In this informative essay, Robert Paarlberg uses several
rheotorical techniques including pathos, ethos and logos to try and
advance his argument. He writes about the misinterpretations of the
benefits of organic food and the distorted maneuvers the United States
is using in attempt to appease hunger in third world countries.
Paarlberg claims that by simply changing our diet to all organic and
sending large food quantities to starving populations is not only not
solving the problem, it's holding back agricultural potential in those
countries. Because international rice and wheat prices have fallen over
40%, Paarlberg says we too quickly assume that the hunger crisis is
over. The fact he is trying to get us to see is that 850 million people
were starving before the price spike and now the number is larger due
partially to global recession. We are blinded by International Market
stats when really the majority of the undernourished live in Africa and
South Asia and are not even within reasonable walking distance of
marketplaces so they are cut off from being apart of the statistics.
Hunger is a major world issue and Paarlberg gives us plausible
solutions in his essay.

Paarlberg utilizes pathos in how he uses harsh but passionate
and endearing language to energize the reader and allow them to
develop a heart for the cause. He highlights the extreme poverty,
'Poverty, caused by the low income productivity of farmers' labor- is
the primary source of hunger in Africa, and the problem is only getting
worse. The number of food insecure people in Africa (those consuming
less than 2,100 calories a day) will increase 30 percent over the next
decade without significant reforms, to 645 million, the U.S. Agriculture
Department projects.' (Paarlberg, 148). By Paarlberg sense of urgency
the audience can really start to connect with the realness of the issues
and perhaps their ignorance on the topic. By providing logic and
statistics that support Paarlberg's claim that the 'organic and slow'
food movement is not solving any problems with regards to hunger.
This should invoke a passion and a guilt within the readers to want to
implement systems around the world that will help feed the starving.

The problem, according to Paarlberg, lies completely in the
agricultural systems. He uses logical facts (logos) to persuade the
audience that his viewpoint is accurate and something should be done
differently.

Robert Paarlberg is getting the attention of 'Whole Food
Shoppers' by enlightening them on the truth behind the organic food
movement. Paarlberg claims in his argument against the 'local, slow
and organic' food talk (advertised to western consumers) that organic
processing of food is not solving the world's problems of hunger.
Paarlberg addresses how western consumers are convinced that if they
change their shopping and eating habits, they are making a conscious
effort to prevent world hunger in the process. Although he recognizes
that these organic loving people have good intentions, Paarlberg uses
forceful facts to back up the harsh reality that America is neglecting to
give struggling third world countries the necessary tools to reach their
full potential in terms of agricultural success. He mainly uses logos
(deductive reasoning based on a sequence of facts) to amplify his
beliefs about solving world hunger. He breaks down the reasons why
simply aiding suffering countries with food supply and attempting to
make organic food popular isn't going to solve the real issues. The real
problem is that starving countries are not being supplied with the tools
to reach their potential in agricultural success.

Paarlberg comes at this issue in full force, talking about how
wrongly we have handled this issue and how we need to wake up and
realize that our efforts could be greater and solving the issue would be
easy. 'Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant
owners are repeating the mantra that 'sustainable food' in the future
must be organic, local and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already
has such a system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in
Africa use any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic.
High transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of
their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The result is
nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a day and a one
in three chances of being malnourished.' (Paarlberg, 3). Paarlberg
wants us to see that organic food is so high maintenance to prepare
and the quantity produced is so low and it takes so much time that it's
not even worth the quality because once these African farmers have
the food they don't have money left over for transportation costs so
they sell it locally and end up gaining almost nothing in profits. Organic
food is not helping, it's hurting. This is proven through the
implementation of logos; scientific fact and deductive reasoning;
synthetic chemicals speeds up production process, but in order for food
to be organic, farmers can't use them and as a result it's a reduction in
quantity and greater hunger.

This article also touches on the myths regarding organically
processed food verses the traditionally processed food.

The argument against traditional food systems is not very strong
anymore. They used to be attacked for their lack of sanitation and
refrigeration. However, with much help from the Centers for Disease
control and Prevention, they saw that the quality of food production
grew steadily safer and more sanitary over time. This was mainly
because of the implementation of industrial scale technical
improvements. 'Since 2000, the incidence of E coli contamination in
beef has fallen 45 percent, today in the United States, most
hospitalizations and fatalities from unsafe food come not from sales of
contaminated food but rather from the mishandling of or proper
preparation of food inside the home.' (Paarlberg, 149). The danger
factor exists because of mistakes made after processed food is
purchased, not because of contamination or food processing gone
wrong. This is not a problem in the US, but it is a major problem in
Africa and Asia where food is still purchased in open air markets where
food is typically uninspected, unwashed, unlabeled, unrefrigerated
unpasteurized, and unpackaged (Paarlberg, 150). Without us, the
privileged reaching out and implementing our systems, these countries
won't be able to improve or develop on their own. Nonetheless,
Paarlberg, continues to persuade his audience that people who argue
that organic food will save us have no real substance to back it up
anymore because traditional food systems are faster and safer than
ever. He also delves into some serious facts about why the organic
process could hurt us if we made it a first priority. Let's take a look.

First of all professionals reject the claim that organic food is any
safer than traditional food due to pesticide residues. More importantly
Paarlberg continues to use logos as he argues against the reliability of
organically grown food. 'Here's why: less than 1% of American
cropland is under certified organic production. If the other 99 percent
were to switch to organic and had to fertilize crops without any
synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, that would require a lot more composted
animal manure. Top supply enough organic fertilizer, the US cattle
population would have to increase by roughly fivefold. And because
those animals would have to be raised organically on forage crops,
much of the land in the lower 48 states would need to be converted to
pasture. Organic field crops also have lower yields per hectare. If
Europe tried to feed itself remaining forest cover in France, Germany,
Britain, and Denmark combined. Mass deforestation probably isn't
organic advocates intend.' (Paarlberg, 150). Right there in that quote
demonstrates brilliant logos. Paarlberg is offering up the most explicit
facts to show his audience what they don't see when they listen to
organic ads on television or buy their organic products at whole foods.
He is showing them what is the real result of organic fielding.

That will not help poor countries- it will slow them down and take
them out. Traditional food systems need to be implemented. Too little
has been invested in reaching the agricultural potential of South Africa
and Asia. To keep sending food in mass amounts not only keeps these
countries starving but it's also more money to keep spending rather
than if we just implemented the systems, these countries could learn
and become self sufficient so our funds would be saved and our long
terms dreams of ending world hunger would be taking gigantic leaps in
the right direction.
