Robert Paarlberg’s essay, “Attention Whole Foods Shoppers,” is an informative and argumentative piece about the hunger in the developing world and what should be done about it versus what is currently being done. While he agrees that the move for organic foods is led with good intentions, Paarlberg argues that it is only hurting these countries and causing them to not increase productivity and rely on developed countries for food aid. He develops his argument by using rhetorical devices like the appeals of pathos, logos, and ethos and also by the strong detail and outside sources he uses throughout the essay.

Paarlberg’s main argument in this piece is to invalidate the myth that increasing “sustainable” agriculture – “in other words, organic, local, and slow” (382), is the answer to lowering hunger and poverty in developing countries. He gives lots of examples of what is currently being done about the issue and how it is not effective to show the other side of his argument. By showing the counter argument, the author gives the reader background into the issue and allows the reader to see all the options and make a more clear and informed opinion on the issue. Paarlberg’s intended audience is normal, everyday people in developed countries that just go along with what celebrities and the elites of society say will help because they are uneducated on what would actually solve the issue of hunger in developing countries. When focusing on this large group, it is important for the author to give as much detail about the issue because most of the audience is uninformed and do not have a strong personal opinion on the matter. One of the strongest parts of his argument is showing all opinions of what should be done and countering them, like when he discusses the New York Times editorial by Robert Zoellick that “warned that high food prices would be particularly damaging in poor countries”(382) and then uses facts and details to show how international food prices have little to no effect on the agricultural production of poor countries in places like Africa and South Asia. He also discusses the common assumption that organic, sustainable agriculture is safer and healthier so it should be pushed more and then refutes it by giving statistics from places like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition to prove that this prevalent opinion is not true and is causing negative effects on productivity in developing areas (384;385).

The author establishes his credibility before the audience even begins reading the essay because of his extrinsic ethos. Robert Paarlberg is a Professor at Wellesley College and Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University which are two of the top universities in the United States. Paarlberg researches food and agricultural policy with a focus on farming technologies and poverty in the developing world so he could be considered an expert in this field and particularly on this topic. Knowing this before reading the piece gives the audience confidence that what the author is saying is true and accurate compared to just a random individual writing about their opinion on this issue. Paarlberg also establishes intrinsic ethos throughout the essay by building his character with good will and not harshly criticizing those with a different opinion than his. He states multiple times, including in the introduction, that those who support organic and sustainable agriculture and believe it is the solution are “full of good intentions” (382). He opposes their view on what should be done but he never bashes their character and makes it a point to continually say that he understands that they have good intentions and think that what they are doing is helpful. When talking about what would have to happen for all agriculture to become organic like some think is the solution, he says how there would have to be so much more land devoted to agriculture which would cause mass deforestation and then says “Mass deforestation probably isn’t what organic advocates intend.” By saying this, he is showing that he does not want to make the audience think that those who have different point of views than him are bad people but just uninformed. The author could have easily bad-mouthed these “organic advocates” but instead he helps his argument by establishing that he has good virtue.

Paarlberg uses forms of logic heavily throughout the essay to provide more information and detail for his argument. He uses multiple different sources to gather research information so he can give statistics to validate his points. For example, the author uses the results from a review of the “environmental performance of agriculture” published in 2008 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to prove that modernized farming technology is reducing the negative environmental impacts, like soil erosion and greenhouse gas emissions, that agriculture has on the world (386). Without these statistics and percentages, it would be easy for the audience to think that the author was making up the fact that new “techniques have significantly reduced the environmental footprint of modern agriculture relative to the quantity of food produced” (386) or that he was just saying this because he was unconcerned with well-being of the environment. Especially since most of the audience is probably very unknowledgeable about the topic and believes that what is being done currently is efficient because they just listen to what the celebrities and elites are saying about it, the abundant use of logos in this piece makes Paarlberg’s argument much stronger. By refuting what the audience thinks is working and giving logical and factual evidence to valid what he is saying, Paarlberg is able to convince his readers to believe him over the powerful, influential people who the audience originally and blindly got their information and opinion from.

Another technique that Paarlberg uses to capture and persuade his audience is the use of emotions to draw the reader in and feel more connected to the cause. The author uses logos to create pathos in the essay and cause the reader to feel sympathetic for the poor, hungry developing countries. The idea that organic farming is the answer is wrong because most farming in Africa is already organic since there is such a rare use of synthetic chemicals and the result is “average income levels of only $1 a day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished” (383). Although this is a detail of facts and numbers, it speaks to the readers’ emotions and develops sympathy for those starving people in Africa and appreciation for everything they are privileged enough to have. Paarlberg also generates a feeling of guilt in his audience for not being helpful in the food crisis. It is the duty of developed countries like the United States to help these poor countries but there has been “sharply diminished assistance from international donors” and places like Africa are not able to reach their full potential “because too little has been invested in reaching that potential” (387). The author causes the audience to take on a part of this responsibility and feel guilty for being uninformed and unhelpful to those starving in other parts of the world. 

Throughout the essay, Paarlberg uses many different forms of rhetorical strategies and some of the most prominent are his use of ethos, logos, and pathos. These devices are not mutually exclusive and all work together to make the argument stronger. Without these elements, the author would not have been as effective in persuading the audience to see the food crisis from is point of view and understand that what is currently being done is not efficient and something needs to change in order to end world hunger.
