Tuesday, June 3, 2014

TOW #29 - Documentary Rhetorical Analysis of Food, Inc: Pt. 2


One of the major claims made in the film was that eating organic food is better than eating nonorganic food grown with pesticides, added hormones, or genetic modifications. While this claim may be true when looking at the health aspect, as there are numerous studies that demonstrate that health benefits of eating organic food rather than nonorganic food, there are many more factors that need to be considered. The most important being cost and affordability. 

For some families or individuals, eating organic food all the time simply may not be a financially viable option. In a perfect world, of course it would great if organic apples didn't cost nearly twice as much as nonorganic apples, but that simply is not the world we live in. And when it comes to caring for a family, priotitizing is a must. This means that money if first spent on the essentials: housing, transportation, clothing, utilities, and health insurance. Of course food is essential to life, but if a family is already struggling financially, why wouldn't they save money wherever they can? Unfortunately yet necessarily, food costs are often the first necessity that are cut or even minimized. While a one dollar hamburger may be terrible for one's health, it's hard to argue that there's a better option for one's wallet, in the short-term at least. Nonetheless, if a family is struggling to pay for the essentials yet decides to regularly pay for organic food, they will most likely find themselves coming up short when it comes to bill payments.

This dilemma of cost versus health demonstrates the greatest fault in current organic food production as well as the most prevalent reason that explains why eating organic food rather than nonorganic food may not be the best decision for everyone.

No comments:

Post a Comment