G.M.O. Labeling Law Could Stir a Revolution: Rhetorical Analysis (Post 2)
Many people feel it was one of the weakest law movements by the government under the presidency of Barack Obama when genetically modified organisms (G.M.O.) labeling became a law; one person thinks otherwise. Mark Bittman wrote an Op-Ed titled “G.M.O. Labeling Law Could Stir a Revolution” that suggested this new law could be the perfect opportunity to find more information on G.M.O.s and where they come from. Bittman uses both information from the government and the social medias to captivate and persuade the readers to take the opportunity of their right to know to obtain more information.
By providing information directly from the government, the use of Ethos is introduced to inform readers from a political perspective. Bittman introduces the idea that many people in the food movement fighting for G.M.O. labeling felt as if the new law didn’t do much of a difference in what they were fighting for, but the author feels that this was more of a win than a loss. Bittman states, “The Department of Agriculture define what constitutes a genetically modified food ingredient and then requires food manufacturers to label products that contain them.” The quote expresses Ethos by using the Department of Agriculture as a credible source. The meaning behind this is for readers to get an understanding of what this new law expects from companies in food production. The author also mentions how food companies marked as Non-G.M.O. producers included the use of labels, symbols, a toll-free number for the consumers, and a barcode easily accessible to scan.
Logos is applied along the middle section of the article where foods claimed as modified are mentioned. According to the author, “Up to 90 percent of the corn, soybeans and cotton now produced in the United States comes from genetically modified seeds.” This quotes is used to support what sort of modified foods consumers can already expect from the food they consume possibly on a daily basis. Giving the audience more information about what products are modified is a part of what the author uses to support his point and stand on the topic discussion.
Bittman includes a quote that will get engage with the readers to think about the products being sold to us. As the author states, “G.M.O.s have become an indispensible crutch for the fertilizer- and pesticide- dependent monoculture that is wrecking our land and water and generating the execrable excess of corn- and soy-based junk food that is sickening our population and decreasing our life spans.” The quote connects to Pathos in the sense of how the type of wording used. There are these strong, meaningful words that exagerate the quote. The use of these words and their exageration really make the reader engage and focus more on the issue. If it were structured with more simplicity, the reader might have just skimmed through the writing. But because of these strong words that pop out at the readers, there is a connection that interferes with a reader’s matter of thinking.
With all these facts given and persuasive ideas, Bittman concludes his article by putting all his data together to come to one conclusion: fight with what we have. Even though these food companies have given people the right to know about their products, it will never be enough to fully understand where these crops are really coming from.
Bittman disagrees when he writes, “But now that the new labeling law has opened the disclosure door a crack, why not open it wide and see what’s inside?” This quote refers to the idea that we as consumers now have the right to ask where these products are coming from or what process was taken to have them out in the market. These types of questions may not be answered how we’d like or expect, but they are the first step to the food labeling revolution.
- Bittman, Mark. “G.M.O. Labeling Law Could Stir a Revolution”. 2 September 2016.