Meat in the post-truth era: Mass media discourses on health and disease in the attention economy
Introduction
Science-based nutritional policymaking is in the eye of the storm (Fischler, 2013; Harcombe, 2017). Controversies reflect urgency, complexity, and paradigm uncertainty within the applied models (Freidberg, 2016), whereas mainstream dietary guidelines are being defied (Taubes, 2008). Erosion of centralized nutritional dogma parallels rising differences in the valuing of risk between social groups and between scientific communities, as well as a decreasing confidence in institutionalized expertise (Freidberg, 2016; Pollan, 2008). The debate is affected by varied agendas and the rise of dietic individualism, mainly in Anglo-Saxon culture (Fischler, 2015). This evolution is not only post-modern but also post-truth, a term that first appeared in 1992, was declared “an era” in 2004, and became word of the year in 2016 (Keyes, 2004; Midgley, 2016). The scientific method has become subordinated to the amassing of information via cherry-picking, invention, and bricolage, provided that some coherence is present. According to Baggini (2017), Western societies may not be so much post-truth as “post-complexity”, with a need for articulate discourses in a disturbingly uncertain and contradictory setting, in which trust in authorities and unified expertise is historically low.
The case of meat eating is an exemplifying one. As an unquestioned health food, meat has been evoking strength and vitality to most cultures during most of their past (Leroy & Praet, 2015). Yet, its confident image became somewhat vulnerable to criticism in the 19th century, paralleling the rise of animal right movements and vegetarianism (Leroy & Praet, 2017), particularly in Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. At the same time, reports on tainted or adulterated meat were being picked up by the public (Leroy & Degreef, 2015; Scholliers & Van den Eeckhout, 2011), sometimes leading to actual “meat panics” that initiated legislation (Olmstead & Rhode, 2015). More recently, such concerns have been amplified by a series of food crises involving contaminants and biohazards (e.g., Thévenot, Dernburg, & Vernozy-Rozand, 2006; Boyd, Jardine, & Driedger, 2009). Yet, the crumbling of meat's healthy image is not due to food safety issues only (Holm & Møhl, 2000). The advance of theories on the association between saturated fat and Western disease, especially cardiovascular pathologies, played a pivotal role since the 1950s (Keys et al., 1980). Recent reports linking meat to cardiometabolic diseases and colon cancer have greatly added to this (Bouvard et al., 2005; Micha et al., 2017).
In the slipstream of these developments, dietary guidelines are progressively depicting (red) meat and meat products as damaging to health, applying what is said to be “an evidence-based integrated message” (Wolk, 2017), although (discrete) warnings against too much meat consumption had emerged prior to 1914 (Scholliers, 2013; Scrinis, 2015). Obviously, evidence-based nutrition is not to be considered as static knowledge, being continuously shaped by novel, model-altering data (Baggini, 2017). Some authors, however, are seriously questioning the current consensus (Klurfeld, 2015; Leroy et al., 2018; McNeill, 2014; Taubes, 2008). Their critique generally focuses on the weaknesses of the epidemiological signals and the lack of clear causal associations. Turner and Lloyd (2017) have argued that the available studies either used excessive amounts of meat (components) or neglected the attenuating effects of wholesome diets. Remarkably, authors that take a convinced pro-meat stance generally rely on the same evidence-based methodology as their opponents, using it not only to criticize them but also to re-establish the beneficial role of meat in health (McNeill & Van Elswyk, 2012). Besides being confounded by the data ambiguity, scientific discourses on meat are also driven by dissimilar interests and opinions within the academic communities and their connected networks, i.e., industrialists, farmers, opinion makers, politicians, etc. (Ogle, 2013). This is reminiscent of the science-in-action concept, outlining the junction of conflict and interaction in the creation of scientific theory (Latour, 1987). Indeed, leading nutritional opinion tends to emerge via complex conformity-inducing social forces, agendas, and power gradients, rather than through an objective chain of proof (Baggini, 2017; Tierney, 2007). Herding or information cascades, for instance, induce researchers to abandon their own information in favour of inferences based on earlier actions of others (Easley & Kleinberg, 2010).
To sum up, the debate on meat's role in health and disease is, since long, a rowdy and dissonant one, but became louder since the 1960s. The heterogeneity within the opinion is not entirely clear but is expected to be both influenced by and reflected in the mass media, increasingly through its online manifestations. The present study aims at portraying the health-related image of meat in public narratives by online mass media since the start of the 21st century. It thus spans the boisterous period between the end of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis and the bombshell report on colon cancer by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015. To our knowledge, this is the first study that aims at investigating the dynamics of the nutritional image of meat in the idiosyncratic settings of contemporary mass media, i.e., the post-truth era and the attention economy, both via a quantitative and qualitative (discourse) analysis. As such, it attempts at sketching and understanding one of the primordial societal matrices for both the embedment and shaping of public food choices.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
Analysis of media representations of animal-derived foods has been applied previously to identify underlying societal sentiments and motivations, with respect to both health (Verriet & Leroy, 2017) and disease (Boyd et al., 2009), offering important insights even if this approach is acknowledged as not being a perfect reflection of views and beliefs. For instance, media coverage of cultured meat as a potential meat substitute was shown by Hopkins (2015) to generate a distorted reflection of
Global quantitative analysis
In total, most of the 1310 items (52%) reported on connections to disease, whereas 35% of the items depicted meat as a health-promoting food. Only a minority (13%) mentioned both positive and negative aspects. In about half of the cases, the statements were backed up with a reference to either official health agencies and research institutions (24% of all items) or specific scientific studies (26%) (results not shown). The remaining items did not cite any specific references (18%), remained
Conclusion
Meat has been represented in mass media as a flexible concept, being at the disposition of several agendas. This is not new, and certainly since the late 19th century the qualities of meat have been highly debated. As a predilected study object for nutritional research, a commodity with high economic value, a potential environmental pollutant, a symbol of oppression and violence, and - foremost - a desirable food with strong cultural connotations, meat functions as a potent signifier. Yet,
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge financial support of the Research Council of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, including the SRP7 and IOF342 projects, and in particular the Interdisciplinary Research Programs 'Food quality, safety, and trust since 1950: societal controversy and biotechnological challenges' (IRP2) and ‘Tradition and naturalness of animal products within a societal context of change’ (IRP11).
References (76)
- et al.
Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets: Hoax or an effective tool for weight loss?
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat
Lancet Oncology
(2015) - et al.
Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review
Food Science and Technology
(2017) Is in vitro meat the solution for the future?
Meat Science
(2016)- et al.
The role of meat in everyday food culture: An analysis of an interview study in Copenhagen
Appetite
(2000) Cultured meat in western media: The disproportionate coverage of vegetarian reactions, demographic realities, and implications for cultured meat marketing
Journal of Integrative Agriculture
(2015)Research gaps in evaluating the relationship of meat and health
Meat Science
(2015)- et al.
Is Atkins dead (again)?
Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Disease
(2004) - et al.
Convenient meat and meat products. Societal and technological issues
Appetite
(2015) - et al.
Meat traditions: The co-evolution of humans and meat
Appetite
(2015)
Red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease. A systematic literature review
Meat Science
Exploring future patterns of meat consumption
Meat Science
Inclusion of red meat in healthful dietary patterns
Meat Science
Red meat in global nutrition
Meat Science
Hamburger hazards and emotions
Appetite
Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet
Meat Science
Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns
Appetite
Sustainability of plant-based diets: Back to the future
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Yogurt's flexible image during its rise in popularity in post-war Belgium
Appetite
Association between total, processed, red and white meat consumption and all-cause, CVD and IHD mortality: A meta-analysis of cohort studies
British Journal of Nutrition
The new media monopoly
A short history of truth: Consolations for a post-truth world
Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion
Mythologies
Orwellian prize for journalistic misrepresentation
Canadian media representations of mad cow disease
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A
Will drinking diet soda Increase your risk for a heart attack?
Clickbait, the attention economy, and the end of journalism
Mechanisms linking colorectal cancer to the consumption of (processed) red meat: A review
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
Evidence for and against dietary recommendations to prevent cardiovascular disease
Texas Heart Institute Journal
Information cascades
Mail Online almost at 200m monthly visitors in December
Journalists and the information-attention markets: Towards an economic theory of journalism
Journalism
Manger: Mode d'emploi?
Is sharing meals a thing of the past?
Wicked nutrition: The controversial greening of official dietary guidance
Gastronomica
The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19
The attention economy and the net
Cited by (37)
What's really at ‘steak’? Understanding the global politics of red and processed meat reduction: A framing analysis of stakeholder interviews
2022, Environmental Science and PolicyEthical and sustainable aspects of meat production; consumer perceptions and system credibility
2022, New Aspects of Meat Quality: From Genes to Ethics, Second EditionIndividual responsibilities, collective issues: The framing of dietary practices in Latvian media
2021, AppetiteCitation Excerpt :Occasionally, medicalisation of dietary habits was accompanied by healthicisation, which in contrast to medicalisation “proposes behavioural or lifestyle changes for previously biomedically defined events (e.g. heart disease)” (Conrad, 1994, p. 387), but they do not cancel each other out. Medicalisation manifests itself in various forms in the biomedical and psychological frames (e.g. food as a composition of biochemical elements and a source of energy for a system of input and output; see also Leroy et al., 2018), and the media often frame dietary habits of the general population as either a symptom of an illness or in a way that will lead to an illness or health problems. An additional element we note is that the articles often emphasise uncertainty regarding food and diets.
Ready-to-eat meat alternatives, a study of their associated bacterial communities
2020, Food Bioscience