Framing the debate and taking positions on food allergen legislation: The 100 chefs incident on social media

Abstract

Those suffering with food allergies and intolerances need to consider risk every day, and professional organisations are increasingly enrolled in this risk management venture (e.g. offering support, developing legislation, and enforcing laws). Following the release of new food allergen rules in the UK, the Daily Telegraph, a national broadsheet newspaper, published a letter and an article in March 2015 endorsed by 100 chefs criticising the legislation. The chefs felt that innovation and creativity were being harmed by the requirement to state the presence of 14 allergens in the dishes they cooked. Following the release, many food allergen-concerned consumers utilised social media to share their views. In this article we use qualitative research data, comments posted online and collected between 9 and 16 March 2015, to explore how claimants positioned themselves and others in the ensuing online debate, and how the debate itself was framed. The data included traditional news articles, online forum comments, individual Twitter posts, and Twitter discussions. We identified frames across the debate discourse that emphasised medical concerns around managing risks associated with food allergy/intolerance, the assignment of responsibility, fairness of access, the political nature of the debate, and the financial implications involved. We draw on Positioning Theory to illustrate how user-positions can be defined, redefined, and challenged in the light of new or varying information. Our findings have implications for understanding communication around managing food risks from both a consumer and business perspective, and understanding the progression of debates through both traditional and new media platforms.

Keywords:

• risk
• food allergy
• food intolerance
• framing
• Positioning Theory
• social media

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the contributions made to the development of this research project through discussion with Hazel Gowland, Jeff Gavin, Coeliac UK, Allergy UK, and Anaphylaxis Campaign.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by the Food Standards Agency (England, Wales, Northern Ireland) Grant number: FS305013, and the Asthma, Allergy and Inflammation Research Charity. The funders provided support in the form of a PhD studentship for Richard Hamshaw, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection/analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The Food Standards Agency provided comment on a full draft of this paper.