Critique Paper
ENC1102
25 February, 2013
Critique Paper
Nutritious or Not? In Kristen Weinacker’s essay “Safer? Tastier? More nutritious? The Dubious Merits of Organic Foods”, she makes a claim of fact that organic foods may not be more nutritional than conventionally grown foods. Weinacker does an exceptional job supporting her claim effectively with evidence by using the opinions of several experts, as well as the appeal to our physiological needs. She warrants that by mentioning the use of slick marketing techniques by organic food companies and our belief that organic farmers “bring us back to nature”, we tend to forgive statistical data and start to lean on our common sense. Throughout the essay Weinacker reiterates that most, if not all, of the research data available does not contain the statistical proof necessary to successfully warrant the claim.
The most emphatic support comes early in her essay in paragraph 2, where she highlights the seemingly unethical methods of marketing and strategy that the organic companies use in attempt to convey their belief that organic foods must be healthier than naturally grown ones. She goes on to mentioning Warren Leon and Caroline Smith Dewaal’s book Is Our Food Safe?, where they suggest that people purchase organic foods in effort to help the environment and that there is not any statistical data to back their claim that organic foods are healthier. The author then cites an “interesting poll” done by ABC News, in which they concluded that people think organic food is healthier because it contains less pesticide residue. She then says that there has never been a connection between the nutritional value of organic food and the residue that is found on them. Weinacker then describes a phone interview done with an agricultural county extension agent by the name of Joseph Williamson, and how he believes that since organic crops grow slower they contain more nutrients than conventional foods. He also says that they are riper than
25 February, 2013
Critique Paper
Nutritious or Not? In Kristen Weinacker’s essay “Safer? Tastier? More nutritious? The Dubious Merits of Organic Foods”, she makes a claim of fact that organic foods may not be more nutritional than conventionally grown foods. Weinacker does an exceptional job supporting her claim effectively with evidence by using the opinions of several experts, as well as the appeal to our physiological needs. She warrants that by mentioning the use of slick marketing techniques by organic food companies and our belief that organic farmers “bring us back to nature”, we tend to forgive statistical data and start to lean on our common sense. Throughout the essay Weinacker reiterates that most, if not all, of the research data available does not contain the statistical proof necessary to successfully warrant the claim.
The most emphatic support comes early in her essay in paragraph 2, where she highlights the seemingly unethical methods of marketing and strategy that the organic companies use in attempt to convey their belief that organic foods must be healthier than naturally grown ones. She goes on to mentioning Warren Leon and Caroline Smith Dewaal’s book Is Our Food Safe?, where they suggest that people purchase organic foods in effort to help the environment and that there is not any statistical data to back their claim that organic foods are healthier. The author then cites an “interesting poll” done by ABC News, in which they concluded that people think organic food is healthier because it contains less pesticide residue. She then says that there has never been a connection between the nutritional value of organic food and the residue that is found on them. Weinacker then describes a phone interview done with an agricultural county extension agent by the name of Joseph Williamson, and how he believes that since organic crops grow slower they contain more nutrients than conventional foods. He also says that they are riper than