Genetically Modified Organisms: A Rhetorical Analysis

Montgomery 1

Braelyn Montgomery
Professor Jared
WRT 111
1 April 2015 Unnecessary Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms In Thomas A. Hemphill and Syagnik Banerjee’s article,
Mandatory Food Labeling for
GMOs, they discuss why genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the United States are not and should not be labeled. Throughout the article Hemphill and Syagnik explain that the FDA is in charge of creating food product labels, but that the labeling of GMOs are not needed for several reasons. While the article is an easy read and is aimed towards the average adult audience, it is unclear and ambiguous what the authors are attempting to convey because they don’t support their claims. However, both authors are credible and the effectively rebuttal
counterarguments.
The authors do not establish ethos throughout their article, but after a small amount of research the audience can easily establish that both authors are extremely credible. Thomas a
Hemphill is an
Associate Professor of Strategy, Innovation, and Public Policy at the University of Michigan­Flint (“Thomas A. Hemphill”). He holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration, a M.S. in Organizational Dynamics, and a M.S. in Public Policy (“Thomas A. Hemphill). Syagnik
Banerjee is also an associate professor at University of Michigan­Flint. Banerjee has his PhD in
Business (“Syagnik Banerjee”).
The article begins by informing the reader how the the consumption of GMOs originated with the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994 and GMOs have revolutionized to become 70­80 percent of

Montgomery 2

the American diet. This fact engages the reader’s curiosity. If such a large percentage of our food is genetically modified shouldn’t we be more informed about this? These astonishing statistics created a first impression that Hemphill and Banerjee would support the labeling of GMOs, but as I continued to read I discovered the opposite. Hemphill and Banerjee begin their argument by mentioning the vast consumption of GMOs is positive for society because it “keeps production costs down… by 15­30 percent”. They then take advantage of logos by including a note from the editors of
Scientific America that states that humans have always been “tinkering with DNA” since agriculture began and by doing this we allow our crops to undergo drought and withstand herbicides. In addition, Hemphill and Banerjee utilize logos by stating that safety concerns of
GMOs have been analyzed by the European Union, World Health Organization, American
Medical Association, United States National Academy of Sciences, Health Canada, and British
Royalty Society. According to the evaluations that concern the health factors of consuming
GMOs, the major organizations have concluded that there is no health risk compared to foods that are grown using “conventional plant improvement techniques”.
Furthermore it is not till the end of the first, out of only four pages that the authors make it apparent what their argument is. They provide the reader all this information but do not inform the audience why until the end. This is ineffective because it doesn’t allow the reader to make many connections as they are reading, and causes he/she to feel lost. Hemphill and Banerjee begin to argue before the audience is aware what the argument is! In short, I believe that
Hemphill and Banerjee’s thesis is the mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms is not necessary in the United States, but if it does occur it is the responsibility of the FDA.
Hemphill and Banerjee continue their article by mentioning how GMOs are regulated federally and state that GMOs should be “regulated by the nature of the products rather than the process of which they are produced.” They make this claim but don’t provide evidence to

Montgomery 3

support it or why we shouldn’t care about the process. The failure to elaborate and explain the claim and what they are intending to express may cause the reader to question the argument. The expression, the nature of, can be defined as the basic characteristics, qualities, or circumstances.
Therefore, a basic characteristic of a GMO is that it is a GMO.
This contradicts their argument because they argue only the nature of a product is important, but the products nature is being a
GMO. Immediately following the claim, Hemphill and Banerjee mention the organizations responsible for regulating biotechnology products including: the United States Department of
Agriculture, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the FDA. It makes no sense to me, as a reader, why the authors started to comment on one subject, switched to another in the middle of the paragraph, and then concluded with an idea related to the topic sentence.
Through out the article Hemphill and Banerjee mention several times the FDA and the agency’s role in administering food. However it seems that they assume the audience knows what the FDA is, which is reasonable because previous knowledge of the FDA is common amongst American citizens. But oddly, the authors decide to finally mention in the middle of the article what the FDA is. This should have been defined in the article the first time the FDA was mentioned, not after it has been discussed for several paragraphs. This causes the audience
to feel like the author’s are disorganized and forgot to mention the FDA.
As the article proceeds Hemphill and Banerjee mention the FDA argues labeling GMOs will cause the average consumer to view GMO food products as “inferior or unsafe”. But once again the authors fail to elaborate the claim. They don’t mention to the audience why viewing genetically modified foods as inferior or unsafe can create a negative result, or why consumers will view these products as inferior or unsafe.
Instead the leave the audience to form their own conclusions again. This makes the authors seem lazy, and as if they don’t have many reason, details, or facts to back­up the claims they are making. Thus, forming a weak argument.

Montgomery 4

However, Hemphill and Banerjee strengthen their argument through a visual use of pathos. They include an image in their article of a bright, red tomato that has a large GMO label placed on it. This may support their claim that by labeling their GMO food products this can have a negative impact on consumers because it does look inferior, unsafe, and dissatisfying. It looks like a warning label which can cause consumers to panic, instead of consumer viewing it as a healthy, safe, and nutritious tomato. In contrast, this isn’t a realistic example of how GMOs will be labeled and a rational audience will make note of this.
Furthermore, Hemphill and Banerjee successfully use logos and address counter arguments others might have for the labeling of GMO and provide rebuttals. For instance, one counterargument is that American consumers should be entitled to know what the ingredients
are in the foods they are consuming. They rebuttal by stating that according to American Association of the Advancement of Science this may “‘mislead and falsely alarm consumers’” because
“genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques.” They also mention that by creating labels this will be costly to all consumers even if consumers don’t care about the information.
As the authors continue their rebuttal they provide more ethos to the audience through the experiences of other countries who have had mandatory GMO labeling. The authors suggest that we should learn a lesson from countries throughout the European union, Japan, and New Zealand who have enforced the labeling of particular GMO products. Hemphill and Banerjee explain that this backfired on the listed countries because grocery stores began to remove GMO products from the shelves. The removal of GMO products from store shelves was caused by consumers avoiding to purchase the products because of the labels.
Towards the conclusion of the article the authors reveal recent political events regarding the labeling of GMO food products. This is an efficacious technique because it informs the

Montgomery 5

reader of the most recent activity concerning the controversy of labeling GMO food products.
To close their article Hemphill and Banerjee state, “if mandatory food labeling is enacted into law at state or federal level, it would have long­term, costly consequences for both American consumers and the food industry.” The short, and sweet statement successfully sums up the authors’ argument.

Montgomery 6

Works Cited
Hemphill, Thomas A., and Syagnik Banerjee. "Mandatory Food Labeling for GMOs."
Regulation
37.4 (n.d.): 7­10.
Business Source Premiere
. Web. 1 Apr. 2015.
"Syagnik Banerjee | University of Michigan­Flint."
Syagnik Banerjee | University of
Michigan­Flint
. University of Michigan­Flint, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.
"Thomas A. Hemphill | University of Michigan­Flint."
Thomas A. Hemphill | University of
Michigan­Flint
. University of Michigan­Flint, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.