Golden Rice Rhetorical Analysis

On August 8, 2013, a field of rice, called “Golden Rice”, was completely devastated by a group of angry Filipino protestors. However, this was no ordinary rice. It was genetically modified rice that was designed to alleviate some major problems in the world. One farmer passionately said, “we do not want our people, especially our children, to be used in these experiments.” However, there were several people outraged by this act of vandalism. One of those people, Amy Harmon, decided to bury the notion that Golden Rice is detrimental to human health. She attempted this difficult task in her article, “Golden Rice: Lifesaver?” I will be analyzing how she conveys her message to the readers of the article in this rhetorical analysis essay. I argue
Harmon, a renowned journalist, published her article in a well-known and credible online newspaper, The New York Times. She clearly displayed her main purpose, which is to persuade her readers that Golden Rice is not harmful to the public in a serious tone. The article was published on August 24, 2013, in response to the destruction of a field of Golden Rice on August 8, 2013. It was very timely when it was first published, and it is still current because there is a lot of controversy surrounding genetically modified foods now. The article was written for the general public, which is evident in the publication that the article was displayed in, The New York Times, which is read by a wide range of people. Also, the article was written in a very commonly understood diction, with no terminology that the general public would not be aware of. Another hint that led me to believe that this was written for the general public, was the length of the article. The article was short enough that the common person would be able to read without his/her attention drifting, while still conveying Harmon’s message. She also cites many professional and knowledgeable sources throughout her