The debate as to the superiority of organic food over the conventional ways of growing food, that is to say using pesticides and genetic enhancements, appears frequently in today's world and its growing desire for larger numbers of food Many question the logistics of whether or not organic food truly is healthier, cheaper, and overall better to produce food utilizing pesticides and chemicals as opposed to relying on Mother Nature's natural processes. Some fight to say that organic foods are far superior and help people maintain a healthier lifestyle while others say that non-organic food may not only be better but also far more nutritious and easier to grow. In an essay written by Morgan Bahl for the Iowa State Daily -- found through the Opposing Viewpoints in Context database -- the nature of these foods is put into question, favoring a side towards the non-organic foods. Through Bahl use of language, data, and structure, she manages to portray a fairly well crafted argument on why one should not fear non-organic food, relying primarily on logos.

Because the paper was written by a student, the language of the paper consists of a colloquial tone that appeals to the reader's ethos (in the sense that the readers will most likely be other college students, whom will better relate to another student's words rather than an unheard of professor). The language also holds a basic, to-the-point sentence attitude, avoiding using any jargon or terminology that may be unfamiliar for Bahl's target audience. An example can be seen here, "Really, eating healthy is about making the case for good food choices. Choose fruits and vegetables which are nutritious and protective, regardless of their processing methods," (Bahl). This helps make the data as easy to comprehend as it can be, making the logos shine through much more clearly and robustly. The structure also holds up firmly, as there are few paragraphs and mostly pieces and bits of sentences, similar to an article in a newspaper. It is not laid out paragraph-by-paragraph, rather it gives information in short bursts. This makes more sense from Bahl's perspective, given the target audience of college students. Out of context, a person could almost be seen presenting this argument to a good friend in just how friendly and lighthearted the text feels, giving some push to pathos in its amicability towards its reader. Plus, this helps make logos perform with more clarity, in that the readers will have a better grasp on the subject matter given the more affable tone. In a sort of compound effect, the writer also tries a few attempts at humor, writing, ""Normal" foods are healthy, nutritious and safe just as they are, which makes organic foods an unnecessary product choice. This is good news for many college students because they are also budget busters and we all know that none of us have the money for that," (Bahl). The humor can be seen targeting college students, and it is only used once or twice in the paper, again maintaining a mostly formal yet still jovial tone. In this regard, the argument being made is supported by the cordial nature and simplicity in its presentation.

With statistics from a reliable source such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Bahl manages to make a convincing argument against organic foods using strong statistics and data. For the most part, it discusses the very process in which farmers have to go through -- from the USDA -- in order to grow organic food itself. According to Bahl, seeing the setup of the process proves how difficult it is to grow the food, therefore it is much more expensive; this gives rise to logos, seeing as how why should we go for a process that is more expensive than the cheaper alternative that is already primarily in use. It also discusses pesticides, the opinions of experts in the field, and more, all to focus a strong point to anyone opposed to non-organic foods. Pesticide residue on non-organic food, "is so low that consumers are taking in less than 5 percent of the Acceptable Dietary Intake," (Bahl), which for logos means that the issue of leftover pesticide is rendered inapplicable as it holds such little bearing on the issues of health. The author also states, " ...  when we eat most non-organic foods, we are taking in 95 percent less [pesticide residue] than the amount we are able to ingest and be completely safe from harm," (Bahl), adding further support for her arguments against the arguments given from organic supporters to the issue of pesticides in the form of logos. In addition, she mentions how the label of "organically made" has been manipulated throughout the industry and that a label regarding organic foods, "give[s] no indication of food safety or nutrition," (Bahl). Logos becomes supported with this as one may question whether the food they see with the label is truly even organic in the first place, as if that is the case, they are both losing more money and gaining no extra health benefits. However, Bahl does not put forth convincing evidence or data to prove the fundamental point as to whether or not organic food is at all better than non-organic food. Bahl makes points and statements, yet she does not provide any key sources for the arguments she conjures up from them. Logos remains prominent, yet it may not hold as strong a punch as it would otherwise. It does quote a professor; however she appears to be from the same university that the student author is from, showing a lack in diversity in opinions, hence putting some question into ethos in the form of bias and therefore ethos. There is also some usage of pathos is seen through the healthiness or the "morality" of organic foods, but this is only a topic that Bahl merely touches upon for a brief moment. In the end, the data helps uphold the fundamental ideas behind this essay's purpose, however it feels a bit lackluster and could use more in order to truly enhance its points.

Finally, there is the matter of essay's layout and overall structure. The article flows from discussing the USDA to the organic label to the farming process itself. For the reader, this may provide a "detective" mindset; in other words, the writer questions where the issue might arise and goes from there (the USDA) and moves slowly down in structure in order to dig up the main issue -- organic foods, according to her research, do not seem to prove any more worthwhile than contemporary foods. With this mindset of "searching for the truth", the essay would be fitting for a college student, of whom most may be concerned more for how to save money as opposed to what is more healthy, considering student debt, loans, etc. It helps also in giving more logos, not only giving the explanations to its reader but also allowing readers to go through the same thought process that Bahl went through herself in conducting research. The essay, combining invented ethos and logos, gives college students a fairly simple yet educational view into the world of organic vs. non-organic, since most would not want to do a significant amount of research yet still may be curious to understand the differences in the two. Shifting from logos, pathos is utilized, again somewhat in conjunction with ethos, with an appeal to the fears that people may have over the pesticide on non-organic food, and to give a wise, warm sensation in making them feel confident that what they are being told is fact, despite how few sources it provides. The essay's main argument comes off as genuine and strong, yet it begins to have flaws once one questions its sources and where it got the key information that it gives. It does give strong points, but it gives such few sources that it is increasingly questionable as to whether those sources are bias or even flawed themselves.

In conclusion, the essay relies on language, data, and structure to propose that neither organic nor non-organic food has significantly more nutrition or health benefits than the other, utilizing logic and reason in order to prove its point. Although it does hold some ground, in the grand scheme of it all, the essay lacks any backbone to an otherwise decent argument. It feels warm and holds some weight, yet it lacks a plethora of sources or at least far more powerful sources. It attempts to make it up through a more hearty spirit and cheerful perspective, along with some attempts for a quick chuckle, yet it feels to fall apart, at least to a certain extent. For the common college student, it will probably prove strong, but for anyone who is better aware of the subject matter, they will most likely not completely concur with the article's center statements and question its legitimacy.

