Está en la página 1de 5

Xu 1

Ruihong Xu
Professor Landrus
English 101
6 November 2015
The Push to Label Genetically Modified Foods: Rhetorical Analysis
Labeling of genetically modified foods is one of those hot topics that seem to make
people especially heated and angry. Sometimes it seems like consumers, government and food
companies will never be able to agree on anything or ever reach a compromise. How many
genetically modified foods do you eat everyday? Most people cannot answer this question
because they have no access to the information they need to make decisions about their foods. So
should labels be required for all food that contains genetically modified ingredients? But have
you ever taken the time to think about how to strike a blow for our rights to know what they are
putting in to our body? Aamena Ahmed, Eric Herm and Gerald Cole have. They are all organic
farmers in Taylor, Texas. As a matter of fact, most farmers oppose genetically modified foods
labeling because it brings unnecessary attention to the product, which could slow sales.
However, what the three farmers said is supporters of genetically modified foods labeling could
not compete with the lobbying of big agricultural business but they never give up. In this article,
The Push to Label Genetically Modified Foods, the author, AamenaAhmed, attempts to reach
more farmers and then persuade them of the value of legalizing labeling of genetically modified
foods, utilizing strong rhetorical strategies to target the attention of readers to the problems
associated with foods markets. While his essay was never published for a particular audience, he
makes it clear through various cues that he intends to win over conservatives to his cause.

Xu 2
However, his argument ultimately fails because it relies too heavily on appeals that conservative
audiences will readily dismiss from an organic farmer.
In his argument, Aamena lays out three main reasons that genetically modified foods
should have mandatory labeling. First, consumers have a right to know what is in their food,
especially concerning ingredients for which there may be health and environmental concerns.
Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of types of food products
that they wish to avoid. The second reason is that voluntary labeling has not been sufficient for
informing consumers about the presence of genetically modified ingredients. Finally, some
Americans may want to avoid eating certain products that may be introduced by genetically
modified methods for religious or ethical reasons. With these reasons, Aamena appeals to his
audiences sense of justice in that on one should be denied their rights to know what they want to
know for no good reason especially when it comes to their health. On the surface, the logic of the
argument seems solid, but Aamena uses several rhetorical strategies that work against him in the
end.
Aamena makes an admirable effort to connect to his audience by establishing a
conservative ethos. On occasion, he explicitly identifies himself as someone with certain
conservative values or as less critical than many other supporters. He also tries to make a
distinction between his attitude towards genetically modified foods and notions that normal
consumers may have about what genetically modified foods are; he claims that he believes the
safety of genetically modified foods. In other words, he is not the radical anti-GMOs persuader
some people picture when they imagine a farmer. He presents himself as an ordinary farmer
when he uses the more subtle cues, like he only eat plants grown by himself, but he rings a little
false when he openly calls himself conservative. Many conservatives would simply never accept

Xu 3
that a person could both support genetically modified foods and only eating organic foods, and
such a stance may seem to that kind of audience like pandering instead of an honest selfportrayal.
In fact, Aamena in some ways hamstrings his ethos when he relies on evidence from his
personal experience as a farmer and consumer. While personal experience can sometimes help
the audience see the arguer as a real person, thus making it more difficult to dismiss the
argument, Aamenas personal experience may be off-putting to a conservative audience. He
refers to his difficulty in supermarkets that offers a rich supply of different commodities. He
openly discusses the situation that when his wife and him go shopping, it is inevitable to
purchase some foods that contain genetically modified ingredients that they do not know of. He
tries to reveal how important labeling of genetically modified foods is, but the food industry
would find numerous drawbacks against mandatory labeling. These revelations about himself
make the argument more personal, but he comes across through them as the kind of person
conservative audience does not particularly want to hear from.
Aamenas use of pathos is somewhat more effective. He repeatedly uses words like truth,
integrity and safety to associate his argument with a feeling of righteousness. He also makes an
attempt to appeal to conservatives mistrust of government when he writes, Now, I am
advocating a requirement to include warning labels on consumer products with genetically
modified organisms, or G.M.O.s. I am among a small group of farmers and environmental
advocates pushing for the labeling of G.M.O. products in Texas. But the push is getting little
support from the Republican-dominated state leadership or from major agribusinesses. Finally,
he turns to the likelihood that most people in his audience completely do not understand the

Xu 4
farmers, writing, it was a struggle to get peoples attention. Where I live, 90 percent of the
people were looking at me like I was saying the aliens are coming.
The biggest weakness and worst misreading of his audience comes in Aamenas logic.
Aamena spends a large portion of his argument trying to explain that voluntary labeling of
genetically modified foods is not wrong, a cause probably lost on the conservative audience.
Even if he made his case entirely on the scientific evidence, the audience would likely be
unmoved, but he makes the further mistake of attacking government. Most of his audience
probably professes belief in the government and the food industry, and even if they are
unfamiliar with the finer points of translation and apologetics, they will not believe the
arguments of a farmer over what they have been told in life and by other conservatives. Thus,
Aamena not only fails to persuade, he likely alienates much of his audience in this passage,
further weakening his position with them and rendering his powerfully emotional conclusion
unmoving.
Aamenas strongest points lie in his argument that people have absolute rights to know
what their foods contain. He could have made this case resting on the warrants that mandatorily
labeling is always a better option than voluntarily labeling, the warrant he relies on is somewhat
helpful but not enough in his original argument. Instead, he tries to back up the warrant that no
one should be denied the rights to the option for foods out of his or her control, using evidence
that his audience will dismiss. This fundamental misunderstanding of his conservative audience
makes the argument far less persuasive than it could have been.
Overall, there are too many of the authors own opinions that make the article subjective
rather than convincing. Although it has a clear clue to link the authors points, it lacks enough

Xu 5
evidence and reliable sources to support the authors arguments. Moreover, the article tends to be
subjective because the author uses too many personal advices.

También podría gustarte