In the past two decades, Americans has developed a new attitude when it comes to
the food they buy and consume. With the growing popularity of stores like Whole Foods
combined with Michelle Obama's recent push for organic ecofriendly products, people
are leaning more towards organically produced food and less towards modern day
conventional food technology. These new technologies in the food industry include
modernized seeds, advanced chemical fertilizer, and larger farms. In Robert Paarlberg's
essay 'Attention Whole Food Shoppers' published in the 2010 May/ June edition of
Foreign Policy Magazine he argues that although getting your produce from organic local
farms has good intentions in reality it is having a larger negative effect globally. This
issue applies specifically to poverty stricken areas in under developed countries such as
Africa. America's focus has shifted from wanting to help end world hunger to wanting to
producing more 'sustainable' (Paarlberg 147) products and as a result actually made the
world hunger problem worse in several countries. Paarlberg believes the whole food diet
isn't as simple as many americans believe it to be and wants to make his readers aware of
that through his essay and succeeds in doing so.

Robert Paarlberg is professor of political science at Wellesley College in
Wellesley, Massachusetts and is an associate at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center
for International Affairs. He is also the author of multiple books including, Food Politics:
What Everyone Needs to Know, and Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being
Kept Out of Africa. His background is in Political Science and it is evident to anyone who
knows his name or is in the field of Political Science that he is very intelligent and has
good sense in what he is talking about. He draws on his situated ethos with his audience
by publishing his essay in a foreign policy magazine, which is read by people who have a
general interest and knowledge in what he is talking about. Therefor many readers will be
able to recognize his name and know that he is well educated in his field. Convincing his
readers that he is well educated on the issue at hand is not an issue. But, what is important
in his essay is that he gains the readers trust and establishes that he has goodwill
intentions with his argument against the whole food movement.

One way that Paarlberg helps to invent good virtue is although he is arguing
against the organic food supporters he does so in a respectful way. He states, 'There are
other common objections to doing what is necessary to solve the real hunger crisis. Most
revolve around caveats that purist critics raise regarding food systems in the United States
and Western Europe. Yet such concerns though well- intentioned, are often misinformed
and counter productive ' especially when applied to the developing world' (149). The
way that he words his an his opponents arguments does a lot to enhance his goodwill. By
arguing in a respectful way Paarlberg avoids anyone who is an organic food advocate
having any hostile feelings towards his essay. Rather than attack their logic and ideas
about local farming he simply states his own facts and reasoning about the industrial food
system and about the negative impact organic food has on underdeveloped countries such
as Africa and Asia. By simply stating facts that support his argument rather than
attacking the opposing side's views it helps any reader who is supporting the opposing
argument consider his facts and ideas because they aren't attacking their own.

Once Paarlberg has established his ethos with his audience he relies on a
substantial amount of reasoning to back up his argument against the whole food shopping
and conventional farming movement. Paarleberg draws on scientific reasoning for a
substantial amount of his argument. Scientific reasoning is extremely beneficial to
supporting his cause because the facts are demonstratively true and one cannot argue
against facts being wrong. An example of this is when Paarlburg reflects back on previous
effort to help reduce the world hunger crisis led by the American scientist Norman
Borloaug in the nineteen sixties and seventies. Borloaug and his team brought in new
advanced farming technology to underdeveloped and famished areas in Africa and India.
Paarlburg states that the results were extremely positive for most of the countries. 'India,
for instance doubled its wheat production between 1964 and 1970 and was able to
terminate all dependence on international food aid by 1975' (146). By using indisputable
facts in his argument readers are more likely to side with his argument because there is no
room for disagreement.

Paarlburg also uses false reasoning in his essay but only when referring to points
made by the supporters of the traditional farming and food methods. Paarlburg brings up
the point that the supporters for organically grown foods feel that the conventional food
system is unappealing and therefor must be unhealthy and bad for them. Their premise
comes from false reasoning, because although the way traditional food is made in is less
appealing than that of a farm it is actually not bad for us. This new technology is in fact
more sanitary than products that come from a smaller local farm. Supporters of organic
foods just assume that because the food is made in a less attractive way that it must be
unsafe for us to eat, and this is in fact false reasoning. Paarlburg then counter acts this
statement by using some scientific reasoning to back up his ideas and says although the
modern way of food has 'unappealing aspects'(149) it is actually safer for us to eat than
the food grown on farms. ' Traditional food systems lacking in reliable refrigeration and
sanitary packaging are dangerous vectors for diseases. Surveys over the past several
decades by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention have found that the U.S. food
supply became steadily safer over time, thanks in part to the introduction of industrial-
scale technical improvements. Since 2000, the incidence of E. Coli contamination in beef
has fallen 45 percent' (149). Paarlburg's numbers and statistics speak for themselves and
leave little room for a counter argument by the opposing side. By counter acting a
opposing views false reasoning with his own scientific reasoning Paarlburg created a
stronger argument for himself.

Lastly Paarlburg uses Pathos to ultimately make his argument successful.
Paarlburg understands that most people are compassionate individuals who genuinely
want to help others if they can. He also knows that world hunger is an extremely sensitive
subject that is very emotionally moving. He uses this to his advantage because human
compassion should overcome a consumers desire for organic foods. Paarlburg states that
recently in Europe and the United States of America these 'elite circles'(148) of people
have emerged and are opposed to sending those in need of food in Africa improved seeds
and fertilizers because they are not organic. They believe that 'sustainable food must be
organic local and slow' (148). But, Paarlburg tells his audience that Africa has been
trying this method for years and it doesn't work. Many African farmers do not have
access to chemical making their food in fact organic; similar to the movement that
Americans have recently been trying to enforce. Paarlburg informs his audience that
organic farming in Africa has lead to high transportation costs that force the people of
Africa to sell almost all their food locally and that the preparation for food is painfully
slow. This process results in an average income of a dollar a day for the average African
farmer and they then have a one in three chance of being malnourished. These are
staggering facts about what the local farming movement has done for the people of
Africa. To most audiences this would make them feel sorry and want to help the people of
Africa by not enforcing the movement of locally grown foods overseas. By stating facts
that would hit the hearts of his audience he helps to further his point that locally grown
and organic farming may not necessarily be good.

Paarlburg throughout his essay uses Ethos, Logos, and Pathos to help further his
argument with his audience. By establishing a good demeanor in his essay followed by
scientific reasoning and emotionally moving information he is able to produce a very
successful argument against the Whole Foods movement in America.
