Cargando…
Hungry and warm; cold and fed? The intersection of food and fuel poverty
BACKGROUND: The UK news has been increasingly reporting of people forced to choose between “heating and eating.” The (self-)rationing of food and fuel has harmful health repercussions, yet the intersection food poverty and fuel (or energy) poverty has been largely neglected in academic literature. T...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10597304/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1080 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The UK news has been increasingly reporting of people forced to choose between “heating and eating.” The (self-)rationing of food and fuel has harmful health repercussions, yet the intersection food poverty and fuel (or energy) poverty has been largely neglected in academic literature. This study looks to triangulate reports from the UK news and stakeholders in food and fuel poverty (FFP) mitigation to determine and compare how FFP is framed relationally between the sources. METHODS: Using the Nexis Lexis database, we searched for UK news articles on FFP, published between January 2010 and April 2022. Stakeholders in the FFP mitigation space, identified via hand-searching grey literature and snowball sampling, were interviewed between April and June 2023. Twenty interviews were conducted, and 185 news articles were included. Relying on framing analysis, extracted news data fragments and interview transcripts were thematically coded, analysed, and triangulated. RESULTS: Three descriptive frames of FFP were inductively identified across both data sources: 1) FFP is experienced as “trade-off” - a choice between heating and eating; 2) FFP is experienced as “mutual cutbacks” - an effort to reduce both necessities; 3) FFP is “not distinct” - the problem is income poverty. A fourth frame, that FFP is “situational” - it does not involve decisions but is a situation people find themselves in, only emerged from interviews. The UK news most prominently framed FFP as a “trade-off” (70%), followed by as a “mutual cutback” (29%), and rarely as “not distinct” (1%). Whereas stakeholders largely framed the issue as “mutual cutbacks” (45%), followed by as a “trade off” (30%), as “not distinct” (25%) and as “situational” (10%). CONCLUSIONS: The varied and mismatched framings between the news and stakeholders suggests that FFP is complex and potentially poorly understood. Centring the framing of people with lived FFP experience may help towards meaningfully tackling FFP. KEY MESSAGES: • Food and fuel poverty (FFP) is largely framed differently between the UK news and FFP mitigation stakeholders. • Centring the framing(s) of people with lived experience may help towards tackling FFP. |
---|