Cadematori

1
Allison Cadematori
Professor Fielding
WRTC 103 Section 30
11 October 2015
Organic Food: What Are You Truly Paying For?
For a sixty percent higher cost, consumers around the world purchase organic food for the
better taste, lack of chemicals, and higher nutritional value. At least that is what they think they
are spending their money on. In reality, they are receiving food with lower taste ratings than
conventional food, unregulated amounts of pesticides, and the same nutritional value as ordinary
food. Andrew Ellison, personal finance editor for The London Times, published the article
Organic Food is Not Worth the Extra Expense to convince readers that the money they are
investing in organics could be better used somewhere else. The same argument is made within
Allison Cadematoris companion PSA, Pesticides affect Organic and Conventional Foods Alike,
Regardless of Price, which could be published in cooking magazines and as posters near organic
food in grocery stores. Ethos, logos, and pathos are all heavily used to depict the lack of benefit
from organic foods within the rhetoric of Andrew Ellisons article and Allison Cadematoris
companion PSA.
The evidence gathered from taste tests illustrates that organic food does not have a better
taste and the information supplied from the government determines that is it not of higher
quality; therefore, the organic food is not worth the extra price according to Andrew Ellison. The
author has targeted organic food purchasers as the audience, in attempts to change their opinion
on what food they should be buying so that they are able to spend less money on groceries. The
authors style is extremely conversational, and for this reason he may have been taken less

Cadematori
2
seriously by readers when he was displaying evidence to them. Within Ellisons article, first is a
Blind Taste Test section, then a section called Is Organic Food Better?, followed by Organic
Does Not Equal Quality. The author uses detail to explain each and they progress in a logical
order that allows them to flow from one to the next in a chronological order.
The author establishes ethos by displaying his knowledge of the subject, yet he is limited
in his education on the topic. Before the main content of the article begins, there is the statement,
Andrew Ellison is the personal finance editor if the London Times, written to display that he
knows how to manage money and where to spend it (Ellison P.1). Ellison establishes credibility
through his use of factual evidence to support his claim, such as when he states, is organic food
really worth the up to 60 percent more in price if the supposedly superior quality is not
obvious? (Ellison P.1). The use of a statistic illustrates the price gap that individuals are
succumbing to. Evidence is stated from the Foods Standards Agency, a government agency in the
United Kingdom. By using information supplied by this trustworthy source, Ellison furthers his
credibility. Ellison does not have any experience with organic foods, yet he is able to give strong
advice about personal spending. The author has educated himself by reading from a combination
of thirty-nine books and periodicals on the topic of organic food, which are listed within his
further readings. Therefore, Ellison is trustworthy about how buying organic is affecting
consumer spending and savings, but not to the extent that the individual should immediately start
buying conventionally without additional research.
Logos is used to display the discrepancies to the audience of what they think that are
buying versus what they are actually getting. Through the taste test section, Ellison explains that
organic foods rarely were considered to be the best in flavor and that in some circumstances
standard foods scored higher than the highest level organics (P. 5). The logic of this article

Cadematori
3
causes the audience to think about whether the extra money that they are spending on organics
could be better spent elsewhere. The author uses information from a government food agency to
support his claims.
The use of pathos causes the audience to feel as if they have been tricked by organic food
brands to pour their money into a product that brings them little to no benefit. The author claims
that descriptions cause organic food purchasers to think that they are buying a product that is
beneficial for themselves and their families by buying organic, and to say that this is not so
brings about emotions of disappointment and frustration (Ellison P.2). By further stating that
organic food does not taste any better and that it is not healthier, the audience is encouraged to
feel blindsided and betrayed by organic food companies that have convinced them that buying
organic will benefit them. The author evokes emotion by constantly vacillating between what the
audience thinks that they are doing and what they actually are by showing the lack of benefit
from organic foods.

This PSA, Pesticides affect Organic and Conventional Food Alike, Regardless of Price, makes it clear
that conventional food is no worse than organic food and that innovative farming is the way of the future.

Cadematori
4
The main claim of the PSA is that organic foods contain pesticides; just as conventional
foods do. The PSA aims to inform organic food purchasers that regardless of organic farming
practices, chemicals are still in the food that is being eaten and that there is nothing wrong with
conventional food. The intended audience is organic food purchasers, specifically adults who
buy organic in hopes of taking in less chemicals through their food. Dominant red and orange
text is used to emphasize that organic food contains pesticides, just as conventional food does.
Ethos is utilized as an appeal to establish credibility. The creator does not have many
qualifications to determine that organic food is of equivalent value to organic food, making it not
worth the cost. However, the creator was raised in a household that purchased and served
primarily conventional food. The creator is only educated on the side of the argument supporting
the purchasing of non-organic foods. The author does know that pesticides are present in organic
foods. The claim within the PSA is supported by the Australian Governments Australian Centre
for Agricultural Research, a non-profit which researches throughout Asia, Africa, and other
places around the world and aims to create conventional and innovative farming methods to
sustain food production and feed the hungry around the world. Credibility is also established by
the supplying of the webpage, aciar.gov.au, which allows the audience to search for extra
information if they would like to. The PSA utilizes a tone appropriate to the audience and
purpose and the diction is appropriate, however, the document is not as professional looking as it
could be due to the inexperience of the creator in making PSAs.
The use of logos allows for the creator to display to the audience that buying organic
foods is not worth the cost. The PSA begins with telling the audience that organic foods are not
pesticide-free, when many purchasers buy organic to lessen their chemical intake. This points out
a misconception to the viewer and causes them to question if what they are doing actually makes

Cadematori
5
sense. However, the claim does not have specific details or statistics to support its point. No
explanation as to how conventional and innovative farming will help to feed the hungry. In order
to find out this information, the viewer would need to visit the website listed on the PSA, which
not many are likely to take the time to do. The argument is arranged in an order that logically
flows; the misconception is clarified, followed by a factual statement that solidifies the claim,
and then a call to action urges the audience to find out the truth about organics.
Pathos is largely used in order to evoke inspiring emotion in the audience to make them
feel as if they should and will find out what they are truly purchasing and eating. When people
find that they are wasting money, it causes them to feel cheated and to change their ways. The
image of a healthy, conventional farm causes the audience to think that they would like to be
eating from there because the growth is so natural looking. The creator realizes that very few
people have the money to spend on organic food if they are getting no benefit in return,
therefore, the connection is established between the creator and audience. When the PSA states
that, conventional, innovative farming is the way to feed the hungry of the tomorrow, it causes
the audience to feel as if buying conventional food is correct, since almost all people would like
to feed the hungry around the world.
Together, the PSA and the verbal argument establish the opinion that organic food is of
no benefit to the consumer. Both pieces state that organic foods contain pesticides, but the verbal
argument goes further to say that conventional food even tastes better and is better for the
environment to produce due to lower labor, land use, and carbon dioxide emissions (Ellison P.8).
By supporting the claims of the verbal argument, the PSA strengthens the audiences belief that
organic foods still contain chemicals and that they are of no benefit. Due to the greater extent of

Cadematori
6
information, the verbal argument is more convincing to the audience. Overall, the pieces work
together to establish the opinion that conventional foods are the right ones to buy.

Cadematori
7
Works Cited
Ellison, Andrew. "Organic Food Is Not Worth the Extra Expense." Is Organic Food Better? Ed.
Ronald D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. At Issue. Rpt. from "Organic
Food Is a Waste of Money." Times 5 Sept. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web.
29 Sept. 2015.