Food Security: The Elaboration of Contested Claims to a Consensus Frame*

Abstract

This article demonstrates Gamson's claim that behind the apparent agreement implied by “consensus frames” lies considerable dissensus. Ironically, the very potency of consensus frames may generate contested claims to the ownership of a social problem. Food security is a potent consensus frame that has generated at least three distinct collective action frames: food security as hunger; food security as a component of a community's developmental whole; and food security as minimizing risks with respect to an industrialized food system's vulnerability to both “normal accidents” as well as the “intentional accidents” associated with agriterrorism. We show that each collective action frame reflects internal normative variation identified here with Goffman's “keying” concept. These keys suggest power differentials in the endorsement or critique of dominant institutional practices. Each frame and associated keys reflect distinct sets of interests by collective actors, such as demands for substantively different applications of science and technology. The prognostic framing of the community food security movement coincidentally holds potential for reducing not only the accidental risks of productivist agriculture but also the uncertainty induced by the risk of terrorist exploitation of those vulnerabilities. The article explores power differentials and variable levels of oppositional consciousness as mechanisms by which keys generate contentious politics within frames while serving as potential bridges between frames. This contested ownership of food security has implications for the associated movements' and organizations' capacity to influence the structure of the agrifood system as well as the broader socioeconomic organization of rural regions.

Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food systems

“…In this respect, Mooney and Hunt (2009, p. 470) argue there is a "contested ownership behind the apparent consensus on food security". Mooney and Hunt (2009) identify three collective action frames, which they suggest encompass food security as a master frame. These are:…”

“…3), argue that frames can be used to "explain how policy-makers structure reality to gain a handle on practical questions". In a recent study, Mooney and Hunt (2009) postulate that food security is an 'elaborate master frame', with several distinct claims to ownership and multiple meanings for different people and organisations. They employ a frame-analytic perspective and draw on Gamson's (1985) social movements work to conceptualise food security as a 'consensus frame' -wherein there is overall consent to the values and objectives signified by the term -which nonetheless engenders opposition in terms of how the goals might best be achieved or actioned.…”

“…This paper provides a critical interpretation of national food security politics in order to examine approaches to food security in the UK and the place of local food systems within them. It operationalises Mooney and Hunt's (2009) conceptualisation of food security as a consensus frame, arguing that the interdependency between scale and framing in food security discourse warrants close scrutiny. This includes considering the implications of broadening UK definitions of food security beyond the quantity of food available to encompass the needs of communities, households and individuals in relation to issues of micro-level capacity building (Middlemiss and Parrish, 2010) and social inclusionsomething that has only rarely been considered in the past (Dowler et al, 2001;MacMillan and Dowler, 2011).…”

Framing the agricultural use of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in UK national newspapers and the farming press

“…Eventually industry pressure resulted in the reversal of these regulatory changes allowing these antibiotics to be once more purchased by farmers for growth promotion without veterinary oversight. Eventually, as public health experts first began to articulate the threats posed by AMR in the mid-late 1990s, the EU phased out all The concept of framing has been utilised in a variety of disciplinary contexts and recently has been mobilised in the analysis of both US and UK agri-food policy specifically as this relates to food security (Mooney andHunt 2009, Kirwan andMaye 2013) and analysis of the BSE crisis (Demko 1998, Miller 1999, Washer 2006 and the particular modes of action required to address it. In turn, different social groups are likely to adopt different ways of framing reality, which may lead to deep-seated differences in views about how the problem at stake is to be governed.…”

“…Where Wynne's (2001) use of framing focuses on shared assumptions underlying a disagreement, another influential approach in frame analysis is to investigate 'consensus frames' (Gamson 1995;Mooney and Hunt 2009) in order to unpack the dissent that might underpin an apparent agreement between groups. This work builds on Goffman's (1974) concept of 'keying' to make nuanced distinctions between groups that are both looking to draw upon a similar language repertoire (some of which may be more strongly associated with powerful institutions and others with outsiders).…”