Have you allowed language to turn food into a moral courtroom?

Analysis: How we talk about food and eating matters significantly as it shapes our relationship with what we eat and influences our values and emotions

"I know I shouldn't, but I really crave for a pizza."

"Double-cheese burger is my guilty pleasure."

"I felt bad today, because I ate two pieces of chocolate cake."

These are completely normal ways to talk about food. We hear and use these expressions every day without a second thought. They sound harmless, but they reveal something unsettling if you pay attention to the vocabulary. We are no longer just talking about dinner and have allowed language to turn our plates into a moral courtroom.

Why do we describe a burger or a slice of pizza as something shameful? Why does eating certain foods feel like a failure of discipline rather than a simple, daily pleasure? The answer lies not in the ingredients on our plates, but in the words in our mouths.

Consider the phrase 'guilty pleasure'. It is a trap that forces two completely opposite ideas to live together. 'Pleasure' is about satisfaction, joy and emotional comfort, but 'guilt' relates to wrongdoing, regret and breaking the rules. Language does something powerful so when we apply this phrase to food, it creates a narrative that enjoying certain meals requires an excuse, an explanation or an apology.

We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with David McCullagh, here's what you can add into your diet to help keep you fuller for longer

This language conflict splits our dining experience into two fake categories. A salad becomes a 'clean choice' or a sign of 'good manners', but a burger is branded as a 'treat' or, worse, a 'cheat meal'. The language we use here are not descriptions of nutrition but judgements on human behaviour. It creates a simplistic and damaging idea: some foods represent control, while others represent a total lack of it.

Over time, our everyday food conversations have been hijacked. We are constantly bombarded with scientific and fitness jargon: calories, sugar, fat, protein, vitamins and minerals. While nutritional information can be useful, this heavy vocabulary has shifted how we perceive our eating habits.

In her influential book Food, the Body and the Self, sociologist Deborah Lupton explored this exact connection. In her words, "language and discourse are integral to the meanings we construct around food-how we interpret and convey to others our sensual experiences in preparing, touching and eating food-which in turn shape our sensual responses."

Moralising terms like 'guilt' and 'cheating' cast a negative shadow over everyday eating habits.

Eat 'good' foods, and you are considered disciplined, responsible, and in control. Eat 'bad' foods, and the connotations shift to ideas of immorality, laziness, and a lack of self-regulation. In this case, using phrases like 'guilty pleasure' turn to be a protective shield as a language strategy. At this moment, the relationship with food is broken.

This is where food language becomes impactful that we should be careful of. Moralising terms like 'guilt' and 'cheating' cast a negative shadow over everyday eating habits. Yet, as highlighted in a study analysing the moral language of contemporary diet, the discourse surrounding food and diet should ideally be liberatory and just.

This strict language story ignores the emotional reality of human life. Many of the foods we name as 'guilty pleasures' are in fact comfort foods and are deeply connected with our best memories and emotions.

From RTÉ Archives, Ciana Campbell reports for Check Up in 1981 on healthy food choices to be made at work in the staff canteen

Research by food experts, including sensory scientist Charles Spence in his book Gastrophysics: The New Science of Eating, suggests that eating is never solely about physical nutrition, and food connects us with past experiences. Sociolinguist Martha Sif Karrebæk has argued that food and language are fully entangled, together serving as vital repositories for our social, cultural, and emotional histories.

Think of a pizza and a pint of beer shared with friends after a hard week. Think of chips and popcorns on a family movie night, or a favourite chocolate pancake from childhood. These foods can represent personal and collective bonding, loving, caring and belonging.

The language of food guilts risks overriding this positive value. By allowing words like 'guilt' and 'cheat' to dominate our food conversations, we let diet culture steal our comfort. It turns a normal state of living a life into a stressful calculation of right and wrong, a violation of rules that do not exist.

From RTÉ Radio 1, how diet can complement exercise from serious athletes to the occasional park-runner

Food is still a vital part of everyday life that we should enjoy. A meal is not merely a collection of calories to be managed with anxiety. A burger does not turn you into a sinner, just as a bowl of kale and broccoli does not produce a saint. They are simply different types of fuel and neither one has the power to define your moral worth.

Ultimately, the real problem now is not the food itself, but the way we have learned to talk about it. As highlighted by a study in Appetite on consumption stereotypes and social judgments and linguist Dan Jurafsky's book The Language of Food, how we talk about food and eating matters significantly as it shapes our relationship with what we eat and influences our values and emotions. It molds how we perceive both ourselves and others.

It is time to rethink the language of food guilt. The next time you enjoy foods you love, forget about the word 'guilty'. Savour it for exactly what it is: a pleasure, pure and simple.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ

Ler artigo original em RTE.ie