Agri-food crises and news framing of media: an application to the Spanish greenhouse sector

The study examines how general European media reflect agri-food crises and how media framing can damage the image and reputation of the Spanish greenhouse horticulture sector, particularly around health standards and sustainability. It compares press coverage with sector perspectives and academic research to assess whether media source selection and framing contribute to crisis emergence or propagation. The case focuses on Almería’s greenhouse horticulture, which has faced historic issues (e.g., pesticides, environmental degradation) and reputational shocks (e.g., 2011 E. coli misattribution). Despite sectoral reforms such as rapid adoption of Integrated Pest Management, negative perceptions persist among consumers. The paper aims to determine whether the sector’s damaged external image derives from negative news that neglects solutions and verifiable sector or academic evidence, and proposes a proactive monitoring and control scheme to mitigate framing-induced image crises.

The conceptual framework draws on Framing Theory (FT), which posits that the presentation of information influences public understanding and reactions. Frames arise through inputs (ideologies, media characteristics), processes (journalists’ construction and source selection), and outcomes (public perceptions). Prior work shows newspaper characteristics shape source use; larger outlets use more scientists, and coverage often emphasizes controversy and negative messages. In agri-food, crises are urgent, uncertain events with economic and reputational impacts; food safety incidents can escalate rapidly, as in the 2011 German E. coli outbreak misattributed to Spanish produce. Media framing has influenced sectoral outcomes in cases such as BSE and red meat consumption. Both unintentional food safety incidents and intentional food fraud can heighten risk perceptions and depress demand when media amplify limited or biased information. Beyond safety, crises also stem from perceptions of environmental and social externalities, potentially threatening sector viability. The literature notes consumer reliance on media and intermediaries for risk assessment, the politicization of topics like GMOs, and the potential for media bias or smear campaigns to shape narratives. Overall, the review supports investigating how media frames, source choices, and ideology can precipitate or amplify agri-food image crises.

The study followed four steps: (1) General press review: A targeted compilation of European media news on the Spanish greenhouse sector using European Newsstream (search terms: “Almeria AND greenho*”, yielding 19 documents) and press materials from sectoral associations (APROA, HortiEspaña; 30 references). After combining and screening, 34 items were retained, plus 2 from Google News, for a total of 36 news items. Framing Theory guided the identification of recurrent frames indicating unresolved issues. (2) Systematic literature review: Searches in Web of Science and Scopus for 2010–2020 using [Almería* AND Susta* AND Agri* OR greenho*] (Abstract, Topic), supplemented via snowballing and Google Scholar for gray literature. Following a PRISMA-like process, from 146 initial references, 42 publications were included (fields: Ecology, Agriculture, Science & Technology, Water, Energy, Business/Economics, Engineering). (3) Sector perspective: In-depth interviews with directors of APROA and HortiEspaña gathered counterarguments and sector data, corroborated with official statistics and specialized literature; iterative cross-checking with news and academic sources aimed to identify biases by contrasting frames with sector and academic viewpoints. (4) Model proposal: Based on findings, a proactive crisis detection and management model (PCDM) was developed for sectoral application to detect, monitor, and respond to framing-driven crises. Figures 2 and 3 summarize the review and methodology.

- Press coverage and topics: Analysis of 36 media items shows a predominance of negative frames, emphasizing social issues (e.g., immigrant working conditions) and environmental concerns (e.g., plastics, water use), while pesticide-related health topics diminished after 2011. Over the past decade, only a single RASFF incident related to pesticides (melons) was noted. - Source usage in news (indicative shares from analyzed items): interviews with migrant workers (26%); indirect sources/compilations of existing news (16%); farm owners (12%); cooperative representatives (12%); NGOs and migrant unions (14%); academic sources/experts (7%); local/regional government (7%); NGO reports (2%); with some items based on personal opinion or unclear sourcing. This suggests partial and selective use of academic or official sources. - Temporal relation: A broadly similar evolution between the number of scientific articles (2010–2020) and press news exists, with a surge in academic outputs (2018–2020), potentially reactionary and largely authored by local universities supportive of the greenhouse system. - Academic literature balance: Research documents both criticisms and improvements. Negative findings include substandard social conditions for immigrants, environmental degradation, excessive agrochemical use, and adverse synergies of intensive models. Positive findings note advances in IPM adoption, certifications, water efficiency, waste management, and cooperative-based socio-economic benefits; however, integrative, cross-dimensional sustainability analyses are scarce. - Geographic/media bias patterns: Negative and biased opinions are more evident in media from countries with competing greenhouse production (France, Netherlands). German and British coverage appears influenced by strong environmental NGOs. In Spain, outlets with more progressive or liberal editorial lines tend to oppose the sector more. Overall, news framing skews negative compared to a more balanced academic view. - Information asymmetry: Positive sector achievements (e.g., IPM leadership, certifications, water footprint reductions, waste revalorization, cooperative social models) are more often reported in local/specialized media and rarely reach general international outlets, reinforcing asymmetry between producers and consumers. - Implications: Biased media framing can harm sector image, demand, and economic viability; more balanced sourcing, inclusion of sector perspectives, and proactive communication of verifiable improvements are needed.

The findings support the hypothesis that media framing—shaped by source selection, ideology, and market contexts—can create or amplify agri-food image crises independent of objective conditions. While academic literature presents both critiques and documented improvements in the Spanish greenhouse sector, general media coverage tends to emphasize negative aspects and underrepresent sector-led solutions and verified data, sustaining information asymmetries. This imbalance can influence consumers’ perceptions and purchasing, especially in sensitive contexts like food safety and sustainability. The study argues that mass media should systematically seek contrasting sector and academic viewpoints and benchmark across comparable production systems to reduce bias. From the sector side, sustained, proactive, and evidence-based communication is essential to bridge gaps, counteract recurrent negative frames, and foster informed public judgments. The proposed proactive crisis detection and management model (PCDM) operationalizes these insights: classify potential image-threatening crises; monitor indicators (including media frames); diagnose chronic versus acute issues; implement corrective actions (short- and medium-term); redefine long-term production practices where needed; develop scientific arguments validating improvements; contrast with opposing views and external benchmarks; and engage in stable, multimodal communication targeting end consumers. Such integrated, proactive strategies can mitigate framing-induced crises and strengthen sectoral resilience.

The concept of agri-food crisis has expanded beyond food safety to environmental, social, and economic domains, all of which shape consumer perceptions and sector reputations. In an increasingly complex media environment, biased information can trigger or intensify crises. In the Spanish greenhouse horticulture case, general media often draw on previously raised academic topics but present a predominantly negative bias, rarely incorporating verifiable sector perspectives available in official and academic sources. To counter information asymmetry and enable consumers to form objective opinions, producers and sector associations should adopt a Proactive Crisis Detection and Management (PCDM) approach: detect and classify image-related crises, develop indicators and diagnoses, implement corrective and structural improvements, validate changes with scientific evidence, benchmark against other production contexts, and maintain stable, consumer-facing communication (including social media). Media outlets, in turn, should incorporate sector viewpoints and comparative contexts to reduce subjectivity. The methodology and model proposed here can be extended to other agri-food sectors facing similar reputational pressures.

The study addresses a complex, multi-dimensional issue that requires integrating economic, sociological, journalistic, agronomic, and environmental perspectives. It focuses on greenhouse horticulture in southeast Spain, which may limit generalizability. Access to some sector-provided press collections was confidential, and media content analyses rely on available items and documented sources, which may omit unpublished or paywalled materials. Additionally, while academic and sector views were contrasted, comprehensive, integrative sustainability assessments remain limited in the literature, suggesting the need for broader cross-dimensional studies.