Lexical Strategies and Ideological Reframing: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Factory Farming Narratives

Factory farming is a big topic of conversation about food around the world. It affects how people think about it, environmental policy, and moral issues. This study examines the linguistic and ideological strategies utilized in the Genetic Literacy Project essay, “Rethinking Pros and Cons of Livestock ‘Factory Farms’,” to reframe industrial livestock production as rational, indispensable, and socially beneficial. The study employs Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model of Critical Discourse Analysis to investigate how lexicalisation, interdiscursivity, and evaluative framing validate industrial-scale agriculture, concurrently shifting accountability from corporate and regulatory bodies to consumers. Studies show that terms used in industry, such as "efficiency," "scale," and "lower emissions," as well as inclusive pronouns and trade-off framing, support factory farming as an important part of modern food systems. This research contributes to agricultural discourse studies by demonstrating how language serves as a mechanism for ideological reinforcement, influencing public acceptance of controversial production systems.

factory farming, lexicalisation, discourse analysis

1. Buller, H., & Blokhuis, H. (2021). Living conditions for farm animals: New scientific approaches to welfare improvements. Animal Welfare, 30(3), 301–313. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Carolan, M. (2020). No one eats alone: Food as a social enterprise. Island Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Clapp, J. (2021). Food. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2021). The state of food and agriculture 2021: Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses. FAO. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fraser, D. (2020). Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. The Veterinary Journal, 257, 105451. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smith, P., de Boer, I. J. M., & van Zanten, H. (2020). Grazed and confused? Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question—and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions. Global Food Security, 25, 100356. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Gerten, D., Heck, V., Jägermeyr, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Fetzer, I., Jalava, M., Kummu, M., Lucht, W., Rockström, J., Schaphoff, S., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 3, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Macnaghten, P. (2020). The co-production of techno-scientific futures: Implications for responsible innovation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(1), 50–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Marsden, T. (2020). The future of the agrarian question: Sustainability, agriculture, and the rise of agroecology. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Murray, C. J. L., Ikuta, K. S., Sharara, F., Swetschinski, L., Aguilar, G. R., Gray, A., Han, C., Bisignano, C., Rao, P., Wool, E., Johnson, S. C., Browne, A. J., Brewer, T. F., & Lemons, D. S. (2022). Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. The Lancet, 399(10325), 629–655. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Schmidt, A. L., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Betsch, C., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2021). Polarization of environmental communication on social media. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5), 054003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Springmann, M., Clark, M., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., & Webb, P. (2018). The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: A modelling study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(10), e451–e461. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. van Dijk, T. A. (2018). Sociocognitive discourse studies. Cambridge University Press. Genetic Literacy Project. (n.d.). Rethinking pros and cons of livestock ‘factory farms’. Genetic Literacy Project. Retrieved from https://geneticliteracyproject.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study