IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v44y2014icp47-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate

Author

Listed:
  • Candel, Jeroen J.L.
  • Breeman, Gerard E.
  • Stiller, Sabina J.
  • Termeer, Catrien J.A.M.

Abstract

This article addresses which food security frames can be identified in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2013 reform process, and which actors deploy particular food security frames. The concept of frames refers to relatively distinct and coherent sets of meaning attributed to a concept, such as food security. The article shows that in the European Union (EU) food security is a consensus frame which can be broken down in six conflicting and overlapping sub-frames and which has complicated the debates about the future of the CAP. We demonstrate that during the CAP-reform debates of 2009–2012 a variety of food security arguments were deployed by a broad range of stakeholders, who attached different meanings and made different claims about the relationship between the CAP and food security. Inductive frame analysis reveals that the consensus frame of food security can be broken down into six conflicting and overlapping sub-frames: (1) the productionist frame, (2) the environmental frame, (3) the development frame, (4) the free trade frame, (5) the regional frame, and (6) the food sovereignty frame. Each of these frames was invoked by a specific group of stakeholders, whereby the productionist and environmental frames were deployed most often. The European Commission, meanwhile, invoked various frames at the same time in its communications. As a result of these various framings of the relationship between the CAP and food security, a clear political vision on this relationship is lacking. We conclude that politicians and policymakers may need to develop a coherent vision on what food security entails, and on how the CAP could contribute to both European and global food security.

Suggested Citation

  • Candel, Jeroen J.L. & Breeman, Gerard E. & Stiller, Sabina J. & Termeer, Catrien J.A.M., 2014. "Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 47-58.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:44:y:2014:i:c:p:47-58
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921300153X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.10.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Madeleine Fairbairn, 2012. "Framing transformation: the counter-hegemonic potential of food sovereignty in the US context," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(2), pages 217-230, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sara A. L. Smaal & Joost Dessein & Barend J. Wind & Elke Rogge, 2021. "Social justice-oriented narratives in European urban food strategies: Bringing forward redistribution, recognition and representation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 709-727, September.
    2. Mark Christopher Navin & J. M. Dieterle, 2018. "Cooptation or solidarity: food sovereignty in the developed world," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 319-329, June.
    3. Robin Siebert & Christian Herzig & Marc Birringer, 2022. "Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 617-632, June.
    4. José Luis Vivero-Pol, 2017. "Food as Commons or Commodity? Exploring the Links between Normative Valuations and Agency in Food Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Ashley McInnes & Evan Fraser & Ze’ev Gedalof & Jennifer Silver, 2017. "A quantitative analysis of food movement convergence in four Canadian provinces," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 787-804, December.
    6. Tezcan Mert-Cakal & Mara Miele, 2020. "‘Workable utopias’ for social change through inclusion and empowerment? Community supported agriculture (CSA) in Wales as social innovation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1241-1260, December.
    7. Catherine Littlefield & Molly Stollmeyer & Peter Andrée & Patricia Ballamingie & Charles Z. Levkoe, 2024. "Exploring settler-Indigenous engagement in food systems governance," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 1085-1101, September.
    8. Allison Hayes-Conroy & Elizabeth Sweet, 2015. "Whose adequacy? (Re)imagining food security with displaced women in Medellín, Colombia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 373-384, September.
    9. Douglas H. Constance, 2023. "The doctors of agrifood studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 31-43, March.
    10. Otto Hospes, 2014. "Food sovereignty: the debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(1), pages 119-130, March.
    11. Brown David L. & Schucksmith Mark, 2016. "A New Lens for Examining Rural Change," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 8(2), pages 183-188, June.
    12. Rebecka Daye, 2020. "Competing food sovereignties: GMO-free activism, democracy and state preemptive laws in Southern Oregon," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1013-1025, December.
    13. Julia M. L. Laforge & Colin R. Anderson & Stéphane M. McLachlan, 2017. "Governments, grassroots, and the struggle for local food systems: containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 663-681, September.
    14. Geoffrey Desa & Xiangping Jia, 2020. "Sustainability transitions in the context of pandemic: an introduction to the focused issue on social innovation and systemic impact," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1207-1215, December.
    15. Marina Masso & Christos Zografos, 2015. "Constructing food sovereignty in Catalonia: different narratives for transformative action," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(2), pages 183-198, June.
    16. Jenderedjian, Anna & Bellows, Anne C., 2019. "Addressing food and nutrition security from a human rights-based perspective: A mixed-methods study of NGOs in post-Soviet Armenia and Georgia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 46-56.
    17. Xiangping Jia, 2021. "Agro-Food Innovation and Sustainability Transition: A Conceptual Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    18. Julia Bausch & Hallie Eakin & Skaidra Smith-Heisters & Abigail York & Dave White & Cathy Rubiños & Rimjhim Aggarwal, 2015. "Development pathways at the agriculture–urban interface: the case of Central Arizona," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(4), pages 743-759, December.
    19. Hendrickson, Mary K. & Howard, Philip H. & Constance, Douglas H., 2017. "Power, Food and Agriculture: Implications for Farmers, Consumers and Communities," EconStor Preprints 171171, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    20. Lindsay Naylor, 2019. "Food sovereignty in place: Cuba and Spain," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 705-717, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:44:y:2014:i:c:p:47-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.