Rhetorical Analysis Of Beyond Organic By David Coleman

Organic is always associated with chemical-free production. However, does the word “Organic” on a label mean the product is indeed organic? Eliot Coleman in his article, “Beyond Organic”, published in December/January 2002 in the “Mother Earth News” magazine, claims that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has become a threat to the organic farmers. Coleman starts to grab readers’ attention with his personal experience, providing strong facts about organic food, and applying some emotional appeals; however, his audience is only convincing for organic farmers but not strong enough to convince the ordinary organic consumers.
He begins his text by explaining the definition of orthodoxy, and how it is related with the organic food production.

He casually states that he is really proud of his work after he starts to give point on the issue of how USDA invented the term organic in order to fit the marketing demand. He starts the new paragraph with “When I started as an organic grower 35 years ago…” (Coleman, 113). Not only that, he highlights his ethos appeal with this statement, “Each year I hope to do things better than I did last year because I will know Nature’s systems better” (Coleman, 114). This indicates that he is not only has many experience in organic field, but he is also an avid organic

He points out that “organic is now dead as a meaningful synonym for the highest quality food” (Coleman, 115). His tone in that statement portrays his disappointment towards USDA. Also, he is hoping that his fellow growers feel disappointed as he is. He is certainly claiming the USDA isn’t respecting their work by flipping the term “organic” into something marketable. If his audience were to have the same emotional sense about this situation they are in, they would support Coleman’s push for authentic food to become the new