Genetically Modified Foods Rhetorical Analysis
The article called Genetically Modified Foods, has a style that is use to grab an audience emotion while still putting some facts. Right away in the first paragraph you will find ethos. Per Pinstrup-Anderson plays a key role in the article, he is the H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. Giving Per Pinstrup-Anderson a creditability, and having the audience attention. This is the only time in the article when ethos is being used to help their argument. In the next two paragraphs, Pathos and logos are used. It shows some facts as well as getting into the audience emotion. The way this was done was by talking about helping farmers in developing countries produce more food, making it more affordable to buy food, as well as not harming the environment. It goes on to say, “Many millions of people do not have access to sufficient calories and many more suffer from micronutrient deficiencies”. Another quote is, “which avoided mass starvation and helped millions out of poverty and hunger”. Notice they never gave an exact statistic on how many people are suffering from poverty and hunger, letting the audience see that it is so many
…show more content…
people affected, and not just a specific number. It gives it more of a feel then would be given an exact number. In the next paragraph it goes back to logos, in the paragraph it is said science is the answer to fixing the hunger. It describes action that must be taken an order to be able to start helping starving people, as well as how will science help farming, like drought tolerance, mitigation of negative climate change, and pest resistance in crops. Those are just a few of what the paragraph claims to be able to do with a little investment for the technology. The way this paragraph is phrase is by letting the audiences see the processes that have to be done in order for an action to start. That way the audiences may start to have an opinion. At the end of this article it starts to talk about how long test must be done, and how the longer we wait the more expensive food will be as well as leaving millions to die. This passage is using pathos for its persuasiveness. It’s getting the audience that deep emotion of people waiting and starving. It goes on to say that anti-science ideology and the failure of the government brought the food crisis in the first place. This paragraph points a finger to show they are right, as well as preceding to say we have to change if something is not working. In the second article of, “The Failure of Gene-Altered Crops”, Vandana Shiva is presented as the ethos in this paragraph; she is the founder of Navdanya in India which is the movement of seed keepers and organic farmers. She written many books on how genetically modified foods are failing and how they will affect us. This grabs the audience attention because she’s a strong believer on organic substance. In the next paragraph it says we need biodiversity intensification that can work with nature instead of going against it, it doesn’t give a specific details as to why.
The only argument made was when Doug Gurian-Sherman of the union of concerned scientist published a studied, “Failure to Yield”. In the study it is closely evaluated on the genetically modified for 20 years to see if they would increase yield or to just see better progress. In the end it showed that the experiment failed to increase yields as well as it failed to engineer crops to be insect-resistant nor herbicide tolerance. In this paragraph it was use ethos and logos. Ethos was Doug Gurian-Sherman and his research study, “Failure to Yield”. Logos was the bits of facts that came from Doug Gurian-Sherman research
study. In the next to paragraph, it is shown by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development [IAASTD] has concluded that genetic engineering did not seem very promising in the future. IAASTD found that the small farms that based on agri-ecology would produce much more food. This paragraph had also ethos, being IAASTD. As for the logos was what IAASTD found in the 4 years on figuring out what genetic engineering could hold in the future. The article makes a lot of tactics with logos and ethos to reach the audience, giving a great amount of facts from other credited people. The next three paragraphs have ethos as well as logos. In the passages, the book, “Soil, Not Oil” is brought as an example to give that industrial monocultures are more vulnerable to climate changes since the soil kept in organic plants help keep moisture making them less likely to die in draughts. In the next passage it is brought up the false statement by genetic engineering industry that it’s only possible to respond to climate change with modified food. Vandana Shiva made a statement on crops evolved to be better resilient to climate, as well Vandana has helped create seeds for drought resistance, and flood resistance as well as salt tolerance. This give the audience the idea that genetically modified food isn’t always needed when nature can just evolve. The last two passages gets more in depth on how genetically modified food and organically produced food will take us in the future. The passage give the audience a since of the future that genetic engineer for modified food is a waste a time, it does not give a sense of food security in the future and it will cause small farmers to go dept. As for Vandana Shiva Navdanya, it is a conserving biodiversity that tries to not be wasteful in water at the same time make much more food per acre. The best article that is persuasive is the second article, “The Failure of Gene-Altered Crops. The first article was very persuasive, but it never made it secure enough to make it believable that it close to happening. It produce more emotion then logic tactics, making it very hard to determine whether it is a dream that the nation wishes to reach or something that could be accomplish for the future. Great syntax on making it very emotional with pathos, but argument stance it would be weak. The first article could have been stronger if it talked about other countries that are already doing genetically modified foods. Korea has been doing genetically modified food for years, about 20 countries including the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have already a labeling system for genetically modified foods, (Hae-Yeong Kim 132). Another good point would be to bring up Matin Qaim, “Vitamin A deficiency is a serious nutritional problem, causing multiple adverse health outcomes. Simulations for India show that Golden Rice could reduce related health problems significantly, preventing up to 40,000 child deaths every year.(552) In India Bt cotton has reduce some poverty and actually help small famers, now some in China and South Africa, Bt cotton are a first-generation of genetically modified technology. As for the second argument, many ethos and logos were presented. One being Doug Gurian-Sherman published study on how genetic industries isn’t really going anywhere, it has great facts, it was a 4 year study so it showed what was being done in long term. A lot of facts on how genetic industry is failing on making modified food was claimed, but not many on how it could do more harm as well as it would bankrupt some small farmers for even trying to use modified seeds. The plant evolving had a great way point in Gebre Egziabher, Tewolde B( The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Agriculture and Food Production, and Their Impacts on the Environment - A Developing World Perspective) “Scientists believe that species evolved from a common ancestor through competition and natural selection. They also believe that changes in genes occur in all species owing to mutation, with the probability of mutation of each gene remaining constant under the same environment”. (11) Giving this quote would remind the audience that life has a way of fixing itself and just because the technology is here does not give scientist right to use a different approach but instead try harder to help organic farming when it has been secure food source.
Cite
American Medical Assoc.
Gebre Egziabher T. The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Agriculture and Food Production, and Their Impacts on the Environment - A Developing World Perspective. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science [serial online]. December 2, 2003;53:8-12. Available from: Science & Technology Collection, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 27, 2012.
American Medical Assoc.
Hae-Yeong K, Jae-Hwan K, Mi-Hwa O. Regulation and detection methods for genetically modified foods in Korea. Pure & Applied Chemistry [serial online]. January 2010;82(1):129-137. Available from: Science & Technology Collection, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 27, 2012.
American Medical Assoc.
Qaim M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. New Biotechnology [serial online]. November 30, 2010;27(5):552-557. Available from: Science & Technology Collection, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 27, 2012.
people affected, and not just a specific number. It gives it more of a feel then would be given an exact number. In the next paragraph it goes back to logos, in the paragraph it is said science is the answer to fixing the hunger. It describes action that must be taken an order to be able to start helping starving people, as well as how will science help farming, like drought tolerance, mitigation of negative climate change, and pest resistance in crops. Those are just a few of what the paragraph claims to be able to do with a little investment for the technology. The way this paragraph is phrase is by letting the audiences see the processes that have to be done in order for an action to start. That way the audiences may start to have an opinion. At the end of this article it starts to talk about how long test must be done, and how the longer we wait the more expensive food will be as well as leaving millions to die. This passage is using pathos for its persuasiveness. It’s getting the audience that deep emotion of people waiting and starving. It goes on to say that anti-science ideology and the failure of the government brought the food crisis in the first place. This paragraph points a finger to show they are right, as well as preceding to say we have to change if something is not working. In the second article of, “The Failure of Gene-Altered Crops”, Vandana Shiva is presented as the ethos in this paragraph; she is the founder of Navdanya in India which is the movement of seed keepers and organic farmers. She written many books on how genetically modified foods are failing and how they will affect us. This grabs the audience attention because she’s a strong believer on organic substance. In the next paragraph it says we need biodiversity intensification that can work with nature instead of going against it, it doesn’t give a specific details as to why.
The only argument made was when Doug Gurian-Sherman of the union of concerned scientist published a studied, “Failure to Yield”. In the study it is closely evaluated on the genetically modified for 20 years to see if they would increase yield or to just see better progress. In the end it showed that the experiment failed to increase yields as well as it failed to engineer crops to be insect-resistant nor herbicide tolerance. In this paragraph it was use ethos and logos. Ethos was Doug Gurian-Sherman and his research study, “Failure to Yield”. Logos was the bits of facts that came from Doug Gurian-Sherman research
study. In the next to paragraph, it is shown by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development [IAASTD] has concluded that genetic engineering did not seem very promising in the future. IAASTD found that the small farms that based on agri-ecology would produce much more food. This paragraph had also ethos, being IAASTD. As for the logos was what IAASTD found in the 4 years on figuring out what genetic engineering could hold in the future. The article makes a lot of tactics with logos and ethos to reach the audience, giving a great amount of facts from other credited people. The next three paragraphs have ethos as well as logos. In the passages, the book, “Soil, Not Oil” is brought as an example to give that industrial monocultures are more vulnerable to climate changes since the soil kept in organic plants help keep moisture making them less likely to die in draughts. In the next passage it is brought up the false statement by genetic engineering industry that it’s only possible to respond to climate change with modified food. Vandana Shiva made a statement on crops evolved to be better resilient to climate, as well Vandana has helped create seeds for drought resistance, and flood resistance as well as salt tolerance. This give the audience the idea that genetically modified food isn’t always needed when nature can just evolve. The last two passages gets more in depth on how genetically modified food and organically produced food will take us in the future. The passage give the audience a since of the future that genetic engineer for modified food is a waste a time, it does not give a sense of food security in the future and it will cause small farmers to go dept. As for Vandana Shiva Navdanya, it is a conserving biodiversity that tries to not be wasteful in water at the same time make much more food per acre. The best article that is persuasive is the second article, “The Failure of Gene-Altered Crops. The first article was very persuasive, but it never made it secure enough to make it believable that it close to happening. It produce more emotion then logic tactics, making it very hard to determine whether it is a dream that the nation wishes to reach or something that could be accomplish for the future. Great syntax on making it very emotional with pathos, but argument stance it would be weak. The first article could have been stronger if it talked about other countries that are already doing genetically modified foods. Korea has been doing genetically modified food for years, about 20 countries including the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have already a labeling system for genetically modified foods, (Hae-Yeong Kim 132). Another good point would be to bring up Matin Qaim, “Vitamin A deficiency is a serious nutritional problem, causing multiple adverse health outcomes. Simulations for India show that Golden Rice could reduce related health problems significantly, preventing up to 40,000 child deaths every year.(552) In India Bt cotton has reduce some poverty and actually help small famers, now some in China and South Africa, Bt cotton are a first-generation of genetically modified technology. As for the second argument, many ethos and logos were presented. One being Doug Gurian-Sherman published study on how genetic industries isn’t really going anywhere, it has great facts, it was a 4 year study so it showed what was being done in long term. A lot of facts on how genetic industry is failing on making modified food was claimed, but not many on how it could do more harm as well as it would bankrupt some small farmers for even trying to use modified seeds. The plant evolving had a great way point in Gebre Egziabher, Tewolde B( The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Agriculture and Food Production, and Their Impacts on the Environment - A Developing World Perspective) “Scientists believe that species evolved from a common ancestor through competition and natural selection. They also believe that changes in genes occur in all species owing to mutation, with the probability of mutation of each gene remaining constant under the same environment”. (11) Giving this quote would remind the audience that life has a way of fixing itself and just because the technology is here does not give scientist right to use a different approach but instead try harder to help organic farming when it has been secure food source.
Cite
American Medical Assoc.
Gebre Egziabher T. The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Agriculture and Food Production, and Their Impacts on the Environment - A Developing World Perspective. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science [serial online]. December 2, 2003;53:8-12. Available from: Science & Technology Collection, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 27, 2012.
American Medical Assoc.
Hae-Yeong K, Jae-Hwan K, Mi-Hwa O. Regulation and detection methods for genetically modified foods in Korea. Pure & Applied Chemistry [serial online]. January 2010;82(1):129-137. Available from: Science & Technology Collection, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 27, 2012.
American Medical Assoc.
Qaim M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. New Biotechnology [serial online]. November 30, 2010;27(5):552-557. Available from: Science & Technology Collection, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 27, 2012.