Rhetorical Analysis Of Organic Farming

Many people believe that organic food is organic food and there is many differences to them. About 40% of people think this in today’s society. “ Only about 40% of Gen Xers believe that organic is organic…” ( Lazarus ). People who buy organic foods, buy it because it 's a healthier diet. “What you’re paying for, presumably, is a more healthful diet” ( Lazarus ).

Hypothesis: To determine whether to use organic or inorganic food and textiles based on their quality, price, effect on yourself and the environment. When our parents were younger, there was no choice when it came to buying organic food and textiles as food was produced with pesticides to increase the quantity and availability of agriculture. Nowadays, we do have a choice as more supermarkets, clothing stores and greengrocers stock organic food and textiles. Some people feel very strongly about what they eat and put in their bodies as well as how farming methods affect our environment and therefore buy organic products. Others do not feel that this is relevant and are not influenced by this research and continue to buy inorganic products,

In Chapters 8 and 9 of The Omnivore 's Dilemma, Pollan discovers what organic really means in an interesting way. Instead of reading about it like other people might do, he travels to farms and supermarkets. During his travels he comes across Big Organic, Industrial Organic, and other “organic” terms. Prior to reading these chapters, I did not realize that the government changed the idea of organic to meet the wants and needs of consumers. For example, some companies believe they are creating organic meat by feeding cows organic corn, but raise them under traditional conditions.

This is also a choice between efficiency, profitability, and environmental wellbeing, both in the short-term and long-term. This is a choice between providing consumers with pesticide-free food products versus pesticide-laden processed food products. Industrial food production started in 1947 when the chemical industry decided to shift their focus away from war-time technology to more peaceful applications, one of which was creating chemical fertilizers to help farmers in raising their crops. It was advertised that the synthetic fertilizers would allow farmers increase the fertility of their soil without the need

question. A strong suggestion Pollan encourages, to his readers, is gardening. Gardening soothes the soul, produces more local produce, and reduces ones ' carbon footprint according to Pollan. Throughout the article, Pollan shows he understands that to make a differnece about climate change it may be difficult and a long process but is possible. By adding humor, specific diction, and concessions Pollan can make his argument in why we, as a society, should bother to do something about climate change.

This side of the solution space is more difficult, because it must not only pass the bureaucratic barriers in the government (ie. differences in political parties’ motivations) but also socio-cultural barriers in society (ie. farmers adamant on sticking to “traditional” agricultural practices for preserving “olden times” or their ancestral ways of farming). Anusuya Rangarajan’s manual on crop rotation has a section called Crop Rotation Effects on Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition that explains the importance of the education of farmers on the first technical solution mentioned earlier, crop rotation. Through education on good farming techniques, farmers can make educated decisions on their crop rotation sequences and changes to their daily crop-tending practices to naturally maintain the soil’s fertility (Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education, 2012).

Farmers who choose to sustain the traditional way of farming techniques prefer to grow organic produce over genetically engineered crops while maintaining a successful business. Large corporations, on the contrary, benefit largely whilst using less energy by enduring larger profits with the aid of genetically modified food. Settling with locally produced organic produce is not only beneficial for consumer but also but also it could economically help hardworking local laborers(farmers) so that they may continue to grow and harvest their crops the way nature intended. Studies claim that biotechnology is no threat and are as safe, yet many questions remain in the minds of many consumers. Genetically modified foods are the new trend of a sustainable source of food and should be allowed in all countries because GMO’s are vastly comparable to

Both sides offer sound argument, however by analysing research and genetically modified food history, one can ascertain that genetically modified foods are proffering more solutions to issues in our world rather than creating them. Before one dives into the battle of good versus evil, one must first fully understand the concept of genetically modified foods. Genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) foods have been modified in order to develop favourable characteristics. Genes are transferred from various organisms to fruit and vegetable plants and are responsible for generating favourable characteristics, such as resistance to pests and insecticides (Milano and Carol, 2007: 8-11). Many people are pro GM foods due to their positive effects such as larger yields and decreased pesticide use, but not everyone is convinced.

It is also relevant to mention the USDA definition of April 1995: “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.” It is important to mention that organic agriculture is nothing new, it is traditional way of farming known for thousands of years, farming based on the forces of nature and in balance with nature. Obligation to preserve existing ecosystem was understood by generations and it is only quite recently when men in the name of progress started destroying its own chain of food supply and

It will help them to understand the Pros and Cons of GMO products. Mostly it will tell them what they are eating and where it is from in detail. It will also help to clearify of how harmfull some things can be for the body without even knowing about it. It will not just help the people but the government as well, to start labelling Food products properly and start promoting Organic growth at a larger scale. (K. Ismail, 2012) This research will become an understanding tool for the genenral public on the long term effects of GMO products.

Organic farming does not produce enough product as regular farming does. Pollan states, “A farm like Mark Heath’s simply can’t be reconciled to the logic of a corporate food chain” (224). Organic farmer’s focus is on the process of organically growing the potato crop, rather than growing large quantities. When discussing GMOs, he states “…genetic engineering is also a powerful technique for transforming plants into private property…” (Pollan 208). In other words, the potatoes no longer become a product of nature, but of human

We were asked to read two articles one was “On Buying Local” by Katherine Spriggs and the other was “What’s Eating America” by Michael Pollan. In the article “On Buying Local,” Spriggs showed a great use of logos when she stated that it was better for us to buy locally because it was better for the environment. Spriggs gives us several reasons why we should give up “a little bit of convenience” in favor of helping the environment. Farmers wouldn’t have to lose their farms to larger farms, smaller farms could be more sustainable by using natural and local resources, and there would be fewer emissions. This idea has been meeting with some opposition people worry of economic damage, but Spriggs has shown the argument and counterarguments with the proof of how the argument is flawed.

It is important for writers or anyone who makes a claim to provide reliable supporting details because it will make their claim effective and trustworthy. There are times where writers make try to make claim and it ends up lacking credibility which is what happened to an author named Michael Pollan when he tried to make a claim during an interview. Michael Pollan believes that it is best to take the organic route when it comes to food instead of eating food that is processed and he expresses this while in his interview on NPR’s Science Friday with Ira Flatow. In the interview he uses effective claims that have support, which include where he explains how Americans need to spend more time and money on food. Although he makes another claim that is not well supported where he explains how people should eat based on their past traditions.