How do we improve the relationship between consumers and producers?

If you’ve ever attended a social media training session, one piece of advice likely stood out: “Think twice about the images you post because a consumer might see something they don’t understand and completely misinterpret it.” This is sage advice as the gap between food producers and consumers continues to widen. However, do we apply the same wisdom to the words we use? And, crucially, do we always consider that communication is a two-way dialogue and see the perspective of both parties?

Farming has its own unique language. If you don’t speak it, you’ll find it difficult to be understood. Like all industries, agriculture has its share of jargon, but farming terminology is particularly vast. It blends inherited rural phrases from a bygone era with the technical and scientific language required to describe modern farming practices.

Certain terms within agriculture can even feel off-putting. Words like “regenerative” or “agroecological” can alienate audiences. These terms often feel exclusive and can be associated with outspoken advocates, creating barriers rather than bridges.

Framing goes both ways. Words that seem straightforward to someone outside agriculture can be highly emotive within it. Poor framing can damage trust and respect in just a few sentences. All too often, we hear phrases like “Farming needs to change," or “Farming is destroying the planet,” which come across as accusatory and negative. Imagine hearing phrases like these every day at work. It would feel like an unrelenting onslaught of negativity, with an urgent undertone and a strong hint of blame. Yet, all too often people expect farmers to simply follow such well-meant, but poorly framed advice. This is why we need to speak their language and understand their priorities to work together to drive change.