“Epistemic Certainty Surrounding Dietary Recommendations for Meat”
by Ellen M. Street | Xchanges 12.2/13.1
Discussion & Conclusion
Overall Trends and Comparisons
Boosters — The observed dearth in booster usage among scientific writing genres may be best explained by Hyland; factual statements considered reliable, in scientific writing, are expressed using the indicative present (1996). PHO publications used the highest number of boosters, followed by research articles. The DGA did not use any.
Hedges — Hedging is primarily used in scientific and government publications, motivated by a reluctance to commit to definite interpretations of the evidence. PHO recommendations use the lowest number of hedges, in exchange for the higher modality imparted by directives and boosters.
Government — The current rhetoric in the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans reminds readers that the eating pattern itself influences health, rather than a single, isolated component, thus removing agency from red or processed meats as dietary risk factors. There is evidence to suggest the recent DGA language shift and stance towards meat consumption might be influenced by submitted commentary from the NAMI.
Public Health Organizations — PHO publications chosen for this analysis employ significantly more boosters, directives, and less hedges compared to the other two genres, leading to a higher overall level of certainty. The confident tone imparted by directives and boosters used in these documents communicates definitive authority over health recommendations.
Scientific Research Articles — Markers indicating decreased certainty are more common among research publications, elucidated by Hyland’s rationale of hedging as an avenue for ensuring accuracy and precision in a field of organized skepticism (1996b). The hesitance in commitment is understandable within this field, given that nutritional recommendations are constantly shifting and changing as knowledge and research techniques evolve.
Interpretations and Discoveries
Over the course of my analysis, I discovered commentary, submitted by the NAMI, which challenged the drafted recommendations, arguing nutritional benefits and relevance of meat consumption. The AMI argued for guidance, rather than prescriptive advice, to help people make healthy diet choices. Word choice in the recent DGA also reflects the July 2014 AMI commentary, particularly with hedge use. The discovery of hedging similarities between submissions from competing interests and the resulting recent edition of the DGA is important to note, as the AMI commentary may have strongly influenced the recent DGA recommendations.
The WCRF/AICR 2nd expert report contains boosters specifically describing the relationship between processed red meat and colorectal cancer, communicating high levels of epistemic certainty. Contrasted with the language used in the 2015-2020 DGA, the difference in certainty regarding processed meat consumption is drastic.
The AHA guidelines do not use boosters or hedges in descriptions of red and processed meat intake. Instead, these recommendations use directives to authoritatively instruct their readers. The difference in target audience for the AHA recommendations may explain the use of directives rather than boosters — while the DGA is directed towards the general public, the AHA recommendations are customized for individuals with risk factors for stroke and heart disease.
High modality markers and a lack of hedging in The Lancet Oncology indicate certainty and acceptance of the connection between processed meat and colorectal cancer risk, while lower modality markers describing red meat and colorectal cancer risk point to an uncertain association.
Topics for Future Research
My research revealed several intriguing findings related to my topic of analysis. First, I noted the presence of manipulative silence (Huckin, 2002) employed by the DGA committee, likely as a response to the NAMI commentary. Also, I noticed differences in certainty expressed by the Working Group in the AICR/WCRF 2nd expert report. There is also a stark divergence in certainty attached to associations between red meat and types of cancer besides colorectal in the Lancet monograph. Together, these discrepancies and idiosyncrasies present fascinating opportunities for a closer look at the influence of outside forces on dietary guidelines for the U.S. population and attitudes surrounding red and processed meats as carcinogenic agents.
Limitations
My analysis of the selected materials revealed an interesting array of markers and ambiguities related, but outside the scope of this paper, that would be excellent topics for further research. This analysis was limited to analyzing epistemic certainty through booster and hedge use. Links between certainty and other markers such as stance, relevance markers, proximity and code glosses were not explored.
The focus of my analysis may have shifted due to my own interest in the subject, surrounding controversy over red meat consumption and political conflicts of interest I discovered throughout my research. I attempted to avoid bias by focusing on the rhetorical moves, hedges and boosters, supporting my statements with credible citations, and sourcing evidence to corroborate the patterns I found.