Reading Response

In the article Poor Taste, the author is writing to the consumer. Consumers being people that while shopping purchase only specific foods. The specific types of food are locally grown, far-trade or organically grown also know has ethical foods. The audience the auth0r is writing to will agree and if not already well informed on the topic will gain insight on the subject. The author also is writing to the opposition because the author restates the opposition position. The author writes, “The magazine opens its critique by implying that the sustainable –food movement has abandoned politics in favor of enlightened consumerism”.
The main claim for both articles is that buying a certain type of food is not the way to invoke social change has many shoppers believe. The article voting with your trolley makes the stronger argument. Because the author gives specific examples such as “What I hear as I talk to people is this phenomenal sense of despair about their inability to do anything about climate change, or the disparity between rich and poor.” “But when they go into a grocery store they can do something-they can make decisions about what they are buying and send a very clear message.”
In the article Poor taste the arguments are not well organized, the author is more or less rebutting the made by the Economist regarding the sustainable-food movement. On the contrary, the article Voting with your trolley, is well organized and the reader will be able to follow the article. The information in the article Voting with your trolley gives in-depth information about the ethical food movement. Where as the Poor Taste article only refutes what the Economist stated.
I learned a lot from both articles. I consider myself well versed on produce, and the information provided has increased my awareness.