An appetite for change? Engaging the public in food policy and politics
Search for other papers by Jonathan Beacham in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Peter Jackson in
Current site
Google Scholar
The Independent Review of England’s agri-food systems, commonly known as the National Food Strategy (NFS), was commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in 2019. The NFS report, published in two stages in 2020 and 2021, outlines a range of interventions and policy proposals to achieve better agri-food outcomes in terms of public health and environmental sustainability. This commentary focuses on the challenges associated with incorporating a diversity of voices within the NFS’s evidence base. To achieve this, the NFS mobilised a series of public dialogue events to capture lay perspectives. Led by professional facilitators, these events sought to open a deliberative space to explore the workings of agri-food systems, leading to the publication of a public engagement report in late 2021. While diverse views were recorded, the report found ‘a strong appetite for change’ among the participants, eager to address the problems associated with current agri-food systems. In commenting on the dialogue process, we identify three distinct problematics which arise from the NFS’s public engagement strategy. Firstly, we consider the array of subject positions at play in the report. Secondly, we discuss the ‘epistemologies of engagement’, reflecting on the different forms of knowledge that are enrolled through the process of public engagement. Thirdly, we consider the under-acknowledged politics that are at play in these kinds of public engagement exercises and the limits of ‘co-production’ as a methodological principle. We conclude by drawing out the wider (national and international) implications of this particular form of public engagement which aims to incorporate lay perspectives into policy development processes.
-
Barnett, C., Clarke, N., Cloke, P. and Malpass, A. (2011) The elusive subjects of neo-liberalism: Beyond the analytics of governmentality, in S. Binkley and J. Littler (eds) Cultural Studies and Anti-Consumerism, London: Routledge, pp 106–35.
-
Belasco, W.J. (2006) Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took on the Food Industry, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
-
Benker, B. (2021) Stockpiling as resilience: Defending and contextualising extra food procurement during lockdown, Appetite, 156, doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104981.
-
Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (2015) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, London: Routledge.
-
Clapp, J. (2021) The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system, Nature Food, 2(6): 404–8. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00297-7
-
Defra (2022) Public Engagement Review, London: Defra, Social Science Expert Group, in press.
-
Doherty, B., Sidhu, Y., Heron, T., West, C., Seaton, A., Gulec, J., Prado, P. and Flores Martinez, P. (2020) Citizen participation in food systems policy making: A case study of a citizens’ assembly, Emerald Open Research, 2: 22. doi: 10.35241/emeraldopenres.13609.1
-
Evans, D., Welch, D. and Swaffield, J. (2017) Constructing and mobilizing ‘the consumer’: Responsibility, consumption and the politics of sustainability, Environment and Planning A, 49(6): 1396–412. doi: 10.1177/0308518X17694030
-
Hollows, J. and Jones, S. (2010) ‘At least he’s doing something’: moral entrepreneurship and individual responsibility, in Jamie’s Ministry of Food, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(3): 307–22. doi: 10.1177/1367549410363197
-
Independent Review (2020) National Food Strategy: Part One, London: Defra.
-
Independent Review (2021a) National Food Strategy: Public Dialogue Findings Report, London: Defra.
-
Independent Review (2021b) National Food Strategy: The Plan, London: Defra.
-
Jackson, P., Rivera Ferre, M.G., Candel, J., Davies, A., Derani, C., de Vries, H. et al (2021) Food as a commodity, human right or common good, Nature Food, 2(3): 132–4. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00245-5
-
Lang, T., Lewis, T., Marsden, T. and Millstone, E. (2018) Feeding Britain: Food Security after Brexit, Food Research Collaboration, https://foodresearch.org.uk/publications/feeding-britain-food-security-after-brexit/, (last accessed: 14 Jan 2022).
-
Marsden, T., Flynn, A. and Harrison, M. (2000) Consuming Interests: The Social Provision of Foods, London: UCL Press.
-
Mitchell, J.C. (1983) Case and situation analysis, The Sociological Review, 31(2): 187–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1983.tb00387.x
-
Mouffe, C. (2013) Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically, London: Verso.
-
Nesti, G. (2017) Co-production for innovation: the Urban living lab experience, Policy and Society, 37(3): 310–25. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1374692
-
Trentmann, F. (2005) The Making of the Consumer, Oxford: Berg.
-
Trentmann, F. (2007) Citizenship and consumption, Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(2): 147–58. doi: 10.1177/1469540507077667
-
Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. and Louder, E. (2020) The politics of co-production: Participation, power, and transformation, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42: 15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009
-
Wheeler, K. (2012) ‘Change today, choose Fairtrade’: Fairtrade fortnight and the citizen-consumer, Cultural Studies, 26(4): 492–515. doi: 10.1080/09502386.2011.622780
-
Wynne, B. (2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1): 99–110. doi: 10.1215/s12280-007-9004-7
Search for other papers by Jonathan Beacham in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Peter Jackson in
Current site
Google Scholar
| May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 609 | 434 | 29 |
| Full Text Views | 453 | 91 | 2 |
| PDF Downloads | 416 | 40 | 3 |
Institutional librarians can find more information about free trials here
We are a leading social science publisher
committed to making a difference.
Bristol University Press and
Policy Press
bristoluniversitypress.co.uk