Political Food - Who Knew?!?

The author’s audience is all consumers. Anyone who buys groceries could be interested in reading these articles. I think that both articles combined reach out to all consumers because one is for organic and fair trade and the other opposes it. The first article about food and politics states that people can basically vote through their food purchases. People can make a stand without going to the ballot box. I think this is writing to the opposition because politicians and lawmakers are going to create a huge stink about people voting through food purchases. The other article I found to be a rebuttal to the first article. The opposition is going to be The Economist, which is the British magazine that wrote the Food and Politics article.

For the food politics article, the claim, cause, and effect are that buying organic, locally grown, and fair-trade products are affecting the political realm because each of these categories has their own political agenda. By buying these products, people are participating politically. There are other cause and effect claims in this article as well such as natural farming and the effects and chemical farming and the effects. I think that the political cause and effect is the main argument for this article since it was the first issue addressed. I had a hard time finding a cause and effect argument in the rebuttal article. I felt that they were just writing an article to state their opinion on the same issues. I think that both essays make a very strong case for their points. I thought that the rebuttal was very well written though. They had great examples and quotes from people that gave their essay more validation and credibility. They were also able to counter-argue every claim in the first essay and then validate it with an example or a response from a professional.

I like how the arguments for each essay are constructed. The first essay starts out with politics and then moves into organic, fair-trade, and locally grown items with a nice conclusion. The second essay has two main points which are, “The other sides of the story” and “The root of the problem”. In the first main point, they argue everything The Economist wrote. In the second main point, they touch a little more on the locally grown issue and then talk about how consumers could pressure their local government into working on more energy efficiency. I think I like how the first essay was constructed. It was easier to read and I think the entire essay was much smoother. I think that the second essay should have been set up like the first essay. They should have made their arguments match up with the first essay. This would have made for easier reading and easier comparison for someone trying to read both articles.

All in all both essays were really good. I think that I will still buy my produce from the grocery store since that is really the only place I can shop this time of year. In Alaska, it is much less political to buy food and much more of a necessity I think. My opinion is that I want my fruits and veggies to be the best quality that they can be for the price I pay. If that means my onion comes from Mexico and my potato comes from Wasilla, then I am very happy with that. It wasn’t until I was asked to find out where my food came from that I actually started looking on the food labels to find their origination anyway! So, thanks to Ms. Sullivan for my new neurotic behavior!