Policy discourse on AMR in food-producing animals: examining framing and language for effective communication

TL;DR

This paper examines how policy documents frame antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animals to improve communication and stakeholder support.

Contribution

A novel framework for analyzing framing and language in AMR policy documents specific to food-producing animals is introduced.

Findings

The most common motivational frame in policy documents is 'Human Health', followed by 'Animal Health and Welfare' and 'Food Production and Security'.

Self-interest frames targeting farmers or farm workers are rarely used in current policy communications.

The study provides actionable recommendations to improve messaging accessibility and resonance with stakeholders.

Abstract

Indiscriminate use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals is a critical driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). However, pushback from stakeholders on policies and regulations on antimicrobial use in food-producing animals remains. One important strategy to promote behavioural change is effective communication. Framing, or how issues are constructed to relate to specific interests, is a mechanism to guide sentiment, including of political stakeholders and end-users.

Through a sector-specific approach, we used a combination of inductive and deductive coding to quantitatively determine how risk and rationale for action were framed within portions of policy documents and reports from international organizations focused on food-producing animals and AMR. We also qualitatively examined the frames and language used within the documents, to identify specific narratives used, as well as gaps and opportunities to improve communication for end-user support and political legitimacy.

We found that while similar motivational frames are used throughout, they were distributed differently and utilized different narratives. The most frequently used motivational frame, on average, was ‘Human Health’ (20.9% of all frames used) with ‘Animal Health and Welfare’ and ‘Food Production and Security’ second and third, respectively (18.2% and 14.5%). Self-interest frames specific to the farmer or farm worker were rarely used.

Specific recommendations include increasing self-interest frames, ensuring accessibility of messaging and considering underlying assumptions. Overall, our findings can improve framing and language to improve resonance on policies surrounding antimicrobial use in food-producing animals. This work provides a framework to systematically analyse framing in documents to compare different sectors or regions.

Figures