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.
