Rhetorical Analyze on Kristof’s “Food for the Soul”.
In the article, “Food For the Soul’, a
human rights defender, and a two time Pulitzer Prize Winner Nicholas
Kristof discussed the profits of traditional family farms over modern industrial
agriculture. In his article, Kristof engaged
readers to accept his ideas and take his side on agricultural debates by focusing
on telling nostalgic stories about his childhood on his family farm in Oregon,
using metaphors, and choosing vivid words with emotional emphasis.
In the beginning of the of the passage he mentioned
the increased usage of modern cultivation technique which does not interest
human living. He uses one sentence paragraph for transition from modern
industrial agriculture to traditional family farms. Here, with a metaphor, he
emphasizes that modern industrial agriculture is harmful, and “has no soul”. In
the passage he tried to explain the loss of vital components from our food and
spread of microbes which creates difficulties for the standards of healthy
living. He wats to scare his audience illustrating the
consequence of the surplus usage of antibiotic leads to “superbugs” that resist
the effect of antibiotics. So, it is unproductive and fruitless.
Kristof going on to motivate the reader to
use family farm products over industrial agriculture when he uses Michael
Pollen’s research to prove his point that diversity in farming is essential
which is given by family farms and not by industrial agriculture. He
provides information that the large production of grains results in “monoculture”.
Michael Pollen conveys that two third of our
calories is attained from just four crops, which is against variety.
“Monoculture in the
field result in monocultures in our diets. Fast-food culture and obesity are
linked to the transformation from family farms to industrial farming.”
The author evokes feeling and move closer
to the readers by appealing to there imagination when he vividly shares
an anecdote about the time from his childhood on the family farm when he placed
a chicken egg in a goose’s nest. At the end, the behavior of chicken was
obvious and understandable. The nurture affects the “soul”. Correspondingly the
cultivation of crops affects the quality. The better the cultivation the better
is the fruit.
In addition, Kristof gives an example one of his old high school friends Bob Bansen, who just with 225 Jersey
Cow’s dairy competes Dairy factories of 20,000 cows. He uses this example to prove
the readers that still there is hope. If one small producer can do it then why
can’t others do it. Through this he wants to persuade the reader to support the
small traditional producers. Author tells us that Bob Bansen names all his cows
and they are his family friends. This shows that he treats his caws as pets. While
“a cow means nothing to” big diaries as said by Bob, shows that
traditional small producers are much Eco-friendlier and helps in financial sustainability.
Using these examples, the author wanted to
that the modern industrial agriculture where only profit and yield matters is
lacking something vital like high standards of healthy living. When the author
described his farm as inefficient, and he doesn’t say the family farm is
effortless. In his opinion, it demands more effort and finances but will pay
off with good health.
Kristof writes this
article to raise consumers awareness that we should buy the products of small
traditional producers for our sustainable future. He found an effective way to inform, entertain,
and motivate people to change their outlook on tradition family farms. This article
inspired to know more about what we are eating and how it effects our health and