The Organic Fable By Roger Cohen

In his essay “The Organic Fable,” Roger Cohen argues that there is little to no difference between organic foods and regular foods. He says, “Organic has long since become an ideology,” says it is branding, not science, and says we need genetically modified food anyway to feed more people. He also says it is an, “obsession of an upper middle class,” and compares buying organic foods to, “paying to send your kids to private school.” I believe, though, that his argument is biased and inconsistent, because of his existing dislike for organic foods and his praising of organic foods at times in his essay. His attitude toward organic food is revealed early when he states that he has been against it for “a while.” The fact that he is biased makes his argument much less convincing, as does the fact that he uses no statistical evidence and cites a Stanford University study, from which he has no quotes or statistics of any kind. It is like someone who has played hockey since he or she was very young trying to convince you that hockey is a better sport than football, because both lack evidence and suggest that we should simply take someone’s word for what they’re saying. The inconsistency begins in the seventh paragraph of the essay. Starting here, Cohen spends three paragraphs listing benefits of organic foods. If this
Once again, I bring up his argument that organic food is a class-driven decision. His exact quote is: “It is a class-driven decision that demonstrates how much you love your offspring but whose overall impact on society is debatable.” How can one argue that organic foods are beneficial to the environment, but that, at the same time, they have a questionable impact on society? You hear about saving the environment through efforts, such as recycling, all the time, so to say that organic foods being beneficial to the environment has a debatable impact on society is