Webpage Analysis

The purpose of this paper is to compare two webpages written about the the beneficialness of organic foods for their credibility and reliability. The two webpages are similar in terms of audience and content. In fact, both webpages refer to the same study, from Stanford University, about the health benefits of organic foods.
The selected webpages are from respected, reputable organizations. The first article, Organic Food Conclusions Don’t Tell the Whole Story was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a federal government website and the second article, Organic Food No More Nutritious than Conventionally Grown Food was published in Harvard Health Publications, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School. Published in the latter part of 2012, both webpage articles are current and the authors are knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified to write on the topic. However, the webpages differ in several ways. In my opinion the article, Organic Food Conclusions Don’t Tell the Whole Story is a more reliable source. First, the author, David C. Holzman, has a wide range of writing experience and has written for a variety of journals, some of which include Smithsonian, The Atlantic Monthly, and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Using an objective style, Holzman …show more content…
In contrast, Stephanie Watson, the author of Organic Food No More Nutritious than Conventionally Grown Food, fails to cite any sources on the webpage. Another factor contributing to reliability of the webpage is Watson’s credentials. The only credit listed for the author is that she is the Executive Editor of Harvard Women’s Health Watch. While the article is objective, Watson’s writing style has a more personal tone. Watson admits that she falls into the Bandwagon Fallacy of buying organic because her friends do and that her friends use the False Analogy that buying organic is “a badge of good parenting.” (Watson par.