Author:

Keywords:

food and nutrition security, media

Abstract:

Over the past two decades, various narratives on Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) have been developed. A narrative takes specific vulnerabilities and hazards in the food system as point of departure for shaping potential solutions. Narratives are also present in the media, influencing public perception. Recently, there is a growing body of work on FNS framings that aim to gain an in-depth understanding of narrative formation and its policy implications. Despite the multifaceted processes and the complexity that characterizes the FNS dynamics, solutions and conceptualizations - envisaged from policy, academic spheres and lobby groups - they have mostly revolved around oppositional narratives that reproduce old dichotomies and dialectics. These narratives have been identified under different flags such as the productivity (or efficiency) narrative and the sufficiency narrative, or the bio-economy and eco-economy paradigms, weak and strong ecological modernization, or productivist or demand-led approaches. Along these lines, Lang and Barling (2012) identify an “old” and an “emerging” analytical approach to food security, held by different actors competing for policy space and unveiling key tensions between a farm vs. food system focus, the role of big business, labor efficiency, western levels of consumption, and the sustainability of diets. For this research, we build on Mooney and Hunt (1996, 2009) who applied the framing concept fir identifying agrarian ideologies that constitute the fabric and social protest in American agriculture. Furthermore we rely on the work of Candel et al. (2014), who analyzed food security frames deployed in the CAP post-2013 reform process. In line with their findings, we focus on eight frames: the ecological frame, the free trade frame, the quality frame, the social frame, the solidarity frame, the sovereignty frame, the technology frame and the wholesomeness frame. This paper presents an analysis of FNS frames in Flanders, Italy and UK which allows crossregional comparison. The research is based on articles, opinions and policy positions published in the period 2007-2014. Over 1500 documents were selected, from sources covering the public, market, policy and scientific sphere. Based on an iterative process of query search using Nvivo©, we identified for each frame the key concepts, described through specific narratives, metaphors and other rhetoric devices. The results of the cross-country analyses are threefold. First, the analysis demonstrates how a limited number of organizations frame the regional debate on FNS. This holds true for all three regions included in the analysis and explains differences in FNS frames across regions as well as the shift in power of frames over time. As an example, we refer to the initiatives of Tristram Stuart in the framework of Feeding the 5000. Related events have enriched the ecological frame, the social frame and the solidarity frame. Another example is the impact of Olivier De Schutter’s mandate as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, which has put the sovereignty frame on the agenda of popular press in Flanders. Second, we identified a consent need to enforce the revival of local food systems. This common belief is found in several frames: the ecological frame, the quality frame, the social frame, the solidarity frame and the sovereignty frame. The results for Flanders and Italy are in line with the findings of Brunori et al. (2013), who stated that new alliances around waste, resources, sustainable diets and food sovereignty are being formed. In the UK, however, there is more a disconnection from local, ecological, community initiatives and national and international policies and discourses. Third, we observe important conflicting views on FNS with opponents of production increase heavily relying on biotechnology and promoting free trade versus frames that emphasize the need for behavioral change in food production and consumption. The former view basically covers the free trade frame and the technology frame, which could be considered as the dominant discourse. The alternative view articulate a serious concern with respect to genetic engineering as a whole and the power of multinational biotechnology companies in particular. The conflict demonstrate the key arguments of proponents of the related frames with respect to increasing food and nutrition security at the global level, whereby the dominant discourse focuses on availability - and hence on global food production increase - whereas the alternative discourse focuses on food access and changing food patterns at the local scale. A deeper investigation on the underlying moralities might unblock current polarization. This research contributes to countering the regressive fragmentation and aggregation currently framing conventional approaches to FNS. Focusing on public media, instead of policy documents, the research also encompasses frames that are not at all or hardly taken up by policy makers. The results confirm the relationship between scale and framing with a dominant discourse focusing at the globalised food systems and various alternative frames taking local food systems as a point of departure. In this context, the cross country analysis allows to gain insights in the geographical dimension and regional embeddedness of FNS frames. Regional and national media may add to the public popularity of specific frames, and therefore enhance the belief in specific solutions for FNS. A thorough understanding of frames and the underlying arguments contributes to the public debate on FNS in general and the debate between proponents of - apparently - competing frames in particular. References Brunori, G., Malandrin, V. & Rossi, A., 2013. Trade-off or convergence? The role of food security in the evolution of food discourse in Italy. Journal of Rural Studies, 29(0), pp.19–29. Candel, J.J.L. et al., 2014. Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate. Food policy, 44, pp.47–58. Lang, T. & Barling, D., 2012. Food security and food sustainability: reformulating the debate. The Geographical Journal, 178(4), pp.313–326. Mooney, P.H. and Hunt, S.A., 1996. “A Repertoire of Interpretations: Master Frames and Ideological Continuity in U.S. Agrarian Mobilization.” The Sociological Quarterly 37(1): 177-197. Mooney, P.H. and Hunt, S.A., 2009. Food Security: The Elaboration of Contested Claims to a Consensus Frame. Rural Sociology 74(4): 469-497. Keywords: Food and nutrition security, Frames, Media analysis