Analysis Of Attention Whole Foods Shoppers By Robert Paarlberg

It is one of the most “in” types of food today: organic. After a century of agriculture advancement, many Americans are trying to turn away from food produced by modern farming practices, to naturally and locally produced foods. Meanwhile, across the world, millions in poverty are starving to death. In the past, the way to solve this problem was to give farmers access to modern seed and practices. Yet today, because of its increased unpopularity, this solution is not being pursued. In “Attention Whole Foods Shoppers,” Robert Paarlberg claims that the way to solve world hunger is through modernization. Paarlberg uses convincing statistics, logic, and writing style to back his argument that modern farming practices are the answer to world hunger.

The use of statistics was Paarlberg’s most common defense of his argument, and they were very effective in getting his point across.

In his introduction, he argues that international food prices do not necessarily effect the poor and malnourished people in the world. He reveals that, even though rice prices have fallen 40 percent since a price spike in 2008, the number of undernourished people have increased from the 850 million who were victims of hunger in 2008 (611). Later, as he attempts to prove that modern farming techniques have helped poor countries in the past, he gives the example of India. In the 1960s, high-yielding wheat and rice seed were introduced many poor countries. In India, wheat production doubled between 1964 and 1970, and by 1975, it had ended its dependence on international food aid (613). To show that modern farming is becoming more environmentally friendly, he writes that even though food production went up 5 percent in modernized

countries, soil erosion fell, and greenhouse gas emissions from farming declined 3 percent (616). Paarlberg, by using statistics, was better able to invalidate the opinions of his opponents, and the opinions of his audience. Many were exposed to a view that international markets effect the victims of world hunger, or that modern farming is a horrible system that hurts the poor and the environment. Yet these statistics invalidate these views, and support Paarlberg’s claims. No matter how strongly you feel about something, you can’t throw away the statistics. Paarlberg, like anyone else, has opinions, but by using statistics, he could show that his had a basis, and show that opposing opinions must deal with these statistics that paint a different picture.
Paarlberg negated opposing arguments and beliefs by using logic. As he introduces the topic, he turns the romanticized view of organic farming upside down. He gives the pro-organic members of his audience a rude awakening: “Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating the mantra that ‘sustainable’ food in the future must be organic, local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a system, and it doesn’t work” (612). Paarlberg uses very simple logic. In rural Africa, farmers have no access to modern farming practices, seed, and transportation, and have high poverty and malnutrition rates. How can “sustainable” farming be so great, if it doesn’t work in Africa? Another place where Paarlberg logic is very strong is towards the end. He discusses the current strategy of the U.S. to combat hunger in Africa, which is, instead of developing Africa’s infrastructure and farms, to give more food aid. He explains that this doesn’t help farmers’ productivity, and creates long-term dependency (617). This is very logical, because giving food to people doesn’t teach them how to make the food themselves, but instead makes them used to receiving food. The use of logic often puts the pieces together. Paarlberg could have written more statistics, but instead, he tries to speak to the minds of his audience. Statistics, and other facts can give us a picture of the true state of a situation or concept, but logic will tell us how and why the picture looks like this. Paarlberg’s logic would have explained to his audience why Africa’s hunger problem is so bad. It is not simply because they don’t have enough food to go around. The root of the issue is that they do not have the ability to mass produce food like we do.
Paarlberg’s writing style was appropriate for his audience. His article is filled with descriptive facts and explanations. In his introduction, he defines what “food insecure” people are, which are those consuming less than 2,100 calories a day (612). When discussing synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, he described their environmental effects. This fertilizer had polluted rivers and areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and many had called for it to be banned. But Paarlberg reveals environmental facts that show the shocking effects of a ban on synthetic chemicals. It could cause mass deforestation, since more land would be necessary for the cows that produce the manure that farmers would replace their fertilizer with (615). By the title “Attention Whole Foods Shoppers”, we know his audience were American consumers who had fallen in love with organic food, and would scrutinize food items for their nutritional value and health benefits. Paarlberg’s article was written like a nutrition label. It is filled with numbers and facts that would draw the attention of his audience, just like the numbers on a nutrition label. Most importantly, for almost every concept discussed, he discussed its environmental effects. Paarlberg’s audience were very concerned about their impact on the environment, and desired to avoid anything that hurt it. Paarlberg could not simply justify modern farming by the fact that it produced more food. To account for this, he made his argument eco-friendly by showing what he was arguing for actually helped the environment.
Through his use of logic, statistics, and writing style, Robert Paarlberg proves that modernized farms are the only effective way to solve world hunger.

It is easy in first world countries like America to forget that the problems we face are nowhere near as serious as the problems faced by those starving in extremely poor areas throughout the world. While we worry about the unhealthy products we might receive for $5 at McDonald’s, someone in Africa has spent a whole day working, hoping to feed his or her family any scraps of food they can. We also forget how we got here. Our country had to go through a food revolution so that we could produce the amount of food we do today. This included the construction of factories and roads, the development of advanced farming methods and improved seed. We cannot expect Africa to become food independent without a similar revolution. This revolution requires more than just food aid. Currently, the international community has been giving more to places like rural Africa than it has received. This is because we aren’t giving knowledge, or something that lasts. What we have given is temporary and short term. If we invest long term in these poor areas lacking modern knowledge, one day, not too far in the future, places like rural Africa will become contributing members of the international

community.