Food Network Analysis #4

What influences Policy

In the book, Death in the Andes, by Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa, the protagonist is faced with a moral dilemma; accept responsibility for killing his drug-lord boss or put blame on rival Colombian drug-lords and save himself from accountability.  His friend advises him to blame the Colombians, saying it “could be true”, and that it is the truth that does him the most good.  Researching the forces that influence policy development reminded me of this passage as there are multiple, sometimes competing and conflicting, perspectives and interests involved. 

Framing

Framing refers to how an issue is presented and perceived; what aspects are emphasized and what aspects are avoided or downplayed1.  Framing is presenting the truth that does you the most good.  Industry has an interest in protecting profits and market share.  Consumers have an interest in safe, affordable, and readily available food supply.  Public health professionals are concerned about the epidemic of obesity and resulting non-communicable disease burden.  Climate scientists have an interest in raising awareness of adverse climate change.  Ecologists have an interest in the preservation and protection of the natural environment.  A single issue can have a variety of opinions on the causes, urgency, potential solutions, and scope with each interested party endeavoring to influence policy development in their favor, or the truth that does them the most good.

Focus Event

Not all policy decisions necessarily involve competing and conflicting interests, some may simply be agency procedural or operational matters.  However, there are events that occur that focus attention on issues that were not previously well understood or known and calls for non-incremental public policy intervention2.  These would be, “focus events.”  In 2001, the US Surgeon General issued a Call to Action to address obesity1.  This is a focus event.  Upton Sinclair’s, “The Jungle”, brought attention to the unsanitary and dangerous practices in the meat processing industry is another example.  The raised awareness prompts various stakeholders to address the issue.

Response to Focus Events

Awareness, and elevation of an issue in the public consciousness prompts responses by stakeholders to the issue.  Responses may be framing the event is a manner that favors the interests of a particular stakeholder.  Stakeholders may directly engage policymakers and on a longer-term basis may support the election of policymakers sympathetic to their interests.  These three tactics are the basis for mapping policy influencing interactions in my Food System network.

Network Interactions

Framing.  Efforts meant to communicate a certain perspective of an issue to non-policymaking elements that may have influence on policymaking element.

Lobbying.  Actively engaging with policymakers in an effort to influence policy development in a certain direction favorable to the influencer.  This may entail encouraging policymakers to not addressing issue with policy intervention.

Policy Maker Support (PMS).  Efforts to promote the election of policymakers that are sympathetic to a particular policy position toward an issue.  A 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) allowed corporations to fund political candidate which opened another avenue for corporations to influence policy3.

I found it necessary to add another type of interaction, collaboration.  This represents businesses coming together in the form of trade groups and front groups1.  Such groups provide an identity separate from the business that can express a view different from the individual businesses1,3.  Well-funded, these groups attempt to influence policymakers and policy development.

Food System Network Model

From	To	Interaction	Description
Biophysical Environment (NB)	Social Organizations (NS)	focus event	Environmental event creates awareness in media and scientific communities (e.g., climate change)
Biophysical Environment (NB	Policy (NP)	focus event	Government monitoring of environment creates awareness of event (e.g., climate change)
Social Organizations (NS)	Consumer ( C )	focus event	Public awareness of event via media reporting and scientific community discovery
Policy (NP)	Social Organizations (NS)	focus event	Government alerting public via media (e.g., food recall)
Consumer ( C )	Policy (NP)	lobbying	Direct appeal to policymakers regarding event or issue
Consumer ( C )	Policy (NP)	PMS	Public voting to elect policymakers sympathetic to their interests
Social Organizations (NS)	Policy (NP)	lobbying	Consumer advocacy groups efforts to influence policymakers and policy development
Markets (NM)	Policy (NP)	lobbying	Trade and Front group efforts to influence policymakers and policy development
Farm Input Supply (FI)	Markets (NM)	collaboration	Membership in trade group and/or front groups
Farm Production (FP)	Markets (NM)	collaboration	Membership in trade group and/or front groups
First Line Handlers (FH)	Markets (NM)	collaboration	Membership in trade group and/or front groups
Manufacturers (FM)	Markets (NM)	collaboration	Membership in trade group and/or front groups
Food & Beverage Service (FB)	Markets (NM)	collaboration	Membership in trade group and/or front groups
Retail Food Stores (FR)	Markets (NM)	collaboration	Membership in trade group and/or front groups
Markets (NM)	Social Organizations (NS)	framing	Trade and front group presenting position and/or supporting research to media outlets
Social Organizations (NS)	Consumer ( C )	framing	Reporting issues to public via media
Markets (NM)	Consumer ( C )	framing	Business presenting position to public via PR and marketing
Markets (NM)	Policy (NP)	PMS	Monetary support for the election of policy making candidate sympathetic to their interests
Markets (NM)	Policy (NP)	framing	Business interests attempting to influence policy development
Markets (NM)	Social Organizations (NS)	framing	Business and front groups sponsoring research favorable to their position

Visualization

Additional Information

A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Cultivating Control: Corporate Lobbying on the Food and Farm Bill,” found that between 2019 and 2023, businesses and interest groups spent $523 million on federal lobbying on disclosure reports listing “farm bill” among topics of interest4.  This amount, to be clear, is the self-reported value of lobbying efforts on a semi-annual lobbying report that registered lobbyists must file.  This same report has also found that agribusiness-linked political donors spent $3.4 million on campaign contributions during this same period.  How effective are these expenditures?

How effective are lobbying, policymaker support, framing, and collaboration?  That is a challenging and fascinating question to answer.  Policymaking, necessarily, is a complicated process of balancing the interests of a variety of stakeholders with both near term and long-term interests.  Consideration is also given to past policies; those that succeeded and those that failed.  There are also party-line position considerations. 

Matt Grossmann at Michigan State University, in a 2012 study, reviewed 268 historical accounts of the policy making process of significant policies since 1945 looking for references to “interest groups.”5 An “interest group” is defined as any private interest group such as business, trade association, advocacy group or individual.  The study found interest groups were referenced in 54.8% of significant new law historical accounts, 41.3% of executive orders, 39.3% of agency rules, and 36.8% of significant judicial decisions.  Advocacy groups were credited as dominant interest group in policy histories referencing interest group influence in 63.2% of agriculture policies, 69.1% of environmental policies while business interests were significant in energy, finance & commerce, and transportation policy.  Studying policy history has some limitations such as historian bias and subjectivity5.   Policy development may also be the culmination of a long history of small changes that makes the policy feasible6.  Moreover, to certain interest groups, failure to enact policy is considered a success6. 

Here is where the framing concept is particularly relevant.  A 2015 study by Nixon, et al, of newspaper articles by the top 5 news publications from 2000 to 2012 on the topic of obesity found a significant difference in the messaging (framing) to the public between individual food industry businesses, trade groups and front groups1.  Businesses were more likely to present a message of self-regulation, while trade groups messaged self-regulation and consumer taking some responsibility.  Front groups were more likely to message that regulation was government overreach1.  Corporations have multiple avenues with which to frame issues.  A business may advocate for one position while simultaneously funding front groups and policymakers with a different position3.

Policy development is complicated and has a broad reach and impact on the food system.

Next Step

Explore the Social Organization context.

References

1 Nixon L, Mejia P, Cheyne A, Wilking C, Dorfman L, Daynard R. “We’re Part of the Solution”: Evolution of the Food and Beverage Industry’s Framing of Obesity Concerns Between 2000 and 2012. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(11):2228-2236. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2015.302819

2 Atkinson CL. Focus Event and Public Policy. Springer eBooks. Published online December 12, 2018:1-5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_274-1

3 Lund DS, Strine LE. Corporate Political Spending Is Bad Business. Harvard Business Review. Published January 1, 2022. https://hbr.org/2022/01/corporate-political-spending-is-bad-business

4 Goswami O, Perry Stillerman K. Cultivating Control: Corporate Lobbying on the Food and Farm Bill. Published online May 13, 2024. doi:https://doi.org/10.47923/2024.15464

5 Grossmann M. Interest group influence on US policy change: An assessment based on policy history. Interest Groups & Advocacy. 2012;1(2):171-192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2012.9

6 Pierson P. The Study of Policy Development. Journal of Policy History. 2005;17(1):34-51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/jph.2005.0006