Logo image
ProcessedFood: A Discourse Analysis of How Processed Food Was Constructed, Characterised and Talked About on Twitter (X)
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

ProcessedFood: A Discourse Analysis of How Processed Food Was Constructed, Characterised and Talked About on Twitter (X)

Christina R Sadler, Terri Grassby, Kathryn Hart, Monique Raats, Milka Sokolović and Lada Timotijevic
Journal of food processing and preservation, Vol.2026(1), 9972623
29/04/2026

Abstract

Communication Consumers Data collection Digital media Discourse analysis Food industry Nominations Pharmaceutical industry Political power Processed foods Social networks Social organization User behavior Carbohydrates Food Processing
There is reportedly widespread negativity towards the concept of ‘processed food’, yet limited analysis of how it is represented in everyday language. This study examined how processed food was constructed on the social media network Twitter (since rebranded as X), October–December 2018. Tweets were collected using the Keyhole platform. Tweets in English with the highest engagement (≥ 100 retweets and/or likes; n = 87) were examined using discourse analysis, drawing on the discourse‐historical approach. The analysis explored the use of discursive strategies including how processed food is named, characterised and which arguments are employed in tweets. Some tweets explicitly made sweeping statements, advocating the exclusion of ‘all’ processed foods. Processed carbohydrates/sugar and processed meat were frequent topics. ‘Processed’ was used as a verb/adjective, for example, to indicate the level of processing, or in relation to other descriptors such as junk or chemicals. Among tweets with high engagement, processed food was frequently described using negative language and positioned as a danger or threat, specifically to health and well‐being. Conspiracy theories regarding the food and pharmaceutical industry were often invoked, which may indicate distrust towards the intentions of the food industry. The findings suggest that companies and science communicators need to ensure their messaging is clear and as transparent as possible.
url
https://doi.org/10.1155/jfpp/9972623View
Published (Version of record) Open CC BY V4.0

Metrics

1 Record Views

Details

Logo image

Usage Policy