This article explores the dynamics of a discursive contest between a “Real Food” frame in which, for concerned consumers and activists, processed food is an unhealthy product of a troubled food system, and a “Real Facts” frame in which, for food science and food industry advocates, processed food is a solution to the need to provide abundant, safe, and nutritious food. The analysis focuses on two school curricula that are vying to teach children “where food comes from.” I argue that the “food” in these two curricula is not the same thing. Within the Food, Inc. Discussion Guide, food is connection, responsibility, and politics. The Alliance to Feed the Future curricula respond with a strategic anti-politics of food, asserting that food can only be “what it obviously is” and framing Real Food's challenge as scientific and technical ignorance.

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.