The argument over whether organic food is healthier and more helpful than conventional food is related to its price and the farming practices used to cultivate particular foods. In the contemporary world, the argument about organic produce depends on a given ideology, principles of economics, and agricultural concepts. Although some view the concept as a strong delusion that tricks people into thinking that the more expensive, organic food is better for them, others believe it is an actual practice. In the article “Organic Fable,” Cohen used ethos, logos, and pathos to reveal his opinion and contract of organic foods effectively. He used facts and figures from reliable research to support his views. The findings from a study done by Stanford University were the main message of his argument against organic foods (Cohen, 2012). Therefore, Cohen successfully uses facts about organic produce to convince readers that they do not meet the needs of everyone.
Summary of the Article
In his article, Cohen emphasizes that there is little to no difference between organic foods and their conventional counterparts. He believes that organic has become an ideology rather than science propagated by society’s obsession with upper-middle-class individuals (Cohen, 2012). Cohen addresses the benefits of organic foods by claiming that they are better for human and soil health because the use of chemicals and pesticides is excluded from the cultivation process. On the contrary, he opposes that dangerous bacteria can contaminate organic foods and that not many people can afford them due to the high cost. In addition, Stanford University research claims that there is no difference between organic and non-organic foods in terms of nutrient value. As a result, Cohen believes that genetically modified food is the way because there is a need to provide adequate food to the growing world population.
Ethos
Cohen uses evidence from relevant sources to appeal to ethos and support his argument about organic foods. One of the sources includes four-decade research conducted by Stanford University (Cohen, 2012). The study reveals that organic food is not that different from regular ones in the market. The other source is research done by the Organic Trade Association to reveal that only 4% of the world’s market is served by organic produce. The studies were used to enhance the credibility and reliability of Cohen’s argument in the article. He wanted the readers to know that facts and statistics from reliable sources supported his opinions. In addition, Cohen used direct quotes to support and emphasize specific points in the article. Therefore, in the article, Cohens uses facts from research to support his position against organic food.
Logos
Cohen’s position is the comparison between organic products and regular ones. He talks about the advantages and disadvantages of organic foods. This is considered an appeal to the consumers’ logic because he wants the readers to compare and determine how organic food will affect them. He used the findings from Stanford University to show the audience that organic food is not different from others (Cohen, 2012). For example, the study found that organic is not more nutritious than others. In addition, he claims that organic food is somehow threatening to the poor because it provides lower yields, and there is a need for more food to feed more people (Cohen, 2012). Based on this, Cohen creates a framework that engages the readers throughout the whole reading of the piece. Thus, throughout the article, the readers are able to understand Cohen’s criticism of organic products due to their adverse impact on the poor and their inability to effectively the growing world’s population.
Pathos
Throughout the article, Cohen effectively makes an appeal to pathos through the use of emotionally-charged words. He says, “Organic has long since become an ideology, the romantic back-to-nature obsession of an upper middle class able to afford it and oblivious, in their affluent narcissism” (Cohen, 2012). Cohen reinforces the concept of unfairness by revealing to the readers that individuals in the upper middle class propagate organic foods because they cannot afford them rather than for their health benefits. He claims that with these foods, it would be possible to feed the whole world, especially the poor. These words evoke negative emotions about organic foods, making the readers sympathize with the poor. Therefore, Cohen could appeal to the audience’s emotions by using emotive words about organic produce.
Conclusion
Cohen makes a good argument about why there is a need to stop the push for organic foods because they are not sustainable. He gives some valuable information and facts from credible and reliable sources that people should consider prior to supporting the production of organic foods instead of conventional ones. Cohen uses rhetorical tools such as pathos, ethos, and logos to help make his case. For example, he employs ethos by presenting facts from Stanford University’s findings to contradict the sole production of organic products. Therefore, the readers can understand that although organic foods are good for human health and the environment, they cannot meet the demand and are costly to most people, particularly the poor.
Reference
Cohen, R (2012).The organic fable. The New York Times. Web.