INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3025
www.rsisinternational.org
Lexical Strategies and Ideological Reframing: A Critical Discourse
Analysis of Factory Farming Narratives
Muhammad Amir Razin Azizi
*
, Nor Fatin Abdul Jabar
Faculty of Education, Social Sciences & Humanities, University Poly-Tech Malaysia
*
Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100238
Received: 22 November 2025; Accepted: 28 November 2025; Published: 06 December 2025
ABSTRACT
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.
Keywords: factory farming, lexicalisation, discourse analysis, ideology, Fairclough, agriculture, consumer
responsibility
INTRODUCTION
Factory farming, which means keeping animals in large, industrial settings so that they can be used to make a lot
of meat, eggs, and dairy, has become a very controversial part of modern farming systems. Advocates often say
that industrial livestock operations are necessary to make sure that everyone has enough food, that the economy
stays stable, and that production is as efficient as possible (FAO, 2021). This is because the world's population
is growing quickly and food needs are rising. The system is heavily criticised for its big effects on the
environment, the ethical problems with taking care of animals, the health risks to the public from things like
antimicrobial resistance, and the loss of jobs for smallholder farmers. These differing interpretations show that
factory farming is more than just a way to make things; it is deeply connected to ideological conflicts, different
value systems, and institutional stories that shape how people think and act about agricultural issues.
Language is a key part of this conflict. Discourse researchers assert that public perceptions of contentious issues
are profoundly shaped by the lexical, rhetorical, and framing techniques employed in media, policy documents,
and expert commentary (Fairclough, 2015; van Dijk, 2018). Language not only delineates social phenomena but
also actively shapes their meanings, legitimises certain actors and institutions, and normalises specific types of
power. In very political areas like industrial livestock production, the ability to define an issue by choosing
certain words is a powerful way to express yourself. Terms like efficiency, optimisation, resource management,
and innovation can hide the bad effects of factory farming on purpose. On the other hand, terms like cruelty,
exploitation, and pollution focus on moral and environmental issues. So, lexicalisation, or choosing certain words
and phrases to describe things, is a very important part of shaping public opinion.
The Genetic Literacy Project article "Rethinking Pros and Cons of Livestock 'Factory Farms'" is an example of
how language can be used to make industrial livestock farming look better. The paper acknowledges potential
negative consequences while simultaneously redefining factory farming as a rational, technologically advanced,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3026
www.rsisinternational.org
and operationally vital response to global food challenges. The author uses words that are related to industrial
rationality, like size, efficiency, lower emissions, fewer resources, and optimisation, to show that factory farming
is not only okay, but also good. This linguistic approach changes the way people talk about factory farming:
instead of arguing about the moral or environmental problems, the discourse makes people see it as a practical
compromise or "trade-off" to meet social needs.
These linguistic strategies are not unique; they reflect prevailing socioeconomic frameworks in contemporary
policy discourse. Neoliberalism supports efficiency, market rationality, and personal responsibility as core tenets
(Clapp, 2021). In this context, industrial production processes are often portrayed as logical, scientific solutions
to complex global challenges, while ethical, environmental, or traditional concerns are reinterpreted as
emotional, counterproductive, or impractical. Also, linguistic strategies that stress the need for "consumer
responsibility" or "informed choices" effectively move the blame from businesses and government agencies to
people. This discursive shift preserves structural power imbalances, portraying the consumption of industrially
produced beef as a matter of individual discipline rather than systemic regulation.
The ideological consequences of these linguistic trends align with other research suggesting that discussions
surrounding modern agriculture frequently normalise technological progress while minimising structural
critiques (Garnett et al., 2020; Carolan, 2020). By focussing on terms related to scientific rationality and progress,
writers can subtly change how we think about complex problems like climate change, loss of biodiversity, or
resistance to antibiotics, making them seem more manageable through technological improvement rather than
needing major changes in society. This is especially true when talking about industrial farming, where corporate
power, political lobbying, and economic interests control both how things are made and how they are
communicated to the public. The language used in mass media, expert analysis, and policy papers is a big place
where people with different ideas can work things out.
In this context, it is essential to examine how linguistic choices in agricultural discourse uphold, challenge, or
transform ideological positions. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), particularly Fairclough’s ThreeDimensional
Model, provides an extensive framework for clarifying these processes. Fairclough characterises discourse as a
dialectical relationship encompassing (1) the text, (2) the processes of its creation and interpretation, and (3) the
prevailing social structures and ideologies that both shape and are shaped by the text. This framework is
especially pertinent to discussions on factory farming, as it allows researchers to analyse how particular lexical
selections sustain industrial agrarian ideologies, while also investigating the institutional and political contexts
that promote the extensive dissemination of such discourses.
Applying this methodology to the Genetic Literacy Project article enables an exhaustive examination of the
linguistic legitimisation of industrial agriculture. The study employs textual analysis to identify the terminology,
metaphors, pronouns, evaluative phrases, and modality patterns that depict factory farming as neutral, objective,
or beneficial. The study employed discourse analysis to investigate the article's use of scientific genres, policy
language, and neoliberal narratives to establish credibility and involve readers as co-participants in a shared
responsibility for agricultural outcomes. The paper investigates how these linguistic practices foster expansive
ideological commitments to technological progress, capitalist efficiency, and market-driven solutions influenced
by consumerism.
The goal of this report is to answer two main research questions:
1. How does the text lexicalise and recontextualise the idea of industrial farming?
2. What ideological and sociological consequences emerge from these linguistic choices, particularly in
relation to power, accountability, and the normalisation of industrial agriculture?
This study improves the current research on the link between discourse, ideology, and agriculture by looking
into these issues. It shows how language that seems neutral or technical can hide moral problems, support
neoliberal market ideas, and make big industrial systems seem legitimate. It emphasises the importance of
scrutinising public communications concerning agriculture, particularly during a period marked by
environmental instability, zoonotic disease risks, and consumer anxieties that challenge existing food production
paradigms.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3027
www.rsisinternational.org
This introduction provides the conceptual and theoretical framework for a critical analysis of the impact of
linguistic strategies on ideological interpretations of factory farming. The thorough CDA of the selected article
demonstrates that language serves as an active force in legitimising industrial agriculture and influencing public
perceptions of its acceptance.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Factory farming has become an important part of modern food systems. It has changed how animal-based food
is made, distributed, and seen. Industrial livestock production is often praised as a technologically advanced and
efficient way to feed a growing global population, but it is still very controversial. Economic forces,
technological progress, and strong ideological frameworks that show industrial agriculture as both necessary and
beneficial are driving the rapid growth. To understand how these systems gain public legitimacy, researchers are
increasingly utilizing discourse-based methodologies that examine how language evolves, sustains, or challenges
dominant agricultural ideologies. This literature review brings together previous studies on industrial livestock
production, environmental and ethical critiques, discursive framing, lexicalization, and ideological
communication. It puts this study in the context of bigger academic conversations about agricultural narratives
and linguistic authority.
The industrialization of agriculture led to the rise of industrial livestock production. This made farming more
efficient, more productive, and more cost-effective. Technological advancements, such as automated feeding and
waste management systems, genetically enhanced high-yield breeds, climate-controlled environments, and
precise monitoring devices, have collectively enabled the confinement of numerous animals in limited spaces
while optimizing productivity. Buller and Blokhuis (2021) assert that these advancements were not impartial;
instead, they were shaped by the intersection of political, economic, and scientific objectives that emphasized
efficiency, standardization, and profitability. These goals are very similar to what capitalism wants: high-volume,
low-cost production and a global supply chain that works well. Many governments sped up the growth of
industrial agriculture by giving money to infrastructure, relaxing environmental rules, and making modernization
of agriculture seem like a sign of national progress.
Despite its material productivity, extensive research highlights the environmental, ethical, and public health
consequences associated with industrial livestock systems. Poore and Nemecek (2018) identified industrial
agriculture as a major contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane and nitrous
oxide. Additional environmental impacts include nutrient runoff, pollution of waterways, degradation of soil,
and the creation of hypoxic "dead zones." These stresses make climate change worse all over the world and
threaten biodiversity. Research in public health shows that intensive livestock operations are a big cause of
antimicrobial resistance because they use a lot of prophylactic antibiotics (Murray et al., 2022). This makes
medical and veterinary treatments much more dangerous. Ethical scholarship acknowledges various welfare
concerns, including confinement, limitation of natural behaviors, chronic stress, overpopulation, and routine
painful procedures such as tail docking and debeaking. Fraser (2020) emphasizes that these circumstances may
result in lasting physiological and psychological harm. This body of literature collectively illustrates that
industrial agriculture is environmentally unsustainable and ethically contentious, presenting risks that extend
beyond agricultural confines into public health, ecological integrity, and moral responsibility.
Language keeps factory farming legal, even though it is often challenged and shown to be wrong in real life.
Researchers in discourse studies assert that language not only reflects social realities but also actively shapes
them by delineating specific knowledge frameworks, legitimizing particular participants, and normalizing certain
interpretations of complex subjects. Technocratic language shows how industrial farming is seen as scientific,
data-driven, and reasonable. Carolan (2020) says that words like "controlled environments," "resource
efficiency," "precision feeding," and "scalable solutions" make industrial farming sound neutral and
technologically advanced. This language says that industrial systems are important for global food security,
which means that other ways of making food won't work or aren't good enough. This framing hides systemic
damage by putting industrial practices into a story about scientific progress.
On the other hand, environmental, ethical, and public health advocates tell different stories that focus on the
harm and systemic unfairness that come with industrial animal farming. These discourses employ terms such as
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3028
www.rsisinternational.org
“contamination,” “exploitation,” “cruelty,” “pollution,” and “confinement” to depict factory farming as
ecologically harmful and ethically unjustifiable. Fraser (2020) asserts that this dissenting discourse challenges
the presumed inevitability of industrial livestock systems by emphasizing the moral and ecological repercussions
that technocratic narratives tend to minimize. These opposing discourses exemplify a linguistic conflict in which
competing groups utilize distinct vocabularies to shape public perception and influence policy direction.
A third important way of talking about things is based on neoliberal ideology, which shifts the blame for damage
to crops from businesses and regulatory bodies to individual consumers. Words like "responsible consumption,"
"ethical purchasing," "informed choices," and "consumer demand" suggest that customers, not structural entities,
have a say in whether industrial farming stays the same or changes. Clapp (2021) asserts that this framing aligns
with neoliberal ideologies by highlighting individual accountability and market forces, while downplaying
corporate influence, policy deficiencies, and systemic inequalities. When you frame environmental damage,
labour exploitation, or animal suffering as issues of consumer ethics, you hide the institutional factors that keep
industrial systems going. Neoliberal rhetoric functions as a formidable ideological tool, redirecting focus from
structural transformation to individual behaviour.
Recent studies show that agricultural discourse is increasingly incorporating technical, environmental, and
neoliberal elements into mixed narrative structures. One example is the "trade-off narrative," which
acknowledges the negative effects of factory farming but frames them as necessary sacrifices to keep the world's
population alive. Words like "balancing priorities," "necessary trade-offs," "pragmatic solutions," and "realistic
compromises" make it seem like harm is bad but unavoidable, which makes industrial systems seem normal even
though they are dangerous. Schmidt et al. (2021) assert that this framing alleviates criticism by situating
environmental degradation or animal suffering within a broader utilitarian context that prioritizes economic
progress and technological scalability. This mixed language is very powerful because it seems fair and reasonable
while quietly supporting industrial growth.
In these discursive forms, lexicalization is essential. Fairclough (2015) posits that lexical selections condense
complex realities into concise conceptual frameworks that reflect ideological viewpoints. Words that have to do
with efficiency, optimization, and scientific rationality help tell a story that makes industrial farming seem
modern and necessary. On the other hand, words that have to do with harm or unfairness go along with critical
or reformist views. Van Dijk (2018) asserts that ostensibly neutral terminology can reflect power dynamics by
shaping the prominence or obscurity of certain aspects of reality. Referring to emissions as "reduced" rather than
"harmful" shifts attention from environmental damage to technical benefit. The difference between "factory
farm" and "intensive livestock operation" has very different meanings when it comes to judging. Thus,
lexicalization is not solely descriptive; it is infused with ideology, influencing readers' interpretations of
agricultural systems.
Interdiscursivity, a key concept in Critical Discourse Analysis, denotes the integration of various discourse
types—scientific, political, journalistic, and consumer-focused—to enhance legitimacy and persuasive
effectiveness. Fairclough (2015) states that interdiscursivity allows texts to get authority from many institutional
areas, which leads to stories that seem objective and widely accepted. In the domain of factory farming, scientific
terminology often merges with policy discussions and calls for consumer responsibility, forming a complex
rhetorical framework that depicts industrial agriculture as empirically substantiated, politically justified, and
socially responsible. This interconnection makes it harder to argue against convincing claims because they seem
to be based on expertise, government, and voluntary citizenship at the same time.
In agricultural research, Critical Discourse Analysis has become a prominent approach for examining how
language reinforces or challenges power dynamics within food systems. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has
been employed to investigate sustainability dialogues, climate change communication, zoonotic disease
narratives, and media representations of agriculture (Marsden, 2020). Fairclough's Three-Dimensional Model—
textual analysis, discursive practice, and social practice—clearly shows how language can support or weaken
existing ideas. Factory farming is often presented as the predominant method of modern food production through
language, reasoning, intertextuality, and modality, thereby obscuring alternative practices such as regenerative
agriculture or agroecology.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3029
www.rsisinternational.org
Despite extensive research on the environmental, ethical, and health consequences of industrial agriculture, a
significant gap persists in the literature regarding how public-facing texts—particularly those aimed at general
audiences—employ lexical and discursive strategies to cultivate ideological endorsement of factory farming.
Major scientific journals, industrial lobbying groups, and online media sites often share content that combines
scientific credibility with economic logic and neoliberal models of responsibility. But these kinds of materials
don't get the same level of scrutiny as policy papers or peer-reviewed scientific findings very often. This
difference is important because these public stories have a big impact on how people see things every day and
make industrial processes seem normal.
This study addresses this gap by examining a widely circulated statement from the Genetic Literacy Project, a
platform known for promoting technology-driven solutions in agriculture. This study examines the operation of
vocabulary selection, interdiscursivity, and ideological framing within the text, demonstrating how everyday
language can legitimize industrial animal production, obscure systemic harms, and redirect responsibility onto
consumers. Situating this research within the vast body of literature reveals that factory farming is not only a
material and technological framework but also a discursive and ideological construct perpetuated through
language. To promote clearer, more equal, and more sustainable ways of talking about food, we need to
understand how language works in these situations.
METHODOLOGY
This research employs a qualitative methodology grounded in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), a framework
specifically developed to examine how language constructs, legitimizes, and propagates beliefs related to
agricultural systems. CDA is well-known for being able to look at not only what texts say, but also how they
affect social structures, institutional authority, and public awareness. Factory farming exists within
interconnected domains of political economy, public health, environmental governance, and ethical discourse;
consequently, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) provides a holistic framework for elucidating the underlying
assumptions and ideological roles of discourse. This research utilizes Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model to
methodically analyze linguistic patterns, discursive practices, and the overarching sociopolitical contexts that
portray certain perspectives of industrial agriculture as natural or unavoidable.
Analytical Framework: Fairclough's Triadic Model
Fairclough's paradigm defines discourse as a dialectical interaction among three analytical layers: the textual
dimension, the discursive practice dimension, and the social practice dimension. The research concentrates on
vocabulary choice, grammatical structures, modality, coherence, metaphors, and evaluative language at the
textual level. This level shows how literary qualities can change the meaning of a text, affect how readers feel,
and highlight or downplay certain aspects of industrial farming. This research examines the production,
dissemination, and interpretation of the text through the lens of discursive practice. This encompasses the
examination of intertextual references, genre fusion, argumentative structure, and the strategies employed by the
text to leverage established discourses—such as scientific, policy, economic, and ethical discourses—to enhance
its credibility. The third dimension, social practice, puts the text in a bigger ideological context, such as neoliberal
governance, capitalist rationalism, and technocratic decision-making. This third layer looks at how the article's
language patterns support industrial livestock farming as a common and acceptable way to make food. These
interconnected levels offer a comprehensive and theoretically grounded examination of how discourse both
reflects and perpetuates power dynamics.
Data Selection
The research is based on a single, carefully selected essay called "Rethinking Pros and Cons of Livestock 'Factory
Farms,'" which was published by the Genetic Literacy Project. CDA frequently employs single-text analysis
when the chosen text is sufficiently rich, influential, and discursively representative, notwithstanding the reliance
of certain qualitative traditions on multiple texts. There are many reasons why the chosen article meets these
standards. First, it is widely known and easy to get, which makes it an important piece of evidence in public
debates about industrial farming. Second, the text is very persuasive and tries to get readers to think about their
views on industrial farming again. In Critical Discourse Analysis, persuasive texts are very important because
they show how ideologies are either reproduced or challenged through language.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3030
www.rsisinternational.org
The essay shows how current discussions about factory farming mix together scientific, policy-focused, ethical,
and consumer-responsibility ideas. It uses scientific proof to say that industrial agriculture is good for the
environment, uses policy language to link industrial agriculture to regulatory goals, and uses moral stories to
shift responsibility from businesses to individual customers. This combination of ideas makes the text a very
useful place to think about how industrial livestock systems are framed as rational and necessary.
In the end, single-text analysis is methodologically sound in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) because the goal
is to get to the bottom of things rather than to make broad generalizations. Fairclough and other scholars in
Critical Discourse Analysis assert that individual texts can function as significant ideological nodes that promote
the dissemination of broader societal meanings. This study achieves the requisite granularity to identify nuanced
linguistic and rhetorical strategies by focusing on a singular text. The goal is to explain how certain discourses
help to make industrial farming seem more legitimate ideologically, not to claim that all media portrayals are
complete.
The Genetic Literacy Project website provided all of the material, which was then processed for systematic
textual analysis. The process began with several careful readings to help the researcher get used to the text's
structure, the way the argument was built, and the main themes. The initial readings uncovered emerging themes,
such as the persistent focus on efficiency, the normalization of environmental degradation as "trade-offs," and
the frequent use of inclusive pronouns to align readers with industrial objectives.
After that, the text was carefully looked at to find some word choices, metaphors, evaluative language, modality
indicators, and rhetorical techniques. The focus was on words that made industrial processes seem normal
("scale," "efficiency," "lower emissions"), downplayed negative effects ("challenges," "drawbacks"), or shifted
responsibility ("we must acknowledge," "our decisions are significant"). Intertextual references to scientific
studies, economic analyses, and policy arguments were documented for their informational significance and their
rhetorical function in establishing legitimacy. The characteristics were thematically coded and interpretively
classified according to Fairclough's three-dimensional framework.
Methods of Analysis
The analytical process transpired in three phases corresponding to Fairclough’s framework. The textual study
focused on grammar, vocabulary, transitivity choices, modality, and cohesive elements. This phase showed how
the text uses language to show that industrial farming is modern, efficient, and good for the environment. We
paid special attention to how the text describes harms as either unavoidable or acceptable, and how the use of
pronouns makes readers responsible for the effects of industry.
The examination of discursive practices focused on the article's genre blending and interdiscursivity. The study
examined the strategic use of scientific discourse to validate contentious claims, the integration of policy
language to suggest institutional conformity, and the portrayal of individual actions as crucial to agricultural
transformation through neoliberal consumer-focused discourse. This analytical layer clarified the fusion of
authoritative discourses, engendering a façade of neutrality and competence.
The last level, social practice analysis, connected the text to larger ideological frameworks. This dimension
examined the ways in which narratives of efficiency, scalability, and technological innovation reflect capitalist
agricultural priorities; how appeals to "consumer responsibility" reinforce neoliberal governance; and how the
sidelining of ethical considerations corresponds with dominant technocratic viewpoints. This made it easier to
understand how the article's language techniques fit in with and support the existing power structures in food
production.
The analysis employed reflexive reading, iterative coding, and theoretical triangulation to maintain
methodological rigor. Reflexivity ensured that interpretative decisions were transparent and grounded in textual
evidence rather than researcher bias. Iterative analytical cycles improved coherence, and engaging with CDA
scholarship improved theoretical consistency. The interpretive nature of CDA does not claim positivist
objectivity; instead, it achieves rigor through methodological precision, explicit data foundation, and compliance
with recognized theoretical frameworks.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3031
www.rsisinternational.org
This research approach clarifies how seemingly neutral public criticism operates as an ideological construct that
validates factory farming. The study illustrates how language sustains the structural integrity of industrial
agriculture and shapes public perceptions regarding its necessity, acceptability, and inevitability through textual
analysis, discursive contextualization, and ideological interpretation.
FINDINGS
The analysis of the essay “Rethinking Pros and Cons of Livestock ‘Factory Farms’” demonstrates how linguistic
patterns, discursive structures, and ideological frameworks collectively reconstitute factory farming as a rational,
effective, and indispensable system. Using Fairclough's Three-Dimensional Model, the results are divided into
three main parts: textual findings, discursive practice findings, and ideological findings. Each section includes
real quotes and gives a thorough analysis of how the literature shows factory farming as a viable and socially
acceptable way to grow food.
Textual Analysis: Word Choices, Evaluations, and Modality
The textual analysis shows that the words used in the article have a big effect on how people feel about industrial
agriculture. A common theme is the reliance on words that have to do with modernity, optimization, and scientific
reasoning. The text uses words like "efficiency," "scale," "reduced emissions," "technological advancement,"
and "resource optimization" a lot. The author says that industrial farms "produce less pollution per unit of meat"
and "use feed inputs more efficiently." These word choices make people think of factory farming not as an
unethical or harmful way to grow food, but as a high-tech way to solve world hunger problems.
The text always talks about industrial processes in terms of performance-based nouns like "production
advantages," "high-yield systems," and "controlled environments." These phrases are not neutral; they use
industrial reasoning in the conversation, which makes readers think that factory farming is systematic, organized,
and based on science. The emphasis on control and optimization diminishes the chaotic, harmful, or
unpredictable aspects of intensive livestock systems, thereby constructing a narrative of industrial precision.
A significant linguistic feature is the intentional minimization of harmful elements. People use euphemisms like
"drawbacks," "challenges," "shortcomings," or "concerns" to talk about problems with factory farming, such as
keeping animals in cages, concentrating waste, and using too many antibiotics. The article says that "factory
farms come with some animal welfare concerns," but it quickly follows up with the reassuring news that "new
technologies continue to improve conditions." Linguistic softening turns ethical and environmental harm into
things that can be dealt with, instead of seeing them as structural problems that need more study.
On the other hand, organic, free-range, and regenerative farming are not given much attention, and when they
are, they are often portrayed as not good enough. The article says that "large-scale systems enable producers to
satisfy global demand more consistently," which implies that smaller systems can't provide the same benefits to
society. The absence of favorable terminology for alternatives indirectly reinforces the presumption that
industrial agriculture represents the most viable approach for sustaining the global population.
Modality is fundamental in determining inevitability and necessity. Words like "must," "need," "have to," and
"inevitable" show that industrial livestock production is an unavoidable part of society. The phrases "we must
embrace intensive systems to nourish billions" and "factory farms are essential to the solution" make it sound
like there is no other choice. These claims keep readers from thinking about completely different ways to farm
because the language in the text makes it impossible for them to do so. This approach emphasizes a deterministic
viewpoint, suggesting that modern civilization must rely on industrial agriculture due to demographic and
economic limitations.
Using pronouns makes the article sound more interesting. The piece has a lot of pronouns that include everyone,
like "we," "our," and "us." Phrases like "we must rethink our expectations for cheap meat" put readers in the role
of a group of people who are trying to support industrial agribusiness. This rhetorical device subtly shifts
responsibility from businesses to consumers by suggesting that the state of agriculture is the result of collective
public choices rather than systematic market frameworks. The text mixes up the interests of agribusiness with
those of the general public by using pronouns that are the same for both.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3032
www.rsisinternational.org
The text employs a consistent rhetorical framework known as the "trade-off narrative." Statements like
"everything involves trade-offs" and "any system will have costs and benefits" show this story. The article makes
ethically questionable actions like imprisonment or pollution seem like necessary parts of a logical way to make
decisions by making sacrifice a universal value. This viewpoint prompts readers to view injuries not as violations
necessitating rectification, but as components of a comprehensive cost–benefit assessment that society must
adopt for its own advantage.
Results on Discursive Practice: Interdiscursivity and Genre Convergence
The results show that the piece is persuasive because it uses scientific discourse, policy reasoning, journalistic
analysis, and neoliberal consumer rhetoric. This mixed discursive framework makes people think more about
objectivity, authority, and balance.
Interdiscursivity, which is the mixing of different types of discourse, is one of the best ways to make something
seem more legitimate. The article frequently cites scientific discourse, claiming that "feed conversion ratios are
markedly enhanced in controlled environments" and "intensive systems diminish greenhouse gas emissions per
calorie." The essay puts factory farming in a place of evidence-based logic by using scientific-sounding statistics
but not giving full citations. This deliberate amalgamation of research with industrial communication informs
readers that the conclusions are grounded in empirical evidence.
The presence of policy discourse enhances scientific discourse, giving the article a more authoritative tone. The
statements "regulatory frameworks guarantee responsible management" and "policy reforms persist in enhancing
industry standards" make people think of the power of governance systems. These statements support the idea
that industrial farming is done under responsible supervision, even though the text doesn't say much about
problems with enforcement or regulation.
Journalistic and expository styles are mixed together, which makes the tone easy to understand and
conversational. The article starts with the sentence, "Factory farms have both pros and cons, and it is important
to view them in context." This is similar to how an unbiased news analysis would start. However, most of the
rest of the article supports industrial systems. This method makes it seem like the writer is being fair, but it really
leads readers to a conclusion that has already been decided.
A notable finding relates to the article's chosen intertextuality. The work contains scientific and expert citations
that support its argument, but it doesn't include any data that goes against or makes the pro-industrial view more
complicated. The article references studies that show lower emissions in feedlot systems, but it doesn't talk about
data that shows how concentrated manure can harm the environment and how antibiotic resistance can cause
health problems. This uneven integration of knowledge gives us a narrow view of industrial livestock systems,
which are shown as all-encompassing.
The piece also shows anticipatory refutation, which is a rhetorical technique that briefly acknowledges possible
complaints before quickly putting them to rest. The essay starts by saying that "animal welfare is a concern" and
then changes the subject to "technological advancements in housing systems" as a way to solve the problem. By
recognizing objections only to lessen their importance, the text makes its argument more convincing while still
making it look like it is fair.
The article's discursive framework prevents other interpretations by telling a story that makes factory farming
seem controversial, judging it from an allegedly neutral point of view, and finally justifying it as necessary. This
framework follows the problem-solution format that is common in persuasive advocacy writing.
Ideological Discoveries: Neoliberal Accountability, Capitalist Rationality, and Technocratic Progress
The final part of the analysis puts the piece in a larger ideological context. The findings suggest that the essay
subtly reinforces neoliberal, capitalist, and technocratic principles that shape contemporary agricultural
governance.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3033
www.rsisinternational.org
A key ideological element is the reliance on neoliberal individualism, which reframes systemic issues as matters
of consumer choice. Statements such as "our demand drives production systems" and "we shape the market
through our purchases" suggest that individuals, rather than corporations or policymakers, are accountable for
agricultural conditions. This change in context makes government and business decisions less important and
gives consumers more power, which is in line with neoliberal market citizenship ideas.
The text uses capitalist ideas about scale, efficiency, and productivity, which are the same goals as industrial
agriculture. The constant focus on "scale," "optimization," and "cost-effectiveness" is in line with capitalist ideas
that put making money and growing the economy ahead of environmental or moral issues. The essay normalizes
capitalist production patterns by showing that industrial livestock systems make economic sense. This pushes
alternatives like regenerative agriculture or small-scale farming to the side.
Technocratic ideology primarily manifests as technological optimism. The text consistently asserts that
environmental and welfare challenges can be mitigated through innovation. It says that "better feed technologies
can lower methane emissions" and "better housing systems will help with welfare issues." These claims show
that technological progress is inherently good and can solve systemic problems, so they avoid talking about
structural reform or other ways to make things.
In the end, the essay makes harm seem normal. The language frames bad outcomes as "necessary trade-offs,"
which is in line with utilitarian ideas that justify sacrifice for the sake of progress and efficiency. This ideological
viewpoint considers industrial agriculture as the exclusive feasible approach, consequently constraining the
conceptual framework for imagining alternative food systems.
RESULTS SUMMARY
The findings indicate that the article's linguistic, discursive, and ideological strategies operate in concert to
validate factory farming. The article depicts factory farming as efficient, inevitable, and ethically permissible
through positive lexical framing, necessity modality, interdiscursive blending, selective intertextuality, and
alignment with neoliberal and technocratic ideology. These methods hide the negative effects on ethics and the
environment and put the blame on consumers, which keeps the power structures in the global food system the
same.
DISCUSSION
This study shows how the article being studied makes a strategically planned and ideologically consistent picture
of factory farming. The article superficially purports to offer an unbiased evaluation of industrial cattle
production; however, its linguistic and discursive choices ultimately function to legitimize, normalize, and
rationalize the system. This section combines the textual, discursive, and ideological findings to show how they
all work together to shape how people see things and make industrial cattle production seem scientifically sound,
economically sound, and socially necessary.
Reframing Factory Farming Through Efficiency and Technological Progress
The text always talks about efficiency, scalability, and new technology. Phrases like "reduced emissions,"
"resource optimization," and "regulated environments" are used to describe industrial operations. These phrases
make factory farming sound like a modern, scientifically advanced way to feed the world's population. This
language shift changes the way people think about factory farming from a controversial and debated system to
one that seems logical and necessary. This framing aligns closely with dominant global narratives of progress
that emphasize speed, productivity, and technological advancement.
The study places industrial cattle production within a context of optimization and scientific rationality, thereby
bolstering neoliberal principles that prioritize technological solutions over ethical or structural reforms. This
framework indirectly pushes aside other types of farming, like regenerative farming or community-based
agroecology, by suggesting that they aren't big enough, efficient enough, or dependable enough to meet the
world's food needs. The article's linguistic framing of modernity ultimately places factory farming within a
broader ideological framework that links industrialization to advancement.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3034
www.rsisinternational.org
Normalising Harm Through the Trade-Off Narrative
It is important to use "trade-off" language on purpose when trying to change the way people think about factory
farming. Environmental degradation, animal welfare issues, and public health problems are only briefly
mentioned before being framed as unavoidable costs. Statements like "every system has costs and benefits" or
"these trade-offs are necessary to keep billions alive" make people think that systemic problems are reasonable,
fair, and ultimately justifiable. This rhetorical strategy lessens moral criticism by putting harms in a utilitarian
context that focuses on production and economic stability.
The claim that industrial agriculture is the only viable option not only simplifies complex ecological issues but
also inhibits meaningful dialogue about systemic transformation. By emphasizing inevitability and necessity, the
article reframes significant ethical and environmental issues as manageable consequences of a system that society
must accept. The trade-off story is a powerful piece of propaganda that shifts people's focus away from structural
analysis and toward practical compromise.
Redistributing Accountability Through Pronoun Use and Consumer Responsibility
The article uses pronouns like "we" and "our" to get readers on board with the goals of the industry. The claim
that "we need to rethink our expectations for cheap meat" or "our choices affect production systems" creates a
shared responsibility that shifts responsibilities from businesses and lawmakers to consumers. This rhetorical
strategy bolsters neoliberal governance frameworks by reframing systemic problems as personal decisions.
This leads to a fragmented and depoliticized understanding of agricultural systems. The reader is subtly
encouraged to view industrial farming as a result of personal consumption decisions, rather than recognizing it
as a product of powerful corporate, legislative, and economic influences. This new way of looking at things hides
the real facts about agricultural consolidation, policy advocacy, regulatory failures, and structural inequalities,
which makes calls for institutional reform less effective. The linguistic construction of collective responsibility
functions as a rhetorical device that absolves structural agents while assigning the consequences of a system they
did not create to individuals.
Creating an Appearance of Objectivity Through Interdiscursivity
The article's persuasive power comes mostly from how it mixes scientific, economic, and policy-related words
and phrases. By using references to emissions data, market principles, and regulatory frameworks, the language
gives the impression of balance and skill. Scientific discourse substantiates industrial claims, economic discourse
rationalizes production efficiency, and policy discourse invokes institutional legitimacy. When these different
ways of talking come together, they create an assessment that seems fair and based on evidence.
This apparent neutrality is deceptive. The selective use of scientific facts and the exclusion of conflicting
evidence create a distorted information landscape in which industrial agriculture appears to be the only logical
and scientifically supported method. This discursive layering strengthens the ideological legitimacy of factory
farming by linking it to authoritative knowledge domains, while concurrently downplaying or obscuring critical
environmental and ethical concerns.
Minimisation of Ethical and Ecological Harms
The text consistently downplays the dangers to animals and the environment. These concerns are recognized
only superficially and articulated with euphemism or mitigative language. By recasting substantial ethical issues
as "drawbacks" or "shortcomings," the piece dissociates moral urgency from the discourse. This rhetorical
minimization closely coincides with the text's overarching ideological objective: to prioritize technology and
economic reasoning while relegating ethical considerations to the periphery.
This minimization is not a mere oversight but a calculated tactic that bolsters industrial rationale. Ethical critiques
jeopardize the intellectual stability of industrial cattle production; thus, their marginalization is crucial for
preserving the facade of legitimacy. By acknowledging damages solely in limited, superficial terms, the essay
perpetuates the notion that industrial agriculture is both ethically justifiable and environmentally sustainable.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3035
www.rsisinternational.org
Pragmatic Consequences for Media
Media organizations are essential in influencing public comprehension of agricultural systems. This study
illustrates that ostensibly objective articles can utilize nuanced discursive methods that normalize industrial
practices. Media professionals must recognize the impact of lexical selections, selective evidence, and framing
techniques on public perception. Ethical reporting necessitates the straightforward presentation of environmental
and ethical impacts while eschewing euphemism language that obscures systemic issues. Journalists and editors
must rigorously evaluate sources, incorporate diverse viewpoints, and guarantee equitable exposure of alternate
farming approaches.
Policy Implications
Policymakers often depend on expert analysis and publicly accessible materials when formulating agriculture
policy. This study underscores the necessity of critical literacy in analyzing industry-sponsored narratives.
Policymakers must acknowledge how scientific and economic narratives can be skillfully employed to
rationalize actions that may not conform to long-term sustainability or public welfare. Effective policy
formulation necessitates recognizing systemic power disparities, enhancing regulatory supervision, and
countering myths that depict environmental or ethical damages as unavoidable or permissible.
Implications for Public Education
The results highlight the necessity of incorporating critical media literacy into public education. Consumers must
be able to discern how language delineates responsibility and influences perceptions of food systems.
Educational programs in schools, universities, and community settings can assist individuals in distinguishing
between structural reasons and individual behaviors. By cultivating critical understanding of discursive
strategies, public education can enable citizens to engage more effectively in dialogues regarding agricultural
reform and food sustainability.
CONCLUSION
This study illustrates that the examined article employs a complex array of linguistic, discursive, and ideological
methods that collectively serve to legitimize factory farming while sidelining alternative practices and ethical
considerations. The paper underscores neoliberal and technocratic perspectives by prioritizing efficiency,
technical advancement, and scalable solutions, so portraying industrial livestock production as essential and
scientifically substantiated. Simultaneously, detriments are normalized via the narrative of trade-offs,
accountability is shifted onto customers through pronoun alignment, and authoritative discourses are interwoven
to fabricate an illusion of impartiality and legitimacy.
These findings underscore the necessity for ongoing critical discourse analysis in the examination of food
systems. Language is not solely descriptive; it shapes public comprehension, influences political decisions, and
establishes institutional authority. As communities face the interrelated difficulties of climate change, public
health threats, biodiversity decline, and animal welfare issues, it is essential to examine the communicative
frameworks that support industrial agriculture.
By acknowledging the influence of discourse, stakeholders—such as policymakers, educators, communicators,
and researchers—can strive for narratives that are more transparent, ethical, and sustainable, accurately
representing the intricacies of modern agricultural systems. Ultimately, comprehending how language influences
public imagination is essential for conceptualizing and executing agricultural futures that emphasize ecological
integrity, ethical responsibility, and social justice.
REFERENCES
1. Buller, H., & Blokhuis, H. (2021). Living conditions for farm animals: New scientific approaches to
welfare improvements. Animal Welfare, 30(3), 301–313.
2. Carolan, M. (2020). No one eats alone: Food as a social enterprise. Island Press.
3. Clapp, J. (2021). Food. Polity Press.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3036
www.rsisinternational.org
4. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
5. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.
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
7. Fraser, D. (2020). Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. The Veterinary Journal,
257, 105451.
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.
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.
10. Macnaghten, P. (2020). The co-production of techno-scientific futures: Implications for responsible
innovation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(1), 50–77.
11. Marsden, T. (2020). The future of the agrarian question: Sustainability, agriculture, and the rise of
agroecology. Routledge.
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.
13. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and
consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992.
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.
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.
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
