Midterm

malld614

Theresponsibilisationoffoodsecurity.pdf

Home >Government homework help >Midterm

162 Volume 22, Issue 2, June 2013H

SR H

term can mean various things to different people

(Maxwell & Smith, 1992).

BACKGROUND The concept of ‘food security’ originated from

international discussions during the mid-1970s

global food crisis. The initial focus of attention was

primarily on food supply problems; of assuring the

availability and to some degree the price stability

of basic foodstuffs at the international and national

level (Overseas Development Institute, 1997).

This initial focus on food supply volume and sta-

bility is refl ected in the 1974 World Food Summit

defi nition: ‘availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fl uctuations in production and prices’ (United Nations, 1975). In 1983 the United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organisation (FAO) expanded its concept to

include securing access by vulnerable people to

available supplies, implying that attention should

be balanced between the demand and supply side

of the food security equation: ‘ensuring that all peo- ple at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need’ (Food and Agriculture Organisation, 1983). This defi nition was revised

in 1996 at the World Food Summit to include the

individual and household level in addition to the

regional and national level: ‘food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access

The responsibilisation of food security: What is the problem represented to be?

AMBER BASTIAN AND JOHN COVENEY Public Health, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Abstract: Food security is an evolving concept with various defi nitions and associated meanings. The way food security is understood by policy-makers impacts on how it gets addressed in public policy. This research uses an interpretive approach to uncover how food security is represented by stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 stakeholders in South Australia between June and September 2010. The fi ndings reveal four dominant representations for food security that locate responsibility for the issue across different stakeholders, namely individuals, governments, com- munities and private enterprise. These representations hold different underlying assumptions about the role of government in addressing the issue; the neo-liberal perspective supports a reduced role for government whereas the social determinants of health perspective calls for greater government intervention. Food security activists may need a greater awareness of how they represent the issue in order to change public policy action in this area. The approach taken in this research is relevant to other public policy problems and contexts.

Keywords: food security, public health, policy, Australia, sociology, qualitative research, Carol Bacchi

F ood security’ is a concept that has grown

in recent years. It has received increased

attention following recent food price spikes in

2007–2008 (Bello & Baviera, 2009; MacMillan &

Dowler, 2011). Food security has become a motif

to circumscribe food defi cits, for example: to

describe the characteristics of individuals, families,

and communities (Biggerstaff, Morris, & Nichols-

Casebolt, 2002; Nolan, Williams, Rikard-Bell, &

Mohsin, 2006); to explain the impact of location

and transport to food outlets on food availability

(Coveney & O’Dwyer, 2009; Daniel, Kestens, &

Paquet, 2009); to critique global factors affecting

food production (Magdoff & Tokar, 2009; Piesse

& Thirtle, 2009); and to catastrophise the impact

of resources like land, water, and energy on future

food supplies (Khan & Hanjra, 2009; Koning

et al., 2008). In short, food security has become

a term heralding food crisis at the individual,

community and national levels. Most commonly

food security has been used by governments,

non government organisations and academics to

describe, monitor, analyse and intervene in a food

system that has not met the needs of the world’s

population for suffi cient food that is culturally

appropriate, affordable, accessible and nutritious

(MacMillan & Dowler, 2011). Its widespread

use has led to a variety of meanings and there

are around 200 defi nitions in published writings

for the term food security, highlighting how the

‘

The responsibilisation of food security

SR H

to suffi cient, safe, nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (Food and Agriculture Organisation, 1996). This

defi nition highlights four main dimensions of food

security: physical availability of food; economic

and physical access to food; individual utilisation

of food; and stability of these factors over time.

The 2009 World Food Summit reiterated this

defi nition with the additional emphasis on the

nutritional dimension as an integral concept of

food security (Food and Agriculture Organisation,

2009). These evolving defi nitions of food security

illustrate how the concept has moved from a con-

cern for being able to feed the world’s population

appropriately into a focus on maintaining reserves

and then later to concern for individual household

food security (Shaw, 2007). The climate change

aspect has made a more recent emergence into

food security discourse (Food and Agriculture

Organisation, 2009; MacMillan & Dowler, 2011).

The emphasis on various aspects of food security

illustrates how the issue is represented in different

ways depending on the context.

This paper explores how food security is

understood by stakeholders within an Australian

jurisdiction. Importantly, the paper examines

how food security is discussed and deployed

through various representations and for particu-

lar purposes. Representations can direct attention

towards certain elements while simultaneously

diverting attention away from others (known

as issue framing); that which is highlighted or

excluded is often what the framing group val-

ues (Yanow, 2000). Bacchi in her ‘What’s the

problem represented to be?’ approach to policy

analysis is interested in understanding how the

problematisation of policy issues can both con-

struct and constrict social vision (Bacchi, 1999,

2009). This approach proposes that different

groups attribute different values and beliefs to the

same issue and these differences in seeing, under-

standing and doing are based on different prior

experiences (Yanow, 2000). Work informed by

Bacchi’s approach insists that problems do not

exist independently, but are rather the product

of imposing certain frames of reference on real-

ity (Bastian, 2011; Begley & Coveney, 2010;

Burr, 2003; Grey, 2004). Taking this approach

each proposed solution to a problem has built

into it a particular way in which the problem is

represented (Bacchi, 2009).

The present study took place in South Australia

where 7% of the population has been estimated

to be suffering from food insecurity (Foley et al.,

2010). The question used to measure food insecu-

rity, ‘in the last 12 months, were there any times

that the food you have bought just didn’t last, and

you didn’t have money to get more?’ captures the

economic element of food insecurity but does not

consider the other elements that may impact on it.

This question was asked in the South Australian

surveillance and monitoring system between

July 2002–December 2007. As this survey only

includes people with a telephone number listed

in the electronic white pages it may under-repre-

sent the prevalence of food insecurity as vulner-

able individuals without permanent housing and/

or without the resources for a telephone line are

not captured. While food security has been rec-

ognised as an important public health issue there

remains a gap in local policy action to address it.

This research aims to examine how food security

stakeholders in South Australia view the issue. In

doing so it highlights the various beliefs stakehold-

ers attach to food security and theorises how val-

ues may impact on how the issue gets addressed.

Furthermore it attempts to uncover how stake-

holders proposed policy solutions frame the issue

and highlights the resulting effects.

METHOD Semi-structured interviews were conducted with

24 stakeholders currently involved in food secu-

rity, or with the potential to improve food security,

within South Australia between June–September

2010. Table 1 shows the types of stakeholders

interviewed and their various roles. For good qual-

ity, qualitative research sample randomness and

representativeness are of less concern than rele-

vance to ensure the sample can provide the type of

knowledge necessary to understand structures and

processes of the local context (Popay, Rogers, &

Williams, 1998). Based on this principle, snowball

sampling was used and recruitment of participants

was concluded once no new stakeholders emerged.

Ethics approval was sought and obtained from

the Flinders University Social and Behaviour

Research Ethics Committee. A discussion paper

Amber Bastian and John Coveney

Volume 22, Issue 2, June 2013 © eContent Management Pty Ltd164

SR H

based on Rychetnik, Webb, Story and Katz’s

(2003) Food Security Options Paper was developed

specifi cally for this research and sent to participants

prior to interview. Five themes were explored

during interviews: food security defi nition; expe-

rience of food security in South Australia; deter-

minants of food security; potential solutions to

improve food security; and key stakeholders for

food security in South Australia. Voice recordings

of interviews were transcribed verbatim to allow

for a detailed analysis (Patton, 2002). Interview

transcripts were rechecked against voice record-

ings by the principal researcher to ensure accuracy.

Participants were e-mailed their interview tran-

scripts and offered the opportunity to make any

amendments, a step that helped to further enhance

validity of the research method (Perry, 1998).

Prior to analysis audio fi les were listened to

and interview transcripts were read and re-read

to allow for immersion in the data, a method

employed to enhance analysis (Green et al., 2007).

Following this immersion, emerging concepts on

food security from each participant were physi-

cally cut from transcripts, collated and openly

coded into emerging categories. Analysis of data

took two approaches which were later compared

and contrasted. First the range of proposed solu-

tions by stakeholders was examined against fi ve

questions adapted from Bacchi’s framework of

analysis (Bacchi, 1999, 2009) and second, these

questions were applied to each individual inter-

view transcript to uncover any tensions. Bacchi’s

original framework was adapted to avoid rep-

etition and better meet the needs of analysing

interview data as opposed to policy,

which is how Bacchi most commonly

uses her framework.

The following questions were used in

analysis:

1. What is the problem represented to be through the solutions proposed by stakeholders?

2. What presumptions or assumptions underlie representations of the problem?

3. What is left unproblematic by rep- resentations? Where are the silences? How can the problem be thought about differently?

4. What effects are produced by rep- resentations of the problem? What are the unintended consequences of representations? Who benefi ts from the representations?

5. Where are the various problem representations being produced and reproduced? Adapted from (Bacchi, 1999, 2009; Murray & Powell, 2009).

FINDINGS Dominant problem representations offered by stakeholders Bacchi proposes policy solutions have built into

them a particular representation of what the

problem is. Furthermore, postulated solutions to

policy problems reveal underlying assumptions,

values and beliefs of policymakers (Bacchi, 2009).

In examining various proposed solutions and

problem representations offered by stakeholders,

four themes emerged around who stakeholders

framed as being responsible for improving the

issue. The two most common themes were that

of individual responsibility and government inter-

vention, followed by community action and lastly

corporate social responsibility of private industry.

Table 2 provides an overview of the types of

solutions proposed and who these solutions frame

as being responsible for improving food security.

Presumptions and assumptions underlying problem representations Bacchi highlights how examination of language

used and meanings attached to key concepts

reveal underlying assumptions (knowledge) and

values attached to particular policy issues (Bacchi,

2009). Examination of interview transcripts

TABLE 1: RESEARCH RESPONDENTS

Type of stakeholder

Roles Number

Public servants Food transport, food processing, public health and social policy

Directors/ employees of non government organisations

Income support, social and community support, food provision, public health, alternative food production and retailing

Professionals Nutrition and health, social work and urban planning

Private enterprise Food retailing and farming 2

Local government Community development, strategic planning, food and health

The responsibilisation of food security

SR H

the broader social structural elements of food

security unproblematic and, through the use of

the word ‘ability’, frames the issue as one of indi-

vidual skills, knowledge and resources.

A number of participants reframed the issue of

food security by providing alternative defi nitions.

One reframed the issue as relating to the total pro-

duction of food globally versus population needs.

This defi nition draws attention to the agricul-

tural industry and the import/export market. The

recent Australian Federal Government’s Food

Plan issues paper emphasises and promotes greater

international free trade to ensure future food secu-

rity. The paper frames the solution to food secu-

rity as being increased production within Australia

above population requirements in order to capital-

ise on export markets (Department of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Forestry, 2011). Similarly, the main

focus of the Prime Minister’s Science Engineering

revealed how stakeholders drew attention to

various aspects of food security through their use

of certain terms or language when defi ning the

issue. A majority of stakeholders agreed with the

defi nition of food security provided in the dis-

cussion paper. This defi nition refers to ‘the ability of individuals, households and communities to acquire appropriate and nutritious food on a regular and

reliable basis, and using socially acceptable means’.

The wording of this defi nition places responsibil-

ity onto individuals, families and communities to

acquire food. Furthermore by stating that ‘food

security is determined by both food supply and

people’s ability to access and use food’ account- ability is again placed onto individuals and their

personal skills or resources to be able to access

and use food rather than their facilitating circum-

stances. While this defi nition acknowledges food

supply as a determinant, to a large extent it leaves

TABLE 2: DOMINANT PROBLEM REPRESENTATIONS OFFERED BY STAKEHOLDERS Responsibility for food security

Frequency of representation

Examples of proposed solutions

Individuals 35 Improve knowledge and skills on various topics: fi nancial literacy and budgeting; shopping and cooking; label reading; home and community gardening; awareness of environmental impacts of food production Change consumer demand Communal shopping, food swapping and gardening

Government 67 Urban planning policy to address location and type of retail outlets Land use policy to protect arable agricultural land Invest in public transport infrastructure to improve mobility and access to food retail outlets Improve public housing infrastructure to ensure adequate cooking and storage facilities Set targets for industry to improve food composition of home name brands Create and implement pricing policies such as subsidisation of healthy foods and taxation of unhealthy foods Change social policy to ensure income is in line with current costs of living Subsidise food transport costs Research and development for the agriculture sector Provision of training on sustainable farming practices Increase workforce capacity Develop joined up food policies and frameworks

Community 16 Develop alternative food supply systems such as: community-supported agriculture; community gardening; local farmers’ markets; food co-ops; food swaps Coordinate food purchasing systems for remote Indigenous community stores Train and employ community members in remote Indigenous stores

Private enterprise 5 Farmers to incorporate more sustainable production methods Food manufacturers to create more healthy products Food retailers to increase proportion of locally-produced food in stores Food retailers to implement in-store pricing policies to reduce cost of healthy food and increase cost of unhealthy foods

Amber Bastian and John Coveney

Volume 22, Issue 2, June 2013 © eContent Management Pty Ltd166

SR H

of ideas, practices and approaches that are asso-

ciated with a preference for small government

and greater reliance on market mechanisms

to determine economic outcomes (Beeson &

Firth, 1998). Neo-liberals assert good govern-

ment is synonymous with securing conditions

for economic growth, which provides required

resources for education, health and welfare.

Similarly economic security is dependent on

the effi ciency of these services (Beeson & Firth,

1998). Due to this belief, economic policy takes

precedence over all other forms of public policy.

By framing individuals as being responsible to

change their own circumstances to improve their

individual food security the role of government

is minimised within the neo-liberal perspective.

The two stakeholders working in food produc-

tion and retail industries tended to support free

market economies by framing the issue as inad-

equate production or distribution of food. This

is consistent with how the issue is framed in the

food plan issues paper (Department of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Forestry, 2011) and the Australian

food security in a changing world report (PMSEIC,

2010). Through this representation the power to

improve food security is placed in the hands of

industry and the role for government is minimised.

A social determinants of health perspective A converse perspective is offered through a focus

on the social determinants of health and govern-

ments’ role to intervene to ensure its citizens are

afforded equal opportunities and access to health

care and education. The provision of income

and housing is considered the responsibility

of government, which is a move back towards

a role for ‘big government’ or greater govern-

ment intervention in free market economies.

The recent World Health Organisation commis-

ion on the social determinants of health (WHO,

2008) highlights how health inequalities within

and between countries are caused by an unequal

distribution of power, income, goods and access

to services as a result of poor social policies and

programmes. While the report acknowledges

economic growth of a country is undoubtedly

important, as it provides required resources to

invest in the improvement of the lives of the

population, it highlights how this growth alone

and Innovation Council working group’s report

Australian Food Security in a changing world is on increasing food production via increased research

and development and building capacity in the

food sector (PMSEIC, 2010).

Another stakeholder reframed the issue as

relating to adequate local production of food (so

that there is no dependence on imports) through

use of the term ‘food self-suffi ciency’ and in

doing so drew attention to local agriculture. A

third reframed the issue as ‘food sovereignty’

and people’s right to control their food supply.

Use of the term ‘people’s right’ brings a social

justice aspect to the issue.

These various ways of framing food security

are supported by underlying assumptions that

lead to thinking about the issue in a particular

way. The focus on changing individuals’ behav-

iour and enhancing the agricultural industry

are supported by an underlying assumption of

reduced government intervention and increased

economic rationality thus taking a neo-liberal

perspective. Conversely, an increased role for

government to address the social determinants of

health is seen through the focus of creating sup-

portive social and structural conditions through

discourses such as addressing personal fi nances

and food prices. These two perspectives are

explored in more detail below.

A neo-liberal perspective Framing of the issue as one of individual respon-

sibility, by focussing on people’s ability to access food, along with framing of the issue as one of

inadequate food production, by focussing on

increasing yield, both assert a neo-liberal per-

spective. Neo-liberalists support a free-market

economy and a reduced role for government,

along with a protection of individual freedoms.

They believe that conditions provided by free

markets are likely to prove most propitious for

the development of the economy and indeed

for society as a whole (Barry, Osborne, & Rose,

1996; Hindess, 1998). In supporting free markets

governments move away from a regulation role

and instead there is a separation of government

from society; there is a public and private sec-

tor. As opposed to interventionist policy tools of

big government, neo-liberalism presents a range

The responsibilisation of food security

SR H

fi nances as an individual skills and behaviour

issue with the problem being represented as an

individual’s lack of budgeting skills compounded

by lack of knowledge of how to shop economi-

cally, their lack of cooking skills to prepare cheap

healthy meals and lack of gardening skills to

grown their own food. As one participant com-

mented; ‘some people will survive better on the same amount of money’ (Public Servant, family and community sector). Competing priorities such as drug, alcohol and gambling addictions were

raised as reasons why people were not able to

purchase healthy food within their budget. The

tensions between these two representations result

in very different effects. The social policy repre-

sentation places responsibility onto government

to create social policy change. Alternatively the

individual knowledge, skills and behaviour repre-

sentation places accountability onto individuals.

While there may still be a role for government

action in this representation through the provi-

sion of funding for community-centred educa-

tion programmes, the ultimate responsibility is

for the individual to acquire the required knowl-

edge and skills to cope with their circumstances.

Unintended consequences of the individual

responsibility representation may be associated

stigma for individuals experiencing food inse-

curity. Placing responsibility onto individuals to

overcome their life circumstances in order to

improve their food security induces a level of

blame for individuals currently experiencing food

insecurity and frames them as having failed to

modify their behaviours to ensure food security.

In addition, by highlighting that some individu-

als choose to spend money on competing priori-

ties such as drug, alcohol and gambling addictions

rather than purchasing healthy foods, infers these

individuals are being socially ‘deviant’. Deviance

can be defi ned as not conforming to a set of social

norms and is behaviour that is subjected to correc-

tion or treatment (Scambler, 2003). In their dis-

course analysis Madden and Chamberlain (2004)

highlight the ‘moral’ individual is one who con-

sumes healthy foods and looks after their weight

while the ‘immoral’ individual eats ‘bad’ foods.

By representing the issue as a problem of indi-

vidual behaviour and lack of knowledge on how

to appropriately budget fi nances or eat healthily

without appropriate social policies brings little

benefi t to improving the unequal distribution of

goods and services. Under this perspective poor

and unequal living conditions, including unequal

access to food, are the consequence of inadequate

social policies and programmes and unfair eco-

nomic arrangements. In order to improve equal

access to goods and services an increased role

for government is proposed through creating a

strong public sector that is committed, capable

and adequately fi nanced. In order to achieve

this, strengthened government and governance

is required along with increased private sector

accountability (Marmot, Friel, Bell, Houweling,

& Taylor, 2008; WHO, 2008). This increased

role for government was found through stake-

holder discourse on addressing the social struc-

tural elements of food security such as individual

fi nancial resources versus cost of food, adequate

cooking and food preparation facilities and

greater regulation of the food industry in order

to change how food is produced and sold.

Silences, benefi ts and effects produced by the various problem representations Aspects of a particular problem may be left uncon-

sidered in proposed policy solutions or silenced

by the way the issue is represented. Furthermore,

some groups or individuals may benefi t or

become disadvantaged by various representations.

This section examines the four dominant prob-

lem representations in greater detail to illustrate

how these competing representations, and their

different underlying assumptions, benefi t differ-

ent social actors and produce different effects for

stakeholders and those at risk of food insecurity.

The problem represented as individual responsibility compared to government responsibility The most commonly mentioned determinant by

stakeholders was lack of personal fi nances of indi-

viduals to spend on purchasing food. However,

the way this determinant was represented, the

proposed solutions varied. Some stakeholders

framed this issue as a social policy problem with

the underlying assumption that welfare payments

have not increased in line with increased costs

of living. Other stakeholders framed personal

Amber Bastian and John Coveney

Volume 22, Issue 2, June 2013 © eContent Management Pty Ltd168

SR H

this problem representation there is the underlying

assumption by stakeholders that government

should intervene to meet the needs of the most

vulnerable in society. This creates the subject posi-

tion for government to be more paternalistic by

intervening through approaches such as laws, regu-

lations, enforceable policies and fi scal instruments.

The problem represented as the community’s responsibility A number of proposed strategies, including those

looking at alternative food supply systems such as

community-supported agriculture, community

gardening, local farmers’ markets, food co-ops

and food swaps, highlight the role for community

action. By framing solutions as community action

initiatives the effect is to position individuals as

needing to create their own systems and solutions

to improve food security and in doing so either

consciously or unconsciously diverts some of the

responsibility and accountability away from gov-

ernment and industry. The representation provides

an alternative system of power and infl uence that

can interact to improve food security, a system

whereby the ‘lay voice’ can be valued and heard

and individuals are less reliant on government

to make changes. On the surface, by placing the

accountability and responsibility onto communi-

ties it removes the risk of stigmatising individuals as

it calls for collective rather than individual action.

However, upon closer examination, once these

alternative food systems and community action

initiatives are created, ultimate responsibility still

rests with the individual to participate and engage

in them; therefore there is still an element of indi-

vidual responsibility and potential for blame.

Community organisations may benefi t from

this representation as they are seen to be doing

something to address the issue and they stand to

gain more funding and support from govern-

ment for these programmes. State government

also stands to benefi t from this representation as

responsibility is directed onto community-based

organisations to deliver initiatives which indi-

viduals should access, therefore reducing the role

of government. The various sectors of the food

industry benefi t from this representation as no

role is identifi ed for them and they continue with

business as usual. However on closer examination

on a low income, responsibility and therefore

blame for food insecurity is placed onto individu-

als. This may generate a certain stigma associated

with food insecurity, as individuals experiencing

food insecurity are seen as being socially deviant,

which subjects them to moral judgement from

society (Scambler, 2003). The consequence of

taking an individual approach is victim blaming.

The resulting discrimination and stigmatisation

can lead to poor self-esteem and further exac-

erbate poor health outcomes and low socioeco-

nomic situation (Whitehead, Diderichsen, &

Burstrom, 2001).

This focus on individual behaviour defl ects

attention from structural issues such as food

supply, economic pressures to work long

hours, urban design and poor public transport

(Bonfi glioli, Smith, King, Chapman, & Holding,

2007; Pagnini, King, Booth, Wilkenfeld, &

Booth, 2009). For single working parents or

double working parent households, time pres-

sure may be a barrier to preparing healthy meals

(Booth et al., 2006). The representation does

not consider the impact of socioeconomic sta-

tus on access to healthy foods, as lower socio-

economic neighbourhoods may present more

structural barriers to healthy eating compared to

more affl uent areas (Reidpath, Burns, Garrard,

Mahoney, & Townsend, 2002). What is left

unproblematic in this representation is that skill

development programmes stop working when

income levels are below a certain threshold.

Both problem representations provided for

personal fi nance leave the closely related issue of

food cost unproblematic. One third of stakehold-

ers raised the issue of price with proposed solutions

including the subsidisation of healthy foods with

or without taxation on unhealthy foods. Another

closely-related solution was the subsidisation of

transport costs to keep the price of food in remote

areas in line with food costs in urban areas. The

effect of this problem representation is to place

the responsibility onto government to create these

policy conditions or onto the food industry to

change their pricing policies, or a combination of

both. The effect of framing government as being

responsible to create social structural conditions

to improve food security takes the responsibility

away from individuals and private enterprise. In

The responsibilisation of food security

SR H

to protect the most vulnerable within society.

Furthermore there is an underlying assumption

that they will voluntarily make changes for the

greater good with no motivation or incentive.

What is left unproblematic in this representation is

that private enterprise’s fi rst priority is to increase

profi ts for their shareholders. Government ben-

efi ts from this representation as industry is left to

make changes and self regulate and therefore the

role of government is reduced. Furthermore, if

nothing changes, industry is seen as being to blame

rather than government. However an unintended

consequence could be that because health, food

security and looking after the most vulnerable sec-

tors of society are not a number one priority for

industry, nothing changes and the issue remains

the same. An alternative way of seeing the prob-

lem could be to highlight the role for government

to use the various tools available, such as policy,

regulation and legislation, to create necessary con-

ditions for change.

Another unintended consequence of this rep-

resentation could be to divert attention towards

changing the food supply and away from the

problem of unequal access to food. In diverting

attention away from unequal access this represen-

tation risks silencing the fact that some individu-

als experience food insecurity in South Australia.

While this representation may improve the food

supply and in doing so improve food security

generally, it may not address the fact that food

insecurity is an issue unequally experienced by

the population. An alternative representation

would be to address some of the issues of access,

such as housing infrastructure, limited income,

transport access or distance to retail outlets, in

conjunction with changing the food supply.

Various sources of production and reproduction of problem representations Two means through which particular problem

representations may reach their target audience

and achieve legitimacy are proposed here; fi rst

the media and second academic literature and

research evidence.

Media as a vehicle for problem representations The media can infl uence and shape public per-

ception by choosing what and how to present

this problem representation does not silence the

role for government intervention, rather it high-

lights how both state and local government need

to create facilitating conditions such as allocat-

ing land for community gardening and ensuring

adequate spaces for farmers’ markets. Nor does it

silence the role for individual behaviour change

as changing the ways individuals interact with

their food supply is integral to the success of these

interventions. It rather brings both of these ele-

ments into its proposed solutions.

What is left unproblematic in this problem

representation is the extent to which these pro-

grammes can overcome the underlying deter-

minants of food security or whether they act as

a ‘band aid’ to the problem by being another

(potentially more empowering) form of food

welfare. If food security is infl uenced by the cur-

rent food system (the way food is produced, trans-

ported and retailed) these programmes would

need to become an alternative mainstream source

of food to really address the underlying issues of

food supply rather than just overcoming the issue

for those currently at risk. As they often rely on

volunteers or government funding to keep them

running the extent to which they will become an

alternative mainstream food source is question-

able. If these initiatives do truly participate in the

current free market economy they often cannot

meet their dual objectives of providing fi nan-

cial reward for farmers and providing affordable

food for low income individuals (Johnston, 2003;

Sage, 2003). Furthermore factors impacting on

access to this supply (such as transport options and

housing infrastructure) are also left unproblematic

in these proposed community action solutions.

The problem represented as the responsibility of private enterprise Proposed solutions to improve the quality and

variety of foods sold through product reformula-

tion, to reduce food transportation through cre-

ating contracts with local farmers and to change

the distribution of healthy versus unhealthy foods

available through in-store nutrition policies frames

private enterprise as being responsible for food

security. The underlying assumption in this prob-

lem representation is that private industry should

proactively behave in a socially responsible way

Amber Bastian and John Coveney

Volume 22, Issue 2, June 2013 © eContent Management Pty Ltd170

SR H

issues (Scheufele, 1999). While journalists may

edit and select stories most information comes

from powerful social actors. Media exerts social

control by constantly reminding people about

what constitutes acceptable behaviour. In doing

this, mass media is a means for political, economic

and other elites to infl uence the public (Peters,

1994). As the individual responsibility represen-

tation diverts accountability away from govern-

ment and private enterprise, it is perhaps not

surprising that this representation gets reproduced

through news media which is infl uenced by more

powerful actors in society and less infl uenced by

those this representation negatively impacts on.

Research evidence and academic literature as a vehicle for problem representations The second vehicle through which particular

problem representations may have impacted on

stakeholder responses is through research evi-

dence. Research evidence often diffuses through

multiple channels, such as scientifi c and profes-

sional journals, the mass media, and conversa-

tions between policy makers and researchers

(Short, 1998). This diffusion of research over

time can contribute to a series of concepts, gen-

eralisations and ideas that impact how a given

problem is thought about and types of solu-

tions offered. Thus the way public health issues

such as food security are represented within

the academic literature may impact on how

these issues are thought about by policymakers.

Furthermore information is only one basis upon

which decisions get made. The way evidence

gets interpreted and used also impacts on how

public health issues are represented.

With reduced public sector spending in the

face of recent fi nancial pressures and a general

embrace of market ideology, politicians and min-

isters are calling for more evidence-based policy

in an attempt to be more cost effective (Lin &

Fawkes, 2007). While there are many benefi ts in

this move towards evidence-based policy, such as

incorporating a process by which the interests and

ideologies of policy makers can potentially be min-

imised, the infl uence on what types of evidence

gets prioritised needs to be considered. Inevitably

the ideology and interests of policy makers weigh

heavily and impact on how evidence is interpreted

information (De Vreese & Kandyla, 2009; Udell

& Mehta, 2008). Highlighting some aspects of an

issue and downplaying others contributes to how

a particular issue is socially constructed (Durrant,

Wakefi eld, McLeod, Clegg-Smith, & Chapman,

2003; Hackett, 2008). Furthermore issues that

receive heavy coverage are often prioritised in

public and policy agendas and the way they are

framed can defi ne public perceptions (Durrant

et al., 2003; Gamson, 1992). Media representa-

tions infl uence culture, produce contemporary

interpretations of normality and desirable health

and social behaviours. This infl uence of news

media on public opinion and public policy has

been documented in numerous studies (Carey,

Chapman, & Gaffney, 1994; Champion &

Chapman, 2005; Durrant et al., 2003; Fan, 1996;

Han, Makana Chock, & Shoemaker, 2009;

Holder & Treno, 1997; Udell & Mehta, 2008).

A recent study examining childhood obesity

representation in Australian newsprint media and

academic literature found two dominant para-

digms for treatment and prevention solutions;

individual and social–structural. The study found

that while both individual and social– structural

paradigms are found in each source, news-

print media favours the individual responsibility

account (Bastian, 2011). While issues are framed

in academic journals in terms of facts, in the news

media facts are transformed into metaphors and

labels to create a story (Carey et al., 1994). In the

act of telling stories, attention is focussed on the

individual and in doing so, surrounding social

conditions can often become displaced (Wallack,

1993). Furthermore, newspapers are sensitive to

commercial pressures. They have to sell adver-

tising space and attract large audiences to view

those ads. Readers like tangible answers to prob-

lems to give them a sense of control and power

over their lives. This impacts on the types of sto-

ries news media choose to run (Wallack, 1993).

Furthermore in the news media facts are often

selectively used. Framing an issue in a certain way

is agenda setting and readers of news media come

to understand issues or events by how they are

framed. Social norms and values, organisational

pressures and constraints, pressures of interest

groups and their own ideological and political

orientations infl uence the way journalists frame

The responsibilisation of food security

SR H

and used. While democratic decision-making

aims to accommodate the interests and ideologies

represented in a given society, the various distri-

butions of power within society determine whose information, ideology and interests dominate

(Weiss, 1983). More powerful non-government

organisations, interest groups, professional associa-

tions, media representatives, private industry and

public servants impact on how information and

evidence is interpreted and used in developing

policy. As governments in Australia are respon-

sible for funding most of the research that gets

conducted, with the remaining research funded

by private industry and peak non-government

organisations, the interests and ideologies of these

powerful groups ultimately impact on what type

of questions are asked and answered.

With the increased emphasis on evidence-

based policy there has been growing enthusiasm

for the use of systematic reviews (Mulrow, 1994).

This has resulted in developing a framework for

establishing a hierarchy of evidence (such as that

used by the Cochrane Collaboration) resulting in

quantitative evidence being prioritised and the

randomised control trial represented as the gold

standard of evidence (Woolfe, Battista, Anderson,

Logan, & Wang, 1990). As part of this study on

food security, a systematic literature review on the

issue was conducted across multiple databases for

the period January 1999–January 2010. Articles

were critically read to capture the main themes

presented on food insecurity. Over three times

as many articles (39) focussed on local level pro-

grammes to improve food security (for example

food welfare, school lunch and nutritional educa-

tion) as the number of articles (11) which focussed

on potential policy changes (for example social,

nutrition, taxation, planning and agricultural

policies) to improve food security. Programmes

that build individual skills and knowledge in

an attempt to change individual behaviours

can be quantitatively evaluated with pre- and

post- measurements and therefore appear in evi-

dence reviews. Conversely, research investigat-

ing social-structural solutions to food insecurity

are likely to be qualitative research designs and

therefore don’t get included or are considered

‘weaker’ evidence in reviews. Therefore priori-

tisation of quantitative evidence in policy making

favours individual responsibility representation

over representations that consider social, cultural,

economic and structural environments which

highlight a role for government and/or private

enterprise.

CONCLUSION This research found four dominant problem rep-

resentations for food security: individual; govern-

ment; community; and private enterprise. These

representations hold different underlying assump-

tions about government’s role in addressing

public health issues. The neo-liberal perspective

supports a reduced role for government whereas

the social determinants of health perspective calls

for greater government intervention. The repre-

sentations produce very different effects, some of

which are to frame individuals as being to blame

thereby inducing a certain stigma to being food

insecure, or to divert focus onto increasing food

production and away from the issue of unequal

access to food. The media and academic litera-

ture may infl uence the production and reproduc-

tion of these problem representations. A greater

awareness of problem representation and the

resultant effects may be needed by food security

activists and public health professionals.

REFERENCES Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, the construction of policy prob-

lems and politics. London, England: Sage. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem

represented to be? Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson. Barry, A., Osborne, T., & Rose, N. (1996). Foucault

and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and ratio- nalities of government. London, England: University College London Press.

Bastian, A. (2011). Representations of childhood

obesity in Australian newsprint media and academic

literature. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 35(2), 135–139.

Beeson, M., & Firth, A. (1998). Neoliberalism as a

political rationality: Australian public policy since

the 1980s. Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 215–231. Begley, A., & Coveney, J. (2010). Wonder vitamin or

mass medication? Media and academic representa-

tion of folate fortifi cation as a policy problem in

Australia and New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 34(5), 466–471.

Bello, W., & Baviera, M. (2009). Food wars. Monthly Review, 61(3), 17–31.

Amber Bastian and John Coveney

SR H

Biggerstaff, M. A., Morris, P., & Nichols-Casebolt, A.

(2002). Living on the edge: Examination of people

attending food pantries and soup kitchens. Social Work, 47(3), 267–277.

Bonfi glioli, C., Smith, B., King, L., Chapman, S., &

Holding, S. (2007). Choice and voice: Obesity

debates in television news. Medical Journal of Australia, 187(8), 442–445.

Booth, M., Okely, A. D., Denney-Wilson, E., Hardy, L.,

Yang, B., & Dobbins, T. (2006). NSW schools physical activity and nutrition survey (SPANS) 2004: Summary report 2006. Sydney, NSW: Department of Health.

Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionsim. London, England: Routledge.

Carey, V., Chapman, S., & Gaffney, D. (1994).

Children’s lives or garden aesthetics? A case study

in public health advocacy. Australian Journal of Public Health, 18(1), 25–32.

Champion, D., & Chapman, S. (2005). Framing pub

smoking bans: An analysis of Australian print news

media coverage, March 1996–March 2003. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(8), 679–684.

Coveney, J., & O’Dwyer, L. A. (2009). Effects of

mobility and location on food access. Health and Place, 15(1), 45–55.

Daniel, M., Kestens, Y., & Paquet, C. (2009).

Demographic and urban form correlates of healthful

and unhealthful food availability in Montreal, Canada.

Canadian Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 189–194. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

(2011). Issues paper to inform the development of a national food plan (Report ISBN 978-1-921575-23- 5). Canberra, ACT: Author (Online version).

De Vreese, C. H., & Kandyla, A. (2009). News fram-

ing and public support for a common foreign and

security policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(3), 453–481.

Durrant, R., Wakefi eld, M., McLeod, K., Clegg-

Smith, K., & Chapman, S. (2003). Tobacco in the

news: An analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco

issues in Australia, 2001. Tobacco Control, 12(Suppl. II), ii75–ii81.

Fan, D. (1996). News media framing sets public opin-

ion that drugs is the country’s most important prob-

lem. Substance Use and Misuse, 31(10), 1413–1421. Foley, W., Ward, P., Carter, P., Coveney, J., Tsourtos,

G., & Taylor, A. (2010). An ecological analysis of fac-

tors associated with food insecurity in South Australia,

2002–2007. Public Health Nutrition, 13(2), 215–221. Food and Agriculture Organization. (1983). World food

security: A reappraisal of the concepts and approaches. Director General’s Report. Rome, Italy.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (1996). Rome decla- ration on world food security and world food summit plan of action. World Food Summit, Rome, Italy.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2009). Declaration of the world summit on food security. World summit on food secuirty, Rome, Italy.

Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Green, J., Willis, K., Hughes, E., Small, R., Welch,

N., Gibbs, L., & Daly, J. (2007). Generating the

best evidence from qualitative research: The role of

data analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(6), 545–550.

Grey, D. (2004). Doing research in the real world. London, England: Sage.

Hackett, A. (2008). Risk, its perception and the media:

The MMR controversy. Community Practitioner: The Journal of the Community Practitioners’ & Health Visitors’ Association, 81(7), 22–25.

Han, G. K., Makana Chock, T., & Shoemaker, P. (2009).

Issue familiarity and framing effects of online campaign

coverage: Event perception, issue attitudes, and the

2004 presidential election in Taiwan. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(4), 739–755.

Hindess, B. (1998). Neo-Liberalism and the national

economy. In Dean, M. & Hindess, B. (Eds.), Governing Australia: Studies in contemporary rationalities of government. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Holder, H. D., & Treno, A. J. (1997). Media advo-

cacy in community prevention: News as a means

to advance policy change. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 92(Suppl. 2), S189–S199.

Johnston, J. (2003). Food for All. The story of

FoodShare shows how community food security

programs can make a difference, even if they can’t

end hunger. Alternatives Journal, 29(4), 29–30. Khan, S., & Hanjra, M. A. (2009). Footprints of water

and energy inputs in food production – Global

perspectives. Food Policy, 34(2), 130–140. Koning, N., van Ittersum, M., Becx, G., van Boekel, T.,

Brandenburg, W., van den Broek, J., & Smies, M.

(2008). Long-term global availability of food:

Continued abundance or new scarcity? NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 55(3), 229–292.

Lin, V., & Fawkes, S. (2007). Health promotion

in Australia: Twenty years on from the Ottawa

Charter. Promotion and Education, 14(4), 203–208. MacMillan, T., & Dowler, E. (2011). Just and sustain-

able? Examining the rhetoric and potential realities

of UK food security. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, Online 19 Jan. doi:10.1007/ s10806-011-9304-8

The responsibilisation of food security

SR H

Madden, H., & Chamberlain, K. (2004). Nutritional

health messages in women’s magazines: A confl icted

space for women readers. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(4), 583–597.

Magdoff, F., & Tokar, B. (2009). Agriculture and food

in crisis: An overview. Monthly Review, 61(3), 1–16. Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A., &

Taylor, S. (2008). Commission on the social deter-

minants of health. Closing the gap in a generation:

Health equity through action on the social deter-

minants of health. Lancet, 372(9650), 1661–1669. Maxwell, S., & Smith, M. (1992). Household food

security, a conceptual review. In S. Maxwell & T. R.

Frankenberger (Eds.), Household food security: Concepts, indicators, measurements: A technical review. New York, NY: UNICEF and IFAD.

Mulrow, C. (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews.

British Medical Journal, 309(6954), 597–599. Murray, S., & Powell, A. (2009). ‘What’s the

Problem?’: Australian public policy constructions

of domestic and family violence. Violence Against Women, 15, 532–552.

Nolan, M., Williams, M., Rikard-Bell, G., & Mohsin, M.

(2006). Food insecurity in three socially disadvantaged

localities in Sydney, Australia. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 17(3), 247–254.

Overseas Development Institute. (1997). Global hunger and food security after the World food summit (ODI Briefi ng Paper). London, England: Author.

Pagnini, D., King, L., Booth, S., Wilkenfeld, R.,

& Booth, M. (2009). The weight of opinion on

childhood obesity: Recognising complexity and

supporting collaborative action. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 4(4), 233–241.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology

for postgraduate research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), 785–802.

Peters, H. (1994). Mass media as an information

channel and public arena. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 5, 240–250.

Piesse, J., & Thirtle, C. (2009). Three bubbles and a

panic: An explanatory review of recent food com-

modity price events. Food Policy, 34(2), 119–129. PMSEIC (2010). Impact statement: Australian and Food

Security in a changing world. A report to the prime ministers science, engineering and innovation coun-

cil, Canberra, ACT.

Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998).

Rationale and standards for the systematic review

of qualitative literature in health services research.

Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 341–351.

Reidpath, D., Burns, C., Garrard, J., Mahoney, M., &

Townsend, M. (2002). An ecological study of the

relationship between social and environmental deter-

minants of obesity. Health and Place, 8, 141–145. Rychetnik, L., Webb, K., Story, L. & Katz, T. (2003).

Food security options paper: A planning framework and menu of options for policy and practice interventions, NSW Centre for Public Health Nutrition for NSW Health,

Sydney, NSW.

Sage, C. (2003). Social embeddedness and relations of

regard: Alternative ‘good food’ networks in south-

west Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 47–60. Scambler, G. (2003). Sociology as applied to medicine.

London, England: Saunders.

Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects.

International Communication Association, 49, 103–122. Shaw, D. J. (2007). World food security: A history since

1945. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Short, S. (1998). Elective affi nities: Research and health policy

development. In H. Garner (Eds.). Health policy in Australia (pp. 65–82). Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.

Udell, T., & Mehta, K. (2008). When two sides go to

war: Newspaper reporting of ‘television food adver-

tising restrictions’ as a solution to childhood obesity.

Health, Risk & Society, 10(6), 535–348. United Nations. (1975). Report of the world food confer-

ence. 5–16 November 1974, Rome, Italy: Author. Wallack, L. (1993). The media connection. In L.

Wallack (Eds.), Media advocacy and public health: Power for prevention (pp. 53–85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weiss, C. (1983). Ideology, interests and information:

The basis of policy and positions. In C. Weiss, D. Callahan, & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sci- ences and policy analysis (pp. 213–245). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Whitehead, M., Diderichsen, F., Burstrom, B., &

Gradham (Eds.). (2001). Researching the impact of

public policy on inequalities in health (pp. 203–221).

Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

WHO. (2008). Commission on the social determinants of health fi nal report – Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

Woolfe, S., Battista, R., Anderson, G. M., Logan, A. G.,

& Wang, E. (1990). Assessing the clinical effective-

ness of preventive maneuvers: Analytic principles

and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and

developing clincial practice recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 891–905.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Received 06 September 2011 Accepted 01 March 2012

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.