Home “Bacon wrapped cancer”: the discursive construction of meat carcinogenicity
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

“Bacon wrapped cancer”: the discursive construction of meat carcinogenicity

  • Sabrina Fusari

    Sabrina Fusari is Associate Professor of English Language and Linguistics at the Department of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures of the University of Bologna (Italy). She holds a PhD in Intercultural Communication, and her research interests include corpus-assisted discourse analysis, intercultural rhetoric, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and English for specific purposes.

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: May 1, 2018

Abstract

In 2015, the World Health Organization published a report on the carcinogenicity of red and processed meat (IARC, 2015. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology 16(16). 1599–1600), attracting intense interest from both the general public and the scientific community. This study combines corpus approaches, Systemic Functional Linguistics and discourse analysis to investigate and compare scientific and animal rights movement reactions to the IARC 2015 report. Scientific reactions are exemplified by three research papers published immediately after the report; responses from animal rights campaigners are investigated through an analysis of texts taken from the website of the nongovernmental organization PETA. The aim is to explore how discourse not only describes, but also constructs meat carcinogenicity, in texts produced by two discourse communities (scientists and animal campaigners) which, for entirely different reasons, have an important stake in this issue. Qualitative (close reading) and quantitative (corpus-based) methods are combined, focusing on vocabulary, grammatical metaphor, and Appraisal (Martin, Jim and Peter White, 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). The results show a high level of hybridity, discursive erasure (Stibbe, Arran, 2012. Animals erased: discourse, ecology, and reconnection with the natural world. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press), and some substantial differences in the discourse reactions to the IARC report by the two sources, reflecting the ideologies and ethical assumptions they espouse in their approach to the announcement that red and processed meat can cause cancer.

About the author

Sabrina Fusari

Sabrina Fusari is Associate Professor of English Language and Linguistics at the Department of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures of the University of Bologna (Italy). She holds a PhD in Intercultural Communication, and her research interests include corpus-assisted discourse analysis, intercultural rhetoric, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and English for specific purposes.

References

Alexander, Richard & Arran Stibbe. 2014. From the analysis of ecological discourse to the ecological analysis of discourse. Language Sciences 41. 104–110.10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.011Search in Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.4). Tokyo: Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/.Search in Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2015. TagAnt (Version 1.2.0). Tokyo: Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/.Search in Google Scholar

Bednarek, Monika & Helen Caple. 2010. Playing with environmental stories in the news: Good or bad practice?. Discourse & Communication 4(1). 5–31.10.1177/1750481309351206Search in Google Scholar

Brookes, Rod. 1999. Newspapers and national identity: The BSE/CJD crisis and the British press. Media, Culture, Society 21(2). 247–263.10.1177/016344399021002007Search in Google Scholar

Cook, Guy. 2015. “A pig is a person” or “You can love a fox and hunt it:” Innovation and tradition in the discursive representation of animals. Discourse & Society 26(5). 587–607.10.1177/0957926515576639Search in Google Scholar

Costello, Kimberly & Gordon Hodson. 2010. Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal-human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13(1). 3–22.10.1177/1368430209347725Search in Google Scholar

Croney, Candace & Richard Reynnells. 2008. The ethics of semantics: Do we clarify or obfuscate reality to influence perceptions of farm animal production?. Poultry Science 87(2). 387–391.10.3382/ps.2007-00404Search in Google Scholar

Domingo, José & Martí Nadal. 2016. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat: What about environmental contaminants?. Environmental Research 145. 109–115.10.1016/j.envres.2015.11.031Search in Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & George Jacobs. 2006. Elephants who marry mice are very unusual: The use of the relative pronoun who with nonhuman animals. Society and Animals 14(1). 79–105.10.1163/156853006776137159Search in Google Scholar

Glenn, Cathy. 2004. Constructing consumables and consent: A critical analysis of factory farm industry discourse. Journal of Communication Inquiry 28(1). 63–81.10.1177/0196859903258573Search in Google Scholar

Goatly, Andrew. 1996. Green grammar and grammatical metaphor, or language and the myth of power, or metaphors we die by. Journal of Pragmatics 25(4). 537–560.10.1016/0378-2166(95)00057-7Search in Google Scholar

Goatly, Andrew. 2006. Humans, animals and metaphors. Society & Animals 14(1). 15–37.10.1163/156853006776137131Search in Google Scholar

Graça, João, Abílio Oliveira & Maria Manuela Calheiros. 2015. Meat, beyond the plate: Data-driven hypotheses for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 90. 80–90.10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.037Search in Google Scholar

Gupta, Anthea. 2006. Foxes, hounds, and horses: Who or which? Society & Animals 14(1). 107–128.10.1163/156853006776137113Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael. 1993 [1989]. Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In Michael Halliday & Jim Martin (eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power, 76–94. London: Falmer Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael. 2001 [1990]. New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.), The ecolinguistics reader, 175–202. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

IARC. 2015. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology 16(16). 1599–1600.10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1Search in Google Scholar

Kouvari, Matina, Stefanos Tyrovolas & Demosthenes Panagiotakos. 2016. Red meat consumption and healthy ageing: A review. Maturitas 84. 17–24.10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.11.006Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltan. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614408Search in Google Scholar

Kretzer, Michelle 2015. Bacon-wrapped cancer. October 26, 2015. http://www.peta.org/blog/bacon-wrapped-cancer (accessed 21 April 2017).Search in Google Scholar

Lippi, Giuseppe, Camilla Mattiuzzi & Gianfranco Cervellin. 2016. Meat consumption and cancer risk: A critical review of published meta-analyses. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 97. 1–14.10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.008Search in Google Scholar

Martin, Jim & Peter White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Donna & Jane Johnson. 2013. “Register-idiosyncratic” evaluative choice in congressional debate: A corpus assisted comparative study. In Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring choice, 432–453. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139583077.026Search in Google Scholar

Milstein, Tema. 2016. The performer metaphor: “Mother nature never gives us the same show twice”. Environmental Communication 10(2). 227–248.10.1080/17524032.2015.1018295Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, Les. 2006. Animals and the discourse of farming in Southern Africa. Society & Animals 14(1). 39–59.10.1163/156853006776137122Search in Google Scholar

Montanari, Massimo. 1993. La fame e l’abbondanza: Storia dell’alimentazione in Europa. Bari: Laterza.Search in Google Scholar

Montanari, Massimo. 2015. Medieval tastes: Food, cooking and the table. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/columbia/9780231167864.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Mühlhäusler, Peter. 2006. Environment and language. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 203–207. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01285-2Search in Google Scholar

Murata, Kumiko. 2007. Pro- and anti-whaling discourses in British and Japanese newspaper reports in comparison: A cross-cultural perspective. Discourse & Society 18(6). 741–764.10.1177/0957926507082194Search in Google Scholar

Packwood Freeman, Carrie. 2009. This little piggy went to press: The American news media’s construction of animals in agriculture. The Communication Review 12(1). 78–103.10.1080/10714420902717764Search in Google Scholar

Pak, Chris & Alison Sealey. 2015. “An urban fox is a bushy-tailed James Dean, living fast and dying young:” Representations of foxes in UK discourse. https://animaldiscourse.wordpress.com/?page_id=459 (accessed 26 April 2017).Search in Google Scholar

Partington, Alan, Alison Duguid & Charlotte Taylor. 2013. Patterns and meanings in discourse: Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.55Search in Google Scholar

Paul, Katharina. 2007. Food for thought: Change and continuity in German food safety policy. Critical Policy Analysis 1(1). 18–41.10.1080/19460171.2007.9518507Search in Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Wittmann, Kevin. 2014. Mala digestio, nulla felicitas: Gastronomy as an element of well-being in the Tacuinum Sanitatis. In Noemi Barrera, Gemma Pellissa-Prades, Delfi-Isabel Nieto-Isabel, Laia Sallés Vilaseca, Georgina Rabassó, Ivo Elies & Josep Bellver (eds.), Spaces of knowledge. Four dimensions of medieval thought, 25–34. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Search in Google Scholar

Ryder, Richard. 2012. Speciesism. In Dan Callahan & Peter Singer (eds.), Encyclopedia of applied ethics, 2nd edn, 213–219. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00359-8Search in Google Scholar

Santa Ana, Otto. 1999. “Like an animal I was treated:” Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse & Society 10(2). 191–224.10.1177/0957926599010002004Search in Google Scholar

Sealey, Alison & Lee Oakley. 2013. Anthropomorphic grammar? Some linguistic patterns in the wildlife documentary series Life. Text & Talk 33(3). 399–420.10.1515/text-2013-0017Search in Google Scholar

Sealey, Alison & Lee Oakley. 2014. Why did the Canada goose cross the sea? Accounting for the behaviour of wildlife in the documentary series Life. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(1). 19–37.10.1111/ijal.12007Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 1996. EAGLES. Preliminary Recommendations on Corpus Typology. http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES/corpustyp/corpustyp.html (accessed 26 April 2017).Search in Google Scholar

Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: Harper Collins.Search in Google Scholar

Stibbe, Arran. 2001. Language, power and the social construction of animals. Society and Animals 9(2). 145–161.10.1163/156853001753639251Search in Google Scholar

Stibbe, Arran. 2003. As charming as a pig: The discursive construction of the relationship between pigs and humans. Society & Animals 11(4). 375–392.10.1163/156853003322796091Search in Google Scholar

Stibbe, Arran. 2004. Health and the social construction of masculinity in Men’s Health magazine. Men and Masculinities 7(1). 31–51.10.1177/1097184X03257441Search in Google Scholar

Stibbe, Arran. 2012. Animals erased: Discourse, ecology, and reconnection with the natural world. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stibbe, Arran. 2014. Ecolinguistics and erasure: Restoring the natural world to consciousness. In Christopher Hart & Piotr Cap (eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies, 583–602. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Stibbe, Arran. 2015a. Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Stibbe, Arran. 2015b. Ecolinguistic discourse analysis. In Karen Tracy (ed.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction, 499–503. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi013Search in Google Scholar

Swan, Davina & John McCarthy. 2003. Contesting animal rights on the Internet: Discourse analysis of the social construction of argument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22(3). 297–320.10.1177/0261927X03252279Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Geoff. 2003. Evaluation: An introduction. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vandekinderen, Caroline, Griet Roets & Geert Van Hove. 2014. The researcher and the beast: Uncovering processes of othering and becoming animal in research ventures in the field of critical disability studies. Qualitative Inquiry 20(3). 296–316.10.1177/1077800413489267Search in Google Scholar

White, Michael. 2003. Metaphor and economics: The case of growth. English for Specific Purposes 22(2). 131–151.10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00006-6Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-5-1
Published in Print: 2018-4-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 10.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2018-0007/html
Scroll to top button