Are the impacts of food systems on climate change being reported by the media? An Australian media analysis

The study addresses whether Australian media adequately reports the contribution of food systems to climate change. Despite food systems accounting for roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, public awareness of this link is low in Australia. Australia is a high per-capita emitter, with agriculture contributing significantly to national emissions, particularly from livestock methane. Media play a key agenda-setting role in shaping public understanding and influencing policy priorities. The authors posit that limited media coverage of food systems’ climate impacts may contribute to low public awareness and, consequently, limited policy action. The study aims to examine the extent and nature of Australian newspaper coverage of the relationship between food systems and climate change, including which components of food systems are portrayed as drivers of climate change.

Prior research has extensively examined media coverage of climate change in general, but few studies have focused on how media cover food systems’ contributions to climate change. Most existing analyses focus narrowly on livestock within food production and consistently find low coverage of animal agriculture’s role, with limited attribution of responsibility to governments or industry. One U.S. study found only 2.4% of climate articles mentioned food systems’ contributions (0.4% with substantial focus). Agenda-setting literature indicates media salience shapes public and policy agendas, suggesting that limited coverage can constrain policy action. There is a noted gap in Australian-specific research examining food systems’ contributions to climate change in the media, which this study addresses.

Design: Media content analysis of Australian newspapers. Data source: Factiva database. Timeframe: 11 August 2011 to 11 August 2021, selected to cover a full policy cycle and the period leading up to the IPCC Sixth Assessment. Outlets: Twelve high-readership Australian newspapers (The Australian, Courier Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Age, Herald Sun, The Sydney Morning Herald, Hobart Mercury, The Advertiser, Northern Territory News, The Guardian, Canberra Times, The West Australian). Both print and online versions were included. Search terms: climate change OR global warming OR greenhouse gas OR climate emergency OR climate risk OR climate crisis. Inclusion criteria: English language; news/opinion/blog/commentary; Australian newspaper; 11 Aug 2011–11 Aug 2021; ≥100 words; ≥50% of paragraphs related to climate change; title search to ensure relevance. Screening: EndNote X9 for collation and deduplication; replicate articles across newspapers retained; primary reviewer screened 100% and a second reviewer screened 10%; disagreements resolved by discussion. Coding and analysis: A coding framework (informed by prior research) was developed and iteratively refined via weekly team meetings. Data extracted included article metadata, mention and level of focus on food systems, whether food systems were framed as contributing to climate change (yes/no), and which food system components (production, processing, packaging/distribution, storage, preparation, consumption) were identified as contributors. Author 2 independently double-coded 10% at the end; coder agreement exceeded 95% for coding food systems as a cause of climate change and >70% for location of story; disagreements resolved in favor of the original coding; no changes required. Analysis comprised content analysis and descriptive statistics of frequencies and volumes over time and across topics.

- Total climate change articles identified: 2,892 (2011–2021). - Articles mentioning food systems (any context): 380 (13%). - Articles mentioning food systems as contributors to climate change: 144 (5%). Of these, only 17 articles (<1% of total) had more than three paragraphs substantially focusing on food systems’ contributions. - Articles mentioning the impact of climate change on food systems: 224 (8%). About 196 (~88%) discussed negative impacts on agriculture (farms, livestock, crops); 28 mentioned positive impacts (e.g., CO2 increasing crop yields). - Focus within the 144 contributor articles: 79% (114/144) highlighted food production (crops and livestock) as the main contributor; 21% (30/144) focused on food consumption (dietary choices and food waste). No articles identified processing, packaging/distribution, storage, or preparation as contributors. - Specific drivers emphasized: livestock/meat/dairy, especially methane from cattle, dominated mentions within production; for consumption, meat/dairy choices and food waste were most cited. - Temporal trend: climate change article volume increased over time with a peak in 2019; mentions of food systems and recognition of food systems as contributors followed similar trends. - Outlet patterns: The Sydney Morning Herald published the most climate change articles (n=590, 20%). Between 2014–2021, the number of articles acknowledging food systems as drivers was similar in The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald (29 vs 30, respectively). - Geographic focus: Most articles overall had a national focus (n=1,923; 66%); among the 144 contributor articles, 77% focused on Australia nationally, 10% international, and 5% on New South Wales.

The analysis shows that Australian newspapers provide limited coverage of food systems as a contributor to climate change, despite robust scientific evidence of substantial food system emissions. Coverage more often frames food systems as victims of climate change rather than drivers, potentially reflecting public sentiment and narratives valorizing agriculture and farmers. The emphasis on livestock methane in the limited coverage aligns with national emissions profiles, but important upstream and downstream components (processing, distribution, storage, preparation) are largely absent, suggesting an incomplete public narrative of food system emissions. Low media salience likely dampens public awareness and reduces pressure on policymakers, consistent with agenda-setting theory. Potential reasons for low coverage include governmental reluctance to regulate powerful agricultural interests, active climate skepticism among influential commentators, and competition from other major events (e.g., 2019 bushfires, COVID-19 pandemic). The findings underscore the need for coordinated efforts by public health and environmental advocates to engage media, provide compelling evidence and narratives, and broaden the framing of food system emissions to include both supply and demand-side actions.

Australian newspaper coverage of food systems’ contributions to climate change is limited, with only 5% of climate articles acknowledging this link and fewer than 1% offering substantial focus. When covered, attention centers on food production—especially livestock methane—while other components of the food system are overlooked. As media shape public and policy agendas, increased and better-framed coverage is needed to elevate the issue and spur policy action in a high-emitting country like Australia. The study contributes new, nationally-focused evidence over a decade across multiple outlets. Future research should analyze framing strategies, explore other media channels (TV, social media, digital-native platforms), and assess how different narratives influence public attitudes and policy responses.

- Reliance on headline/title searches may have missed relevant climate change articles mentioning food systems. - Double coding was conducted at the end of analysis and no formal statistical intercoder reliability measure (e.g., kappa) was reported, though agreement was high and disagreements were resolved by consensus. - The study focused on newspapers (print and online) and did not include other media (television, radio, social media, popular online-only news sites), potentially limiting generalizability across media ecosystems. - Data collection ended prior to additional coverage following the IPCC Sixth Assessment due to time constraints.