At the Freedom Food Alliance, we spend a lot of time fact-checking viral claims about food. Some claims directly contradict established research on the links between our diet, health and sustainability. It might seem like it should be straightforward to ‘debunk’ such claims and ‘state the facts.’ But the reality is far more complex, and research shows that misinformation spreads faster than facts.
Populist movements have played a major role in shaping the discourse questioning the legitimacy of dietary changes to support sustainability efforts. For example, climate science deniers have actively jumped onto campaigns like No Farmers No Food, using legitimate agricultural concerns to push an anti-institutional narrative.
This movement is generally used to raise awareness of some of the concerns British farmers currently face. For example, some fear that tighter environmental regulations for British farmers, coupled with the availability of low-quality imports will harm British farmers and make “eco-friendly food an unaffordable luxury item.”
However, the movement has also been used to discredit sustainability measures as a whole, arguing that they are part of a broader elite agenda to control the food supply and dictate personal choices. This type of framing fuels the idea that sustainability policies are oppressive rather than necessary for addressing climate change.
Why Does Food Misinformation Spread So Easily?
Misinformation isn’t always outright false. It often includes just enough truth to feel credible. Unlike disinformation (which is deliberate deception), misinformation spreads because it ‘feels right.’ When it comes to food and sustainability, misinformation often taps into public frustration and feelings of disconnect.
For example, there can be a sense of hypocrisy in the way food choices are discussed. People are told to “eat fresh, local, and sustainable,” yet our food system makes it much cheaper and easier to buy ultra-processed or factory-farmed products. This disconnect fuels frustration and when narratives can tap into those feelings, they are more likely to be accepted.
The Power of Narrative: Why Misinformation Can Ring True
Climate denial narratives share many similarities with other forms of anti-institutional discourse. One specificity, however, is their ability to discredit the voice of experts, and the scientific process itself. Understanding how these narratives work can help us figure out how to counter them more effectively.
Broadly speaking, climate denial narratives (here focused on the role of food) are structured around a strategy I call vertical framing. This means that the issues are constructed on a vertical axis, separating what is at the top from what lies at the bottom.
Who's 'At the Top'?
This framing positions global institutions—like governments, the WHO, or the WEF—as the ‘elite’ who dictate policies from above while flying in private jets.
Within this framing, sustainability measures are constructed as part of a cult, which reinforces this top/bottom opposition. For example, you might have heard of “the altar of net zero”: what this does is it construes sustainability goals as coming from the top. They’re not just unattainable, they’re designed to be unattainable; a mere scam designed to consolidate power, which can only remain at the top. From there, we can get the idea that sustainability measures are a means of oppression, from the top to the bottom.
Who’s at the bottom?
At the bottom is essentially everyone else, the public. Looking specifically at the re-interpretation of the No Farmers No Food movement, the image of the farmer then becomes a symbol, representing the people and their concerns, and this is a very powerful discursive strategy.
It is powerful because it creates a perfect and complete picture of opposition, reinforcing existing feelings of disconnect: that those in power do not truly understand the reality of people’s concerns.
That is what makes the image of the farmer such a powerful symbol. The contrast couldn’t get any bigger: those at the top fly in private jets and dine on expensive meat cuts, while those who are literally on the ground are working with the soil, with animals: the makeshift of that planet we all wish to protect.
In this framing, sustainability doesn’t seem practical or even relevant—it becomes something imposed from above, something that benefits “them” while burdening “us.” The main question that this discourse raises is: who can you trust?
The War Narrative
Often, viral posts don’t just present climate misinformation through sharing inaccurate facts; they position the issue as a fight between “the people” and “the global Elite.” The metaphor of WAR is especially common.
As a Cognitive Linguist, I have looked in detail at how this metaphor works in discourse, with some surprising results. One might expect violence to be central to the image of war. But that is not how the metaphor is used here. In fact, what we get is an invisible war, in the sense that most people aren’t even aware that it is happening.
The point of the discourse is to get people to “wake up” and realise what is going on. Once they have, the best way to ‘fight back’ is simply to reject everything that the institutions, and by extension the experts, tell us is right.
The food industry becomes a battleground, with sustainability goals depicted as tools of control rather than solutions to environmental problems. This framing is extremely effective because, in a war, there is no middle ground. Either they win, or we do. And if they win, they control the food supply, telling us what we can and can’t eat. One consequence of this strategy is to make cooperation impossible.
So what does the war metaphor achieve? It doesn’t incite violence; instead, its point is to highlight the idea of INCOMPATIBILITY. That is what is at the heart of this discourse: a fundamental incompatibility between US and THEM; between the people’s concerns and sustainability measures.
Why “Facts vs. Fiction” Might Not Serve Its Purpose
The most natural response to misinformation involving scientific inaccuracies is the facts vs. fiction approach. While it makes perfect sense from a logical standpoint, I argue here that it could be counterproductive.
This is because the structure of this frame plays directly into the narrative of incompatibility. If one side presents information as truth and dismisses everything else as fiction, it reinforces the very divide that misinformation exploits.
It also reinforces rather than answers the question, “Who can you trust?” When trust in institutions is already low, the idea of looking down and tapping into your own intuition can be very persuasive, favouring the narratives that feel right, even if they’re not based on science.
What other ways are there to respond?
- Move Away from Either/Or Framing
Instead of reinforcing the idea that only one side can be right, we might need to highlight the complexity of these issues. Sustainability isn’t about forcing a single solution on everyone—it’s about working together to create a food system that benefits people and the planet. - Emphasize Systemic Causation
Misinformation thrives on simple, direct explanations and expressions of causality: “How can cows hurt the planet; they are the planet!” Cognitive Linguist George Lakoff emphasises the need to explain 'systemic causation'—the idea that climate change fuels disasters like hurricanes and droughts, even when the connection isn’t obvious at first:
“Semantics matters. Because the word cause is commonly taken to mean direct cause, climate scientists, trying to be precise, have too often shied away from attributing causation of a particular hurricane, drought, or fire to global warming. Lacking a concept and language for systemic causation, climate scientists have made the dreadful communicative mistake of retreating to weasel words.”
- Invest in Pre-Bunking and Media Literacy
Fact-checking is a necessary part of countering misinformation. Given that the latter spreads faster than facts, it is essential to ensure the circulation of accurate information. But it’s also reactive. We need to go further and equip people with the tools to recognise misinformation and its effects. Dr Sander van der Linden developed the concept of ‘pre-bunking’, which is designed to act as a first line of defence against the effects of mis-and-disinformation by increasing scepticism towards fake news.
The Path Forward
The fight against food misinformation isn’t just about debunking inaccurate facts or poor logic; it’s about changing the way we communicate. If we want people to engage with sustainable solutions, we need to meet them where they are—not just with facts, but with narratives that resonate. Sustainability isn’t about winners and losers. It’s about building a food system that works for all of us. The sooner we shift the conversation, the better our chances of getting there.
Sources
Desmog (2024). “Revealed: The Climate Denial Network Behind ‘Classic Astroturf’ Farmers’ Campaign.” https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/08/revealed-the-climate-denial-network-behind-classic-astroturf-farmers-campaign/
The Guardian (2024). “UK farmers say tighter environmental rules put them at risk of being undercut.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/04/uk-farmers-say-tighter-environmental-rules-put-them-at-risk-of-being-undercut
Lakoff, G. (2012). “Global Warming Systemically Caused Hurricane Sandy.” https://george-lakoff.com/2012/11/02/1994/
Churchill College Newsletter (2019). “Pre-bunking. The First Line of Defence?” https://www.sdmlab.psychol.cam.ac.uk/system/files/documents/chu_interview.pdf
