Cassie and technological breakthroughs are really helping to sustain

Cassie McWhirtDr. Josh FullmanEnglish Composition II23 January 2018Rhetorical Standpoints on Food Sustainability      Food sustainability is squabbled about all over the world these days. You have American kids suffering from obesity because they are eating too much while the poor African farmer’s flesh is rotting off because he cannot access food. People nationwide and internationally are constantly trying to come up with solutions to make food easier to access. Many authors who write about this topic try to debate if the scientific and technological breakthroughs are really helping to sustain and produce organic foods while other writers argue that food should be produced naturally and more slowly. Authors, such as Robert Paarlberg and David Freeman, use rhetoric by using statistics, testimonies, and quotes to build arguments on how food sustainability can be improved with the use of technological advances.     First of all, Robert Paarlberg’s article “Attention Whole Foods Shoppers” addresses our misunderstandings about the worldwide food crisis, especially when it comes to a global financial standpoint. He believes that we as a nation excessively focus on international food costs, for one thing (Paarlberg 611). Paarlberg further explains that even though worldwide grain and wheat costs decreased by almost 50 percent from the highest point of inflation, we are too quick to conclude that the planetary hunger pandemic has reached its end. He argues in the beginning of his article that the costs of food alone do not dictate the state of the world’s hunger situation. In fact, he mentions that many isolated fieldworkers are casted away from the concern about food prices since they are far away from urban life. According to his statistics, over two-thirds of countryside families live over half an hour from the nearest thoroughfare. This traveling problem causes these households to fall below the poverty line and to run off of a severe food scarcity. Paarlberg suggested that extra water lines could be built off the grid to allow more access to water (Paarlberg 612). Paarlberg uses his argument effectively by trying to get the audience to believe that food sustainability is at its low partially because that farmers are not getting the resources they need to grow enough food to manufacture for society. After all, farmers need access to roads and water so that they can grow enough food and to be able to travel places in order to sell their crops at reasonable prices.     Secondly, Paarlberg points out that the industrialized and scientific manufacturing of food is key to making food more affordable and more edible. He is trying to prove that food costs would skyrocket and become less available as well as being less edible if the revolutionized system of making food was nonexistent (Paarlberg 612). Furthermore, he builds his argument by giving historical examples of how the newly invented technology yielded exponentially increased food production. One of his examples includes how the Green Revolution was a major success instead of a failure to lessen worldwide hunger. To further his example, he explained that Asia experienced a new technology that allowed more rice seeds to be cultivated in less fortunate nations. Focusing on India specifically, he stated that the percentage of countryside poor people plummeted from 60 percent down to a mere 27 percent as a result of the improved rice production (Paarlberg 613). This extremely amped up the rice production which lead to a much larger food production output. Paarlberg states, “In Asia these new seeds lifted tens of millions of small farmers out of desperate poverty and finally ended the threat of periodic famine.” After all, Paarlberg has given great examples to support his argument about how technological innovation has improved rice production which has severely improved the percentage of Indian families living in poverty.    Finally, Paarlberg concludes that technology does indeed boost food sustainability. He uses rhetorical appeals by showing possible examples of what food sustainability would be life without fast technology. He gives examples such as unrealistic goals for the planet if everyone ditched technology and switched to slow growing. Unfortunately, the “ditch and switch” method is not going to work out because he reasons that animals, in reality, could not produce enough waste to fertilize 100 percent of the world’s land for crops (Paarlberg 615). This was an example of him using pathos in order to get the audience to realize how much work it would take just to get the world to rely off of manual farming. He uses numbers to prove this point. As an example of his use of statistics, he says, “If Europe tried to feed itself organically, it would need an additional 28 million hectares of cropland, equal to all of the remaining forest cover in France, Germany, Britain, and Denmark combined” (Paarlberg 615). He tries to get the audience to visualize how much effort society would need to offer in order to rely off of farming alone for food sustainability. As a result of his evidence, he has successfully defended how technology is a must need in order for food to be sustained.     In David Freedman’s article “Are Engineered Foods Evil?”, he makes a claim which states that using technology and genetically modified foods will sustain the earth a whole lot more than having to solely rely on growing crops (Freedman 631). If we only grew crops naturally, the earth will have to produce a majority of the world’s food supply by 2050 in order to feed the exponentially growing human population (Freedman 632). According to Mark Lynas, who used to be against genetic modification, he pointed out that all infamous food-borne catastrophes have been linked to non-genetically modified crops (Freedman 634). Lynas’s conclusion bolsters Paarlberg’s argument which claimed that technological innovations in food manufacturing were essential into making food easier to buy and to eat safely. From Freedman’s article, he gave a good synopsis of why and how food engineering can make food more sustainable in the present and future.    To build off of Freedman’s argument, Ucilia Wang in her article “Will 2017 Be the Year We Get Serious About Sustainable Food?” expresses her concerns about how we will have enough food to sustain the rapidly expanding population over the next several years. Her article aims to convince fieldworkers to think about how switching from toxic fertilizer usage to natural food production can possibly jeopardize a farming company and could also decrease the output of food production. She states, “Organic farming also typically produces 10 percent to 20 percent less yields than conventional methods…”(Wang 1). On the other hand, Ucilia Wang shares John Reaganold’s testimony from his experience as a soil researcher. He claims that naturally grown crops are more valuable than genetically modified foods because more money will be made for the farmer. He further mentions that it boosts a farmer’s credibility because he is yielding safer foods (Wang 1). This article does support machine-made foods but also gives support to organic crop production. Reaganold further explains in Wang’s article, “… we need agricultural systems that come with a more balanced portfolio of sustainability benefits” (Wang 1). He concludes that we need to balance out the methods of food production because our rapidly growing human population is demanding the world’s climate and weather patterns to differ over time (Wang 1). In response to Reagonald’s conclusion, Paarlberg and Freedman’s arguments would outweigh his argument because they provide more background evidence about how the positive outcomes of technology overpower the advantages of manual farming.      Overall, Paarlberg successfully conveys his argument because all of the articles shown provide examples supporting technological use in food production. Not only that, but the world would have to set many unrealistic goals to sustain humanity if food was only grown from the ground. Many animals would have to be born faster than normal and tons of manure would have to be produced to fertilize the soil. Organic foods are a good use to society, but society as a whole cannot solely rely on natural growing to sustain such a ginormous population based on the arguments discussed in these articles.      ?Works CitedFreedman, David. “Are Engineered Foods Evil?” Everything’s An Argument With Readings, 7th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 630–638.Paarlberg, Robert. “Attention Whole Foods Shoppers.” Everything’s An Argument With Readings, 7th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 610–618.Wang, Ucilia. “Will 2017 Be the Year We Get Serious about Sustainable Food?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Jan. 2017,