake of food movement discourse signals that the resistance is working and “mainstreams” ethical food long relegated to the cultural margins.

Environmental communication scholars are ideally situated to theorize such discord over food’s meaning, and possibilities and pitfalls of multiple co-existing meanings and visions (de Wit, 2022; Sprain, 2014). In addition to conducting further research on public discourse, scholars should continue to probe how other food system publics make sense of food’s contested and changing names and meanings, including those of emergent buzzwords (Anderson & Maughan, 2021; Doxzen & Henderson, 2020). Of related interest is how various voices as well as epistemic vantage points articulate the relative co-compatibility and complementarity of different names, meanings, technologies, institutions, practices, and visions for food system transformation (de Wit, 2022).

Finally, while investigating media institutions, spaces, and discourses will continue to be important, some studies in this special issue explicitly or implicitly illuminate that comparatively, literature on other powerful institutions is limited. For example, we need more work on how corporations, government, and non-profit organizations articulate environmental messages about food to diverse audiences. Given corporations’ enormous power and noted engagement with food movement language, we find the scant research (Koch & Compton, 2015; Lamphere & East, 2017; Todd, 2010) on this topic especially striking.

The directions that we map here circle us back to where we began this editorial, which was exploring the complexity of the seemingly simple idea of eating for change. The insightful work on display in this issue renders a more complex comprehension of transformative food system possibilities, even as it exposes previously unnoticed complexities. Given food system transformation’s almost unparalleled regenerative and reconstitutive potential in this age of ecological emergency, we view it as an urgent opportunity and invite unprecedented attention to it among environmental communication scholars in the years ahead.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.