English 250

Ms Hart
Kamini Saldanha
10/16/2016
Robert Paarlbergs essay Attention Whole Foods Shoppers, from
the May 2010 edition of Foreign Policy magazine, is a cry for help to fix
the ongoing hunger problem in Africa. Addressing his argument to the
upper middle class of America, Paarlberg uses statistics as well as
current and past events to create feelings of guilt in order to invoke
compassion for those in Africa. Using various rhetorical strategies, he
debunks why organic food is hurting the end of world hunger.
Paarlberg makes his audience clear with his title Attention Whole
Food Shoppers. Whole Foods Market is an American supermarket
chain, which exclusively features organic products. Shopping here
costs more than in your regular supermarket. Paarlberg is singling out
the upper middle class of America, in particular: eco-foodies, those
who want to eat food thats been produced in an environmentally
friendly manner, or those who can afford to shell out more than usual
on food.
Paarlberg uses negative language to make his readers feel bad
about the lack of regard for hunger in Africa. He asserts, Food has
become an elite preoccupation in the West. In this way, Paarlberg
implies that that there is enough food to go around to be able to be
engrossed with it in the America. He is not far from the truth; America

does have a reputation for being one of the most obese countries
around the world. His use of the term elite further suggests that
eating organic has almost become exclusive to and only affordable to
America. Paarlberg is correct; not every country has major chains of
supermarkets tailor made meet such niche food needs. Organic food
does not come cheap either, not everyone can afford it. Describing
food as a preoccupation, he has categorized organic food as an
obsession in the America. Being an eco-foodie is a commitment, which
becomes a lifestyle choice. Although some might take it to higher
levels than others. Paarlberg wants to showcase the contrast: a
country with the demand and resources to make an exclusive food
market and a continent with the lack of resources to simply feed its
people.
Paarlberg supplements his argument by exposing the flaws behind
general assumptions of most statistics. His first example of choice is
international prices. He goes on to explain that global markets assume
extreme price hikes will create a World Food Crisis. However, the
real problem the world faces is that millions are undernourished before
these extreme price hikes even begin. He draws to this recurrent
theme of ignorance of those in poorer countries. Its true; most people
usually sympathize with those similar to or of their socioeconomic
background. Its not commonplace to first think of those from lifestyles
that are worlds different to ones own. Paarlberg wants the reader to

see the ugly truth in the hope of opening the readers eyes to see the
importance behind empathizing with those from backgrounds
completely different to their own.
America is reputed for its modern technology driven highly
capitalized agricultural system. Paarlberg applauds them for it and
addresses that it is essential to ending hunger in Africa. New elitist
lines of thought have emerged that discourage both agricultural
modernization and foreign aid.

Now and again, Paarlberg does have something positive to express

about the West. He applauds them and addresses that the reader must
learn to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly
capitalized agricultural system weve developed in the West. He goes
on to assert that this is the solution to hunger in hunger-plagued Africa.
His choice of learn insinuates that those in Africa do not regard these
methods of farming very highly. Paarlberg is stressing that a change is
imperative. Even though changing a farming system thats been in
place for centuries is no simple task, it is worth a try if the outcome
means a greater income, which will translate into a stronger economy,
longer life expectancy and a much better livelihood.

Paarlberg often goes back to what he seems to enjoy exposing

the truth or at least what he believes to be the truth. He continues to
debunk other statements to demonstrate how farming can be
improved in Africa. According to him, 500 prominent NGOs went on to
blame the Green Revolution for the rise in world hunger. The Green
Revolution was an initiative to increase in crop production in
developed countries with the use of fertilizers, pesticides and highyielding crop varieties. Although deemed unsuccessful, Paarlberg
disagrees and uses evidence support his argument. He goes on to
explain that wherever there was a rather equitable and secure
distribution of land, the Green Revolution brought income gains and
lifted millions out of poverty. Latin America did not benefit from this
due to its unjust rural social systems that allowed the poor to lose out.
Paarlberg uses this to illustrate that if given the appropriate resources,
Africa would flourish under the Green Revolution. It has a fair and
safe distribution of land, which greatly increases its chance of
improvements in farming technology helping the poor.

Appealing to the readers empathy and honest truth allows him to both
keep the reader engaged and emotionally involved.

Paarlberg is successful in his attempt to create compassion and

draw attention to this overlooked matter of concern. He manages this
with his use of informal language, which creates a personal connection
between him and the reader. He starts most paragraphs as if it were
almost a casual conversation or debate. This enables him to add in his
opinion in more readily. In my opinion, it allows him to make his
argument more persuasive.
Paarlberg maintains a disappointed tone. He makes this evident with
his choice of words such as tragic and problem to describe what
could but is not done to help. It highlights his disenchantment fo r how
the situation is being dealt with and his burning desire to change it.
Starting each paragraph in this manner accentuates his frustration
with the lack of progress for ending hunger in Africa. It ensures the
reader does not loose sight of his main aim and makes the reader feel
something is not right.

Paarlberg goes on to explain why he does not believe in most common

objectives to solve the hunger crisis. He claims that although those
who create or follow these mean well, but are often misinformed and
counterproductive especially when applied to the developing world.
Paarlberg is implying that changes need to be looked into for progress
to be made. His use of common exhibits that a new approaches need
to be taken, ones unlike its predecessors. Its unfortunate that help is
going wasted or is not useful. If people are putting their time and
resources into ending this hunger crisis, more should be done to
ensure these approaches are most effective. Research needs to be put
into figuring out what does work or what does not so the situation can
move forward.
He explores this dispute with an industrial food system versus
organic food debate. He expresses that most food writers do not seem
to be fans of the industrial food system and goes onto explain why it is
the way forward. Paarlberg deliberately pulls the safe card during this
explanation. Although debatable, both industrial and organic food have
their advantages, it immediately attracts and wins the read over. Most
people value their health and do want to take care of themselves to
live better, longer lives. People are also impressionable when statistics
are put in front of them. Paarlberg is intelligent in his approach; he
utilizes his information to best appeal to the reader. He even adds in
events thatve happened in the past to further iterate his argument

and prove his point. Evidence does not lie. Although, Paarlberg seems
to handpick the evidence that best suits him.

his solutions
explains why farming is more successful in America (comparison of

two)
examples of successful and unsuccessful farming in other countries