Reading Response

The article Voting With Your Trolley in The Economist Magazine compares the cause and effect relationship of the “sustainable foods movement” and the economy. The sustainable foods movement is consumers being aware of where their food comes from, how it is produced, and who produces it. This movement is also called the ethical foods movement and is subdivided into organic foods, Fairtrade foods, and “buy local” foods. The article makes the claim that buying ethical foods does not necessarily make a difference for the environment or society. The article also argues that citizen should “stick to the ballot box” to promote social change because buying certain foods will not make a difference.

In the article the author, one by one, talks about each category of ethical food and states why it is believed to be a better choice for people and the environment. Then the author goes on to state the counter argument, which is the claim the author is trying to make in the article. The author counter argues the Fairtrade system by stating, “Fairtrade coffee, like other organic products sold in supermarkets, is used by retailers as a means of identifying price-incentive consumers who will pay more” The author argues that since consumers believe that by buying “ethical” foods they are making a political statement and helping a cause, in turn, this causes big business to exploit their good intentions and make a profit off them. An example of this is when the author gives the statistic that, “Only 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee in a coffee bar trickles down to the producer.” (The producer being the poor farmer Fairtrade is supposed to benefit.)

The audience this article is focusing on would be the consumer, mainly the ones who purchase “ethical” foods. The author, however, is also writing to the opposition because he is counter arguing the opposition’s claims, which are in support of ethical foods. This article is well organized and the reader can clearly follow the claims being made straight down to the conclusion.

The article, Poor Taste. Why The Economist's recent assault on "ethical food" missed the mark is the rebuttal to the Economist article Voting With Your Trolley. The author of this article is a strong supporter of the sustainable foods movement and the consumer purchase of ethical foods. This article was written to counter argue the article in the Economist. Poor Taste is much more personal that the Economist. The author even suggests, in the fourth paragraph, that he has dedicated his life to the sustainable foods movement, and uses first had accounts in his argument.

In Poor Taste, the author claims that the Economist, “doesn’t pretend to be objective,” and compares its argument to, “an uncle emboldened by wine at a holiday table.” The author takes bits and pieces from the Economist and argues against them in justification of his cause trying to explain, “The other side of the story.” He also questions the validity of the magazine and its integrity by stating that the article gives, “bizarre advice, coming from a free-market magazine: severely limit your own options and ask the government to solve your problems.”

The author of Poor Taste is writing on an environmental news website. His audience is made up of citizens that are interested in the environment and the sustainable foods movement and most likely they already agree with him. The article structure is different from that of the Economist. The Economist is formal, easy to follow, and brings up an issue, with the support of that issue, then counter argues it. The structure of Poor Taste is much different. Poor Taste is more personal but harder to follow. It is also not organized well and the argument it is making is not as clearly defined as the arguments being made in the Economist. The article in the Economist presents a better argument that the article Poor Taste because of its organized structure, clear argument, and its reasoning.