A Rhetorical Analysis

A Rhetorical Analysis
Today’s economy and the environment are hurting due to the lack of nurture we have been providing. Conventional farming rules the world of agriculture, but not without a fight from organic farming. Organic farming is seen as the way of farming that might potentially nurture our nature back to health along with the added benefit of improving our own health. With her piece “Organic farming healthier, more efficient than Status Quo,” published in the Kansas State Collegian on September 3, 2013, writer Anurag Muthyam brings forth the importance behind organic farming methods. Muthyam is a senior at Kansas State University working towards a degree in Management. This piece paints the picture of how organic farming methods

are better for everywhere and everyone as whole.
With conventional farming methods comes an abundance of food, sold relatively cheap, that are Genetically Modified Organisms.

A gene used for pest control, Bt, has infected these foods. You would never know this gene existed because it’s not included in the label. Organic foods are specifically labeled as organic whenever you may find them at a grocery store or elsewhere. These foods are known as being essentially grown in healthy soil, in other words, a soil that isn’t infected with poisonous, synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, or fungicides. Although organic foods are more expensive, it is only the result from the frequent crop rotations completed by the farmers during long, hot hours under the sun. Conventional farming methods destroy topsoil whereas organic farming can improve the overall health of the topsoil. Farmers who partake in organic farming view it as feeding the soil and not the plants. Due to this thinking method, a healthy soil provides healthy plants, healthy people and a healthy environment. Organic farming has the ability to feed an entire population and put an end to starvation. The dangerous pesticides that are added with conventional farming are outdated and risky to mankind. Relying on synthetic fertilizers and chemicals are paralyzing our

ecosystem.
In her article “Organic farming healthier, more efficient than Status Quo,” author Anurag Muthyam asks conventional farmers in the Midwest to adopt organic farming methods to improve overall health. Muthyam’s audience may be a little skeptical with her lack of ethos and logos, but her pathos is strong throughout the article.
Muthyam presents a well-written, grammatically correct article. When one examines Kansas State University, we can conclude someone who goes to an agriculture-based school should acquire some credibility when speaking about farming methods. She is hard-driven and focused on building organic farming to be viewed as the best way of farming but lacks focus on a fair amount of attention towards conventional farming.
Although Muthyam clarifies what her article main claim is consistently throughout the paper, some of the reasons and support come off a little dry. She states, “organic methods are even capable of producing higher yields than those of conventional farms” (Muthyam 3) leaving the audience to observe a ghost number. If she were to provide these statistics, it would help her build a stronger logical appeal.
Muthyam invites her audience to explore the philosophy of organic farming. “Feed the soil, not the plants” (Muthyam 5) sums up how a healthy soil results in the greatest overall health. She is stating here that the first step to providing a healthier environment starts with farmers producing the healthy soil that is required for organic farming methods. To help with her logos, Muthyam uses a study done by Cornell University that discovered a $40 billion annual loss from the chemicals used alongside conventional farming.
She effectively demonstrates emotional appeal throughout the article when mentioning the bad health of topsoil, starvation, and contaminated ground water.

Muthyam’s article states, “conventional farming’s dependency on chemical fertilizers destroys topsoil,” (Muthyam 4) and without healthy topsoil we can never produce more antioxidants or carbon. The increased production of these elements could alleviate climate change. The human beings who feel strongly about the climate change issue would be challenged on their “Bt gene” eating habits. Muthyam makes the reader think twice about buying conventional farming products because they are contributing to the problem presented. No one likes to hear about others starving which strikes the reader when they read organic farming can feed masses. The article states “we could feed our entire population through urban agriculture alone” (Muthyam 6). She also refers to the chemicals and synthetic fertilizers as being poison, which gets people double-taking their decisions to consume these conventional products. Consumers of conventional produce wouldn’t consider eating a product if it was directly labeled as

poison.
Muthyam didn’t fully develop the issues she brings up and leaves the reader with many questions rather than a change of heart. I am interested in a few questions myself. How much more yield is being produced compared to conventional farming? If organic farming is so beneficial then why is conventional farming still dominating the agriculture world? If these synthetic fertilizers and chemicals are so harmful to our health, then why are they legal to use? There is room within the article to elaborate more regarding these raised questions. A majority of the article relies on scattered facts without supporting details mentioned to make organic farming look better. She could further her persuasion by touching base on how eating organic foods can improve our health.
Although Muthyam presents a one-sided argument, this argument introduces organic farming, raises awareness towards solving hunger, water pollution, and the overall health of the ecosystem, and directs the conversation to toward a productive end on achieving a better status of health. It may not fully convince the entire audience to change their farming ways but it has the potential to get them thinking about it. With a stronger ethos and logos, the article could possibly change the agriculture world for good.