Challenging the Hegemonic Food Discourse: The British Media Debate on Risk and Salmonella in Eggs

Abstract

The salmonella in eggs controversy in Britain in the late 1980s contributed to a partial dislocation of the hegemonic food discourse. This discourse had relied on a number of myths that are taken for granted, in particular the myth of managerial control. According to this myth, food risks had been successfully managed by a system of food production and a regulatory regime to ensure the safety and quality of the food. In the wake of the salmonella scandal the media debate formed part of a general politicisation of food safety where the managerial myth broke down. This resulted in a dislocation of the food discourse and a new social space opened for the existing myths to be contested and renegotiated. As a result, the media discourse played a role in either encouraging the preservation of the dominant values of the existing power structures or constituting a radical break with previous hegemonic conceptions of food production and consumption. Rethinking the concept of risk in terms of discourse analysis allows for an examination of the political origins of the arguments presented in the British media debate on salmonella. Risk is conceptualised as a signifier in the debate and a struggle takes place in the public domain in order to define and articulate the level of risk from salmonella contamination. On the one hand, the government and the farming industry maintained the manageability of the risk. Meanwhile, a critical discourse emerged questioning the scientific and regulatory hegemony within the area of food safety, the ‘naturalness’ of modern farming practices and the authorities' ability to manage safe food for the benefit of consumers.