Diverging Stories on food system transitions. A qualitative analysis of policy narratives in the public consultation on the European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy
分析了164份公众对欧盟“从农场到餐桌”战略的回应，识别出12种叙事，发现不同利益群体对食品体系转型的驱动因素、挑战和应对措施存在分歧，揭示了农业政策话语的固化。
The transition towards more just and sustainable food systems is a major challenge which requires persuasive policy narratives for motivation and coordination. However, research about how relevant European actor groups view crucial elements of food system transitions is scarce. The consultation on the European Commission's Farm-to-Fork Strategy provided an opportunity to analyze how elements of food system transitions are represented and connected in the policy narratives of European stakeholders. A deductive-inductive content analysis of 164 public responses, using an analytical framework based on the multi-level-perspective of food system transitions, found twelve distinct narratives, mostly focused on agricultural production. Ten of them showed clear connections to three established agricultural policy discourses: neomercantilism, multi-functionalism and market liberalism. While the narratives together provided a comprehensive account of transition drivers, challenges, opportunities and responses, individually they presented rather partial perspectives. For example, market-liberal narratives emphasized the role of value chain actors and “consumer choice”, whereas multifunctionalist narratives called for more regulation. Farmers' associations mainly deployed neomercantilist, NGOs multi-functional and industry representatives market-liberal narratives, revealing dissent on the importance and desirability of change. The findings indicate that shifting the discussion venue away from core agriculture policy arenas broadened entrenched discourses only marginally. • Analyses public responses to the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy. • Identifies 12 narratives with strong links to established, competing CAP discourses. • Shows that actor groups frame elements of food system transitions differently. • Provides insights into ongoing conflicts over the implementation of the F2F strategy.