The Language of Food and Bodies
Content note: This post references addiction, eating disorders, and body shaming.
One of my favorite parts of being part of the editing community is learning from other editors, especially when their insights encourage me to reflect on my own language use, privilege, and bias. An editor I’ve admired and learned an incredible amount from is Jill Campbell.
Jill advocates for using conscious language when talking about food and bodies. Her tweets about the edits she makes in her work remind me to think about how I use language in these areas. In 2020, she presented a webcast for ACES: The Society for Editing on this topic: “Don’t Eat Your Words: How We Talk About Food and Bodies and Why It Matters.” The information she shared was eye-opening to me and has shaped how I approach these topics now. Jill has graciously allowed me to write this post based on her webcast.
Food-related language
So much of our language is shaped by our society’s priorities and values, and the way we talk about food in the US is no different. Many of us probably don’t think twice about it, yet a lot of the common terms and expressions we use about food, nutrition, and eating habits can be harmful. The San Francisco Chronicle and Serious Eats have discussed various terms that they’ve vowed never to use when talking about food.
Addiction language
Words related to addiction (addictive, addicting, junkie, -oholic) are often used in a positive way when referring to food (“This dish is so addictive” or “This dessert is like crack”). But using addiction language in this way makes light of the experiences of people with substance use disorders, and it can be insensitive toward people with eating disorders, where food can be a compulsion. If referring to a food that’s actually addictive, like coffee, that’s another story. Otherwise, there are few reasons to use addiction language to talk about food.
Alternatives: irresistible, delicious
“Binge”
The term binge and its many forms have been popular for describing how we consume media (binge-watching, binge-listening) and how we consume food. Like with addiction language, these terms are often used in a positive way in these metaphorical senses. The food we eat and the media we “binge” are done so because we enjoy them. However, using these terms trivializes the experiences of those who have binge-eating disorder and bulimia, where bingeing comes with shame and is often involuntary.
Alternatives: consume, indulge in
“Authentic”
Calling a food or recipe authentic leads to the question, Who gets to decide what’s authentic? This word can imply that there’s one true version of a dish, but recipes can vary by region, family, or culture.
Alternatives: traditional, -inspired
“Ethnic” or “exotic”
These terms are often used to describe “foreign” foods, but foods from all countries and cultures can be found in the US—and they all belong equally. Ethnic lumps a variety of foods into an “other” category. As Jill says, “by othering the food of a particular culture, we other the people as well.” Also, while it’s a fairly common practice to italicize non-English words, many media outlets like the LA Times have stopped italicizing the names of foods because it can also have an othering effect.
Alternatives for food from abroad: international (or mention specific countries)
Alternatives for new/unfamiliar flavors: bold, adventurous, exciting (or describe the actual flavors—garlicky, spicy, bright, zesty)
Moralizing terms
Moralizing terms like those listed below have come about because our culture normalizes dieting as though everyone is always wanting to lose weight, praises thinness as an ideal, and moralizes our food choices (diet culture). We judge ourselves and others based on the foods we eat.
“Good” vs. “bad”
Healthier foods are not morally superior to less healthy foods.
People aren’t better or worse because of their food choices.
Clean
No universally accepted meaning
Implies that other foods are “dirty”
Privileged perspective because not everyone has access to “clean” food
Say what is meant instead (whole, minimally processed ingredients; no refined sugar; free of pesticides)
Toxins, detox, cleanse
Even though we may eat more sugar than is recommended, sugar is not a toxin.
These terms are often code words for a restrictive, unsustainable diet.
Shaming language like guilty pleasure, sinful, scandalous, or splurge
This type of language assumes that everyone is on a diet.
It also tells people how they should feel about themselves or the food they eat.
Guilt is not an effective motivator for long-term weight loss.
When writing about food, we can use language that is neutral by describing food in factual nutritional terms that don’t judge people or shame them. This type of language is also more accurate and actionable because it tells people why a certain food is more healthy or less healthy, or why it’s a better fit for their bodies, goals, or diet.
Neutral language is especially important in material aimed at kids, as it can be difficult for them (and everyone) to unlearn the moralization of food.
Weight stigma
Jill prefaced her discussion on weight stigma by saying that she wasn’t the best person to talk about this because she has thin privilege, which you can learn more about through articles from Huffpost and Everyday Feminism. The information she shared was based on what she’d learned from fat activists on social media.
In the US, we’re taught that smaller bodies are better and more desirable than larger ones, so there’s a lot of stigma and shame that’s placed on people in larger bodies. This type of mentality is seen in many forms.
Harmful portrayals in media:
Fat shaming, jokes, and bullying
Fat characters are villains or funny sidekicks
Fat characters who are always eating
The idea that bad people are fat then feeds the idea that fat people are bad.
Fat as a descriptor
The word can be complicated because of how it’s been used, often as an insult or as a synonym for lazy or undesirable.
Some are embracing it and reclaiming it as a neutral descriptor. The more it’s used in a neutral or positive way, the less power it has as an insult.
The word can come with a lot of hurt and shame for some.
Euphemisms like curvy, chubby, and big-boned can be problematic because they are attempts to describe someone as fat without using the word, thereby reinforcing the idea that fat is negative.
Including someone’s body size in a list of their negative attributes reinforces the idea that body size is also negative. For example, if someone is said to be a fat, egotistical misogynist, that person’s size is linked with their negative attributes.
Let people choose their descriptors and ask people what term(s) they prefer (if it’s relevant).
Fat is not a feeling but gets used as such (“I feel fat”). Instead, be specific about what’s meant, rather than attributing fatness with a negative feeling. Do you feel full? Uncomfortable? Unattractive?
Overweight and obese
Overweight suggests that there’s a “correct” weight instead of embracing that people are all different sizes.
Obese labels people as having medical conditions solely based on their body size and not actual markers of health.
Health and fitness are not sizes. Someone’s body size doesn’t convey how healthy they are or how fit they are.
If these terms have to be used, remember that they have clinical definitions and shouldn’t be used interchangeably.
Weight-inclusive language
Consider not referring to people as being a “normal weight” but instead use “moderate weight.”
If comparing people of different weights/sizes, try:
people with more/less weight
people at higher/lower weights
people in larger/smaller bodies
Eating disorders
When talking about eating disorders, here are some tips on how to do so with sensitivity.
Don’t reinforce stereotypes that eating disorders only happen to certain people. Eating disorders affect people of all demographics.
Don’t describe or compare a person’s body, such as how someone looked during their illness or recovery.
Don’t use specific numbers, such as height and weight, clothing sizes, measurements, or calories. This can be unnecessary, uncomfortable, or triggering.
Don’t mention specifics of disordered behaviors, such as amounts of food eaten or weight loss methods.
Don’t use photos that show excessively thin bodies or people weighing or measuring themselves, and don’t publish before/after photos (even if intended to show recovery).
Why it matters
The ways in which we talk about food and bodies matter.
When we change the way we talk about this, we can change the way we think about this. It also makes us more aware of how pervasive these messages are in media and in our everyday lives.
“Diversity” needs to include size diversity.
Weight stigma does real harm.
People of all sizes deserve respect and care.
Final thoughts
Thinking about the language we use to talk about food and bodies in this way may be a new experience for you. It certainly has been for me. Awareness is the first step, and I hope that Jill’s insights have challenged you to be more thoughtful in these areas going forward. This requires a mindset shift and hard work, but the result will be a world where the language we use is more conscious and inclusive.
Additional resources
Here are some resources that address size diversity and eating disorders. Because I’m a fiction editor, I’ve also included several resources for writing fat characters.
Tips for Responsible Media Coverage by National Eating Disorders Association
Speaking of That: Terms to Avoid or Reconsider in the Eating Disorders Field
Inclusive Language for Higher-Weight People by Ragen Chastain
A Guide for Skinny Writers Who Want to Write Fat Characters by Sarah Hollowell
Writing Fat Characters Master Class by Writing the Other
Writing Fat Positivity: An Incomplete Guide by Salt and Sage Books
