Advertisement

Capturing the Sustainability Agenda: Organic Foods and Media Discourses on Food Scares, Environment, Genetic Engineering, and Health

  • Stewart LockieEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper undertakes a content analysis of newspaper articles from Australia, the UK, and the US concerned with a variety of issues relevant to sustainable food and agriculture from 1996 to 2002. It then goes on to identify the various ways in which sustainability, organic food and agriculture, genetic engineering, genetically modified foods, and food safety are framed both in their own terms and in relation to each other. It finds that despite the many competing approaches to sustainability found in scientific and agricultural production discourses, media discourses tend to reduce this complexity to a straightforward conflict between organic and conventional foods. Despite regular reporting of viewpoints highly critical of organic food and agriculture, this binary opposition produces discourses in which organic foods are seen as more-or-less synonymous with safety, naturalness and nutrition, and their alternatives as artificial, threatening, and untrustworthy. Particularly controversial food-related issues such as genetic engineering, food scares, chemical residues, and regulatory failure are treated as part of the same problem to which organic food offers a trustworthy and easily understood solution.

Keywords

Content analysis Discourse Genetic engineering Organic food 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Nell Salem for her invaluable assistance in the collection and processing of data for this paper, along with the rest of the Greening Foods research team, Professor Geoffrey Lawrence, and Dr. Kristen Lyons.

References

  1. Barr N., Cary J. (1992). Greening a Brown Land: The Australian Search for Sustainable Land Use Macmillan, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunton, R. (2000). “Turning tables on monster makers.” Courier Mail, August 5 (Section: Features): 30Google Scholar
  3. Burns, G. (2002). “Europe shows little taste for U.S. biotech crops.” Chicago Tribune, October 30 (North Sports Final Edition, Section: Business): 1Google Scholar
  4. Burros, M. (2000). “Green Britain: Organics have gained a mainstream following in England.” Chicago Tribune, October 18 (Northwest Edition, Section: Good Eating): 3BGoogle Scholar
  5. Condor, B. (2002). “The market for organics blossoms.” Chicago Tribune, October 13 (Chicagoland Final Edition): Q1Google Scholar
  6. Corner J., Richardson K. (1993). Environmental communication and the contingency of meaning: A research note. In Hansen A. (ed.), The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester University, Leicester, UK, pp 222–233Google Scholar
  7. Driscoll, M. and J. Carr-Brown (1999). “What’s eating us?” Sunday Times (London), February 21 (Section: Features): npGoogle Scholar
  8. Foucault M. (1980). Power/Knowledge Harvester, Brighton, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Goering, L. (1999). “Genetic stew boils in Brazil: South American giant struggles to decide whether to plant a genetically modified soy crop, a risky proposition.” Chicago Tribune, August 5 (Chicago Sports Final Edition, Section: News): 1Google Scholar
  10. Guthman J.. (2000). Raising organic: An agro-ecological assessment of grower practices in California. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guthman J.. (2004). The trouble with ‚organic lite’ in California: A rejoinder to the ‚conventionalisation’ debate. Sociologia Ruralis 44(3): 301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannigan J. (1995). Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Approach Routledge, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Haralambos M., van Krieken R., Smith P., Holborn M. (1996). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, Australian Edition Longman, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoge, W. (1999). “Britons skirmish over genetically modified crops.” The New York Times, August 23 (Late Edition – Final): A3Google Scholar
  15. Kaiser, R. (2002). “Farmers make a natural progression: Organic trend continues its strong growth.” Chicago Tribune, October 13 (Chicagoland Final Edition, Section: Business): 1Google Scholar
  16. Kite, M. and M. Henderson (2002). “GM demonstrators are ignorant, says Blair.” The Times (London), May 24 (Section: Home News): npGoogle Scholar
  17. Kleinman D., Kloppenburg J. jun (1991). Aiming for the discursive high ground: Monsanto and the biotechnology controversy. Sociological Forum 6(3): 427–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kloppenburg J. jun (1991). Alternative agriculture and the new biotechnologies. Science as Culture 4: 482–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Law J. (1994). Organizing Modernity Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Levidow L.. (1995). Agricultural biotechnology as clean surgical strike. Social Text 13(3): 161–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lockie S.. (2002). ‚The invisible mouth’: Mobilizing ‚the consumer’ in food production–consumption networks. Sociologia Ruralis 42(2): 278–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lockie S., Lyons K., Lawrence G., Mummery K.. (2002). Eating ‚green’: Motivations behind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis 42(1): 20–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller M., Riechert B. (2000). Interest group strategies and journalistic norms: News media framing of environmental issues. In Allan S., Adam B., Carter C. (eds.) Environmental Risks and the Media. Routledge, London, UK, pp 45–54Google Scholar
  24. O’Neill, G. (2001). “The hidden agenda.” Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), January 21 (Section: Newsfront): 48Google Scholar
  25. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2003). Public Sentiment About Genetically Modified Food. Retrieved from http://pewagbiotech.org/polls/ on August 26, 2004Google Scholar
  26. Pretty J. (1998). The Living Land: Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe. Earthscan, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Stolberg, S. (2002). “It’s alive! It’s alive!” The New York Times, May 5 (Late Edition – Final, Section 4): 16Google Scholar
  28. Teeman, T. (1999). “The most important issue of our time.” The Times (London), November 6 (Section: Features): npGoogle Scholar
  29. Vanclay F. (1992). The social context of farmers’ adoption of environmentally sound farming practices. In Lawrence G., Vanclay F., Furze B. (eds.), Agriculture, Environment and Society: Contemporary Issues for Australia. Macmillan, Melbourne, Australia, pp 94–121Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Social Science ResearchCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Sciences, Engineering and HealthCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia

Personalised recommendations