This article explores the dynamics of a discursive contest between a “Real Food” frame in which, for concerned consumers and activists, processed food is an unhealthy product of a troubled food system, and a “Real Facts” frame in which, for food science and food industry advocates, processed food is a solution to the need to provide abundant, safe, and nutritious food. The analysis focuses on two school curricula that are vying to teach children “where food comes from.” I argue that the “food” in these two curricula is not the same thing. Within the Food, Inc . Discussion Guide, food is connection, responsibility, and politics. The Alliance to Feed the Future curricula respond with a strategic anti-politics of food, asserting that food can only be “what it obviously is” and framing Real Food's challenge as scientific and technical ignorance.

This paper explores recipes and food writing from the perspective of linguistics——or, more specifically, pragmatics. It looks briefly at the discourse of recipes, at how they work and what kinds of linguistic structures are typically involved. The main theme of the paper, however, is that the best food writing is as much about the images and feelings the writer wants to conjure in the mind of the reader as it is about the words it contains, or the way that discourse is set out. In order to shed any real light on recipe writing, then, we need to explain how they manage to convey moods, impressions, emotions, and feelings. We need to go beyond the words. The paper features examples from, among others, the work of Elizabeth David and Edouard de Pomaine, serving to illustrate the theoretical points made.