Industrializing food has become a common practice with the increase in food demands. Local farming methods have gone under, and in their place, industrial large scale farming has emerged. Industrializing foods seeks to meet the high food demand at cost effective ways. It is true that industrializing food achieves high yields at low cost, but the adverse effects of this act are more harmful than the food solution. Max Ghassemluo in his article “The Food System” shines light on the adverse effects of industrial food system and projects ways through which the effects can be minimized, through a balance between industrial and local food production. Ghassemluo’s article discusses the climatic changes resulting from the industrial food system, and the high rates of pollution resulting from industrial food distribution. The article also discusses how the harm of industrial farming can be minimized gradually to save the environment. Ghassemluo appeals to the readers’ credibility, emotions and logic in a manner that is liable and effective to his argument in support of a balanced between industrial and local farming.
The purpose of the article is to enlighten people on the harm of excessive industrial farming and how they can embrace local farming in a less costly manner. Ghassemluo wants people to adopt local farming to partially replace industrial farming through government and legislative help. He reaches out to the general public who are just the producers of industrial food, but also consumers of the same. He targets governments, and organization, when he talks of subsidizing local farming to reduce its cost. He also targets consumers when he claims that consumption controls distribution. The article provides various evidences that the industrial food systems are causing harm to the environment in different ways.
The use of ethos appeals to the readers’ credibility to resonate that the industrial food system brings environmental degradation alongside cheap and available food. Ghassemluo uses the information that is available to all that industrial food production is cheap and efficient in ensuring food security. He also uses the information in the public domain that industrial food production leads to environmental pollution. He talks of the pollution resulting from distribution of the industrial foods, which are fetched far away in the large scale farm and transported over long distances to the markets. The use of the distribution example as a source pollution appears to the readers since everyone agrees that transportation is one source of pollution. He also talks about deforestation and elimination of wet rain forests with agricultural farms, which everyone knows about, and agrees that it is a major cause of climatic changes. The replacement of tropical rain forest with palm oil plantations is a current issue in the industrial food system. The use of such incidents, which the audience have heard time and again and understand their effects makes the readers agree with the authors point of view. These incidents enable the audience to rely on the author’s information; thus resonating with his arguments.
The use of pathos appeals to the readers emotions towards climatic changes and environmental pollution. Ghassemluo argues that the industrial food system is responsible for rough one-third of pollution. This information tells the readers that food production is responsible for the many crises in the climatic issues; thus a change in food production would mean less climatic crisis. He also adds that local farming causes less pollution, hence less climatic crisis. These arguments appeal to the readers’ emotions relation to the need to change the food system to reduce the climatic crisis. He further argues that thirteen percent of pollutions results from transport. Local food production would mean less transportation; thus reduce the thirteen percent pollution. It is true that the thirteen percent does not come from food distribution only, but reducing food distribution would mean a cut down in this pollution. This argument appeals to the readers’ emotion that it is inevitable to reduce food distribution to see a downwards change in the pollution levels. The argument that the consumption of each item of the industrial food is an escalation on pollution appeals to consumers that they can change their consumption behavior to reduce pollution resulting from distribution. He cites the example of meat consumption and the circle it follows. This example tells the readers that their reduction in meat consumption would mean less pollution from meat distribution. He also argues that the cost of switching to local farming could be less than anticipated since there has not been any reliable evidence the cost would be so high. This argument aims at appealing to government and legislatures emotions and see from the point of view of trying local farming could work at a lower cost. The idea that local farming may not be as expensive as anticipated, and the fact that consumption increases pollution, makes the readers agree with Ghassemluo argument, that industrial farming has more adverse effects than solutions.
The use of logic appeals to the readers reasoning to prove that the industrial food system causes harm to the environment and the harm can be reduced through increase employment of local farming. Ghassemluo uses statistics and evidence from scholars on the subject to prove to the readers that industrial farming harms the environment, and there are possible solutions. The use of articles from economists on the effect of industrial food production and farming is a strong reference point for evidence in the article. Ghassemluo refers to Anna Lappe who argues that the effects of the industrial food system are being overlooked in the search of food security solutions. Ghassemluo also cites Pierre Desrocher who argues in support of the industrial food system, and counters his argument with statistical evidence that transport, what Pierre Desrocher calls negligible, is responsible for up to13.1 percent pollution. He also refers to Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian economist who urges consumers to consume less meat to save the environment. Further, Ghassemluo gives a possible amount of money that can solve the economic implication of local farming if injected into the system. He argues that an amount of $200 can work away out to subsidize local farming. Arguing that it may appear expensive but the adverse effect of the industrial farming are more than this. The use of scholarly references to support his argument appeals to the readers reasoning to agree with his point of view. The evidence from scholarly sources and professionals prove to the readers that industrial farming is good, since it provides food security and cheap prices, but it is more harmful, since it degrades the environment by each production.
Ghassemluo shows no bias in his article and does not use fallacies to falsely appeal to his readers. He provides proof in hard evidence for his arguments, both in statistics and in description. He does not make false claims to appeal to the readers to agree with his point of view. Rather, he acknowledges all sources from where he derives his arguments. He also acknowledges that there are people of opposing opinion. He states their arguments ad provides his justification of his opinion in relation to the opposite view. However, he provides little statistical data on the topic, regardless of the vast statistical data available on the issue. He takes an argumentative ground on the topic; citing arguments from others while avoiding use of hard statistics which support and\or oppose his view.
Reading Ghassemluo’s article, I agree with him that there is a need for balance between the industrial food system and local food production. Ghassemluo’s arguments prove that a balance of these two systems will not provide an immediate environmental solution, but gradual healing of the environment. Ghassemluo makes his readers to see that industrial food farming degrades the environment, but it cannot be abandoned or replaced over a fortnight. It is not possible to eliminate the industrial food system owing to its ability to supply enough food to the huge demand. However, reducing the extent of the industrial food system through expanding local farming is a great step towards healing the environment. Expanding local food system could be a considerably small step in reducing distribution effect, but whatever small reduction in pollution, it has great cumulative effects. In addition, it may appear expensive to produce food through localized farming, but this cost may be less than the effect of industrial farming reduced by local farming. Industrial food production is cheap, but it causes incredible damage to the environment. Actually, the damage of industrial farming is more than the cost reduction of the same. Ghassemluo succeeds in appealing to his audience through ethos, pathos and logos. His article fulfills its purpose of enlightening the readers on the effect of the industrial food system and the possible solution to the damage. The employment of the rhetoric features of logos, ethos, and pathos allows readers an opportunity to interrelate with the writer’s ideas, via his authority, emotions, and logical proof from obtainable evidence. Ghassemluo succeeds in communicating and convincing his audience through rhetoric aspects, without bias or use of fallacies.