1. It’s common knowledge that people often fear what they don’t know. In today’s society, especially, this seems to be a frequent phenomenon. This mindset is often the source of bias towards non-organic food. Any developments in the field of GMOs and food technology, no matter how beneficial they may be, are usually squandered by organizations or companies that refuse to set aside their outdated beliefs. If we are ever to move forward in the ever-evolving food industry, these beliefs are going to have to be set aside.
2. When shopping for produce in the supermarket, we are essentially faced with two options: organic or non-organic. Now although many instantly go for the organic food option, it isn’t necessarily the best choice. What if I told you that soon, there will be no organic food labeling? You may think it’s bizarre, but it is exactly what this industry needs. With all of the new genetic and technological advancements that are positively reshaping food growth and production, this age old industry needs to be broken out of its mold.
Counterintuitive 
Hey, Alpaca, this is perfectly acceptable work, but I know you want to achieve more than that. I tell everybody the same thing, it seems: Nobody opens strong by nature; it’s a learned skill.
Let me show you what I mean.
Is fine, but weak, whereas:
eliminates all the extraneous commentary and makes a clear and direct claim.
is also fine, but
accomplishes the same job. In the final sentence, see if you can eliminate needless if/then statements in favor of a bold directive.
Don’t feel obligated to coin new terms, but if you do (remember Leaf Drip?), you get to claim to have invented something.
Is this helpful or just intrusive?
Your response, please.
LikeLike
The big benefit of cutting to the chase and trimming your language to the essentials is all the room you create to make more persuasive claims. In the shortened version of your first paragraph, you could start to identify the many benefits of New Food that those who fear the unknown are missing out on.
For example.
LikeLike
Would you like to try this exercise on your second version?
LikeLike
Yes, definitely. Thank you for the detailed feedback! I’ll work on editing these along with my visual rhetoric.
LikeLike
Your second version, like your first, is already “good enough,” Alpaca. It indicates that as food shoppers, we’re forced into a false choice.
Organic growers want us to believe that their food is always the healthier, safer, more nutritious, even morally superior choice.
What you believe to be the more appropriate way to phrase our food choices is unclear. But what IS CLEAR is that you believe the Organic food label creates an unfair, or perhaps incorrect perception that organic food is superior.
Could you be more direct about that claim and then specify WHAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE choices?
If you can do that in an opening paragraph, we’re off to the races with a head of steam.
Example:
See what I mean? Now we’ve neatly divided the SENSORY EXPERIENCE (the Cows and Chips) of the two-sided grocery store produce section into categories we will next associate with Organic and Conventional.
We take our readers into the grocery store because that’s where they make their food-buying choices; it’s where they ask themselves, “Is this $2/lb. premium for organic broccoli really justifiable?,” then either choose for economy or buckle to the pressure to appear informed.
YOU are setting yourself up to be the keeper of the Real Information, Alpaca, so right away, in this very first paragraph, you want to share a detail that establishes you as a reliable guide to smart food purchases.
OK?
STRONG OPENINGS can’t win an argument; but WEAK OPENINGS can absolutely lose one.
Your responses, please?
LikeLike