Running head: ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?

Organic Food: What are you Truly Paying For? Annotated Bibliography
Allison T. Cadematori
James Madison University

ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?

Introduction
For almost all people around the world, eating is an activity that takes place multiple times a day
without a second thought. The main argument surrounding food has become whether or not
organic foods are worth the extra price. Growing up, my mother constantly flip flopped between
purchasing conventional and organic foods. The topic is one of interest to me because as I have
aged, I have started to purchase my own foods and often find myself in the same conundrum. For
myself, as well as many other people globally, this topic is one of concern because of the effects
that it can have. Organic food can be or economic burden, yet it promises a lack of genetically
modified organisms, low use of chemicals such as hormones, and to be of better health for its
consumers. Conventional food is in a lower price bracket which makes it more accessible for
many, yet it contains pesticides, hormones, and other chemicals that are known to be
carcinogens. Food affects all peoples health, therefore taking the time to consider the effects of
different food styles is an investment in their futures.

ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?

Baehr, B. (2010, August). Whats wrong with our food system. Ted Talks. Podcast retrieved from
http://www.ted.com
Within this Ted Talk, eleven-year-old speaker, Birke Baehr, aims to persuade his audience
that the consumption of conventional food is of great detriment to the health of all due to
maladapted farming practices that provide the current world with its food sources. He displays
factual information about current farming practices through examples, such as how genetically
modified seeds are used to grow corn and farm animals are fed chemical-enhanced feed while
kept in enclosed areas. This source is a five-minute long video with no included references,
writings references, or information sources. No research claims are documented. All conclusions
are based off of examples; the sources of these example are unknown.
The speaker fails to establish credibility, yet he is speaking in front of an audience that
requires credibility. The audiences that attend Ted Talk shows are in attending because they are
interested in the topic, therefore the producers of the show set up speakers that are known to be
educated on that topic. The intended audience is all people that are interested in the effects of
conventional foods. Baehr (2010) makes the audience comfortable with him by adding in oneliners, such as, [they have taken] the DNA of a fish and [put] it into the DNA of a tomato.
Yuck! By commanding the attention of his audience and making them laugh, the speaker
becomes more likeable; therefore, the audience is more likely to believe his opinion. A one sided
standpoint causes the information presented be biased. Although it is extremely relevant, the
information is barely considered current since it was published in 2011.
This source is not as important or useful as the other sources due to its lack of sources
listed and its biased view. This source causes me to lean towards the belief that organic foods are

ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?

worth the extra price due to the health implications caused by conventional foods, as presented in
this source.

Gabriel, D., Sait, S. M., Kunin, W. E., Benton, T. G., & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2013). Food
production vs. biodiversity: comparing organic and conventional agriculture. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 50(2), 355-364. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12035
The purpose of this article is to inform the audience on the differences between
conventional and organic farming practices. The intention is made clear through an introduction
and summary section. Factual information is displayed to the reader through the wide use of
other sources. The main claim is that organic farms cause a lower yield of crop, which is
supported through the use of other studies. This eleven page long scholarly article contains a
forty-seven source long reference list as well as many table, charts, and graphs displaying data
about the crop yield on different styles of farms. All research claims are documented and all
conclusions are based solely on evidence.
The authors are credible because they are working for the Journal of Applied Ecology so
their work is reviewed and they have used an abundance of sources to support their claims. The
information is statistically based, which makes it reliable. When comparing the yield of different
types of farms, Gabriel, Sait, Kunin, Benton, and Steffan-Dewenter (2013) state, Grain
production per unit area was 54% lower in organic compared to conventional fields (p. 1). No
biased statistics are included; scholarly review of this article allowed all information to be
evaluated by other experts. This article was published in 2013, meaning that it is current, and the
farming practices directly influence the price and product of organics, so it is relevant.

ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?

This source is stronger than others on my bibliography because it is scholarly so it has

been reviewed by others and is known to be factual. A counter argument to my support of the
growth of organics is provided by this article because it is proven that more work has to be done
in order to provide organic products to consumers. Taking this into account, I will respond to
claims that cite this fact as reason to by conventional by stating that the lack of chemical intake
in organics causes it to be worth the extra work. The source has given me background on what
causes the prices to be different when products come from organic farms compared to
conventional farms so that I can use the information to support other sources statements. This
source has caused me to see why organics cost the amount that they do.

Johnson, A. (2011). Organic food is worth the extra expense. In R. D. Lankford, Jr. (Ed.),
At Issue. Is Organic Food Better? Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Is
Organic Food Too Expensive?, Organic Guide, 2011) Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com/
The purpose of this article is to entertain the idea to the audience that they could afford to
buy organics and that with time, organics could become more affordable. The intention is made
clear through the conversationally-toned introduction paragraph that explains how the author is a
father that works to provide organics for his family. An opinionated introduction starts that
article, but following that, factual evidence is used to support all claims. The main claim that
organic food could be cheaper in the future is explained through stating how the labor on farms,
the scale of farms, the compliance between farms and organic processors, and relationships with
retailers need to change in order for organics to be more widely produced and accessible for all.
This source is a nine paragraph long article with a reference list containing thirty-nine books and

ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?

periodicals. The author provides conclusions based on evidence, but no extra sources of
information or research is actively used to support the conclusions.
The author is credible due to the amount of sources that he has used to create this article.
The intended audience is anyone who wants to buy organic but can not do so due to the expense
of it. The information is biased because the author is a father who is scared to feed his children
conventional foods. Johnson (2011), makes statements in a conversational tone, such as, If more
consumers switched to consuming organic food, Im sure wed see many larger organic farms
pop up (para. 3). Conversational tone causes the audience to take the author less seriously and
be more hesitant to take the advice of the author. This article directly connects to the source so it
is relevant and was published in 2011 which makes it relevant.
This source is not as reliable or strong as other sources in my bibliography because of the
fact that it is not scholarly and begins with a conversational tone which makes the author lose
credibility since he does not seem to be stating facts right away. This article strengthens my
argument that organic food is attainable for all people and that organics are the way of the future.
This source has influenced my belief that organics will start to be less expensive and more
attainable in the future.

Rich, D. (2012). Organic foods are healthier than non-organic foods. In D. Haugen & S. Musser
(Eds.), Opposing Viewpoints. Nutrition. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from
Earth Island Journal, 2012, Spring, 23[1]) Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/
This article aims to inform the audience about how conventional farming impacts nutrient
content, cause people to have nutrient deficiencies, do nothing to help chronic disease, and cause
over eating. Facts pertaining to the consumption of food are throughout the article. The author

ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?

makes the purpose clear by stating that they support organic foods in the first paragraph and then
going on to use examples of the effects of both conventional and organic food. This article is a
twenty-two paragraph long article with an extremely well established list of references including
thirty-three references and periodicals. The evidence leads to conclusive statements that are
proposed as fact.
The author of this article is credible and establishes their credibility through using a
professional tone and providing well thought out information that flows logically. Statements are
made by Rich (2012) in a way that the audience can easily understand with and agree with, such
as the explanation of a study claiming that, From the 1930s to the 1980slevels of calcium,
magnesium, copper, and sodium, and of magnesium, iron, copper, and potassium in fruit had
dropped [in conventional foods] significantly (p. 1). The writer establishes credibility because
the audience can understand this professional information, yet it is not overcomplicated. The
intended audience is anyone interested in finding out what is in the food that they are consuming.
Rich does not address any of the downfalls of organic foods and appears to be slightly biased in
their views on the topic. As it was written in 2012 and directly relates to the topic, this article is
relevant and current to the topic.
This source is stronger than other sources in my bibliography due to the amount of
research that was put into the writing of it. I have started to be on the side supporting the
purchasing of organic food, especially since reading this article. This source has made me think
of my topic in a slightly biased way because of how it has influenced my opinions. I

ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?

Richards, T. J. (2012). The Economics of the Organic Food System: Discussion. American
Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 94(2), 322-323.
This scholarly article aims to discuss how organic food sales have taken a drastic rise and
why that is so, which is made clear in the introduction paragraph. Through the wide use of facts
and statistics, it is made clear that this article is created entirely of factual information and is void
of the use of opinion. The main claim of this article is to explain how production costs, local
market success, and store formatting affect the purchasing and consuming of organics. This
source is a seven paragraph long scholarly article with a list of four references that statistics are
directly pulled from. All research claims are documented. Conclusions, such as how organic food
can have the same production costs as conventional food, are provided.
Richards is extremely credible due to the abundance of references to studies. The
intended audience is any one who is interested in the economics of buying organics. All stated
information is extremely reliable because although it supports organic farming, all of the claims
that are made are factual and cited. Richards (2012) statistics, such as, Between 2005 and 2008,
organic food sales in the U.S. rose 53% from $13.8 billion to $21.1 billion, (para. 4) are clear to
the audience, which allows the audience to understand the information being presented so that it
can be considered relevant. This information is relevant to the topic directly and was published in
2012, making it current.
This source is scholarly, therefore it is more dependable and trustworthy than other
sources on my list. This article strengthens the idea that organics are beneficial to all people and
they are attainable economically. I can use this source to discuss the economy surrounding the
synthesis and selling of organics. Richards has caused me to believe that everyone can afford to
buy organic products.

ORGANIC FOOD: WHAT ARE YOU TRULY PAYING FOR?