Allem |1 Kenzie Allem Cassie Coop Racheal Nell Carol Sieverts English 1010 08 November 2013 Rhetorical Analysis

The World Needs Genetically Modified Foods The article The World Needs Genetically Modified Foods by Robert Paarlberg was published on the Wall Street Journal (wsj.com) on April 14, 2013. Paarlberg received his B.A. from Carleton College and his Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University. He is now the Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College. Throughout this article, Paarlberg urges Americans to appeal the labeling of genetically modified foods. Paarlberg talks about, If America joins Europe in embracing a new norm against the cultivation of GMO crops developing countries will likely follow suit. He claims that labeling genetically modified foods would cause for a setback for third world countries. In the article, Paarlberg reports on multiple scientific studies that have been done in the name of GMOs. He brings to light the study of genetically modified wheat that was tested in 1994. This wheat was designed to cut the cost on weed control but was cut off because farmers feared the resistance of using a genetically modified food. Likewise, GMO rice that could be grown with less usage of pesticides was thrown out because of activists groups, such as Greenpeace, that have scared consumers away from GMO foods. Robert Paarlbergs intended audience for this article is Americans who are eighteen and older. Paarlbergs intended purpose for writing this article is to spread awareness of the benefits of GMO foods and to persuade citizens from voting for the labeling of GMO foods. His secondary audience is directed towards farmers who are opposed to growing GMOs. Paarlberg does not overwhelm his readers with

Allem |2 copious amounts of technical language and does not assume that the reader has background knowledge in the history of GMOs. He effectively states the history of GMOs within our culture and the tests that have been done on them. He also goes through his article and gives information on the different studies presented in the article. Paarlberg does relatively well when appealing to logos. The points in the article, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has long opposed the mandatory labeling of GMO foods because it agrees with a scientific consensus that these foods so far bring no new risks to human health or the environment, correlate well with his thesis. During the article he maintains the risks of labeling GMO foods and the negative effects it can have on a global impact. The scientific studies for the article do not have any reputable source listed. Paarlberg fails to mention who conducted the research and what part of the U.S. the research took place in. Paarlberg establishes ethos by giving a well-researched background on GMOs. Paarlberg makes sure that he goes back and gives the readers knowledge of the past problems with GMOs and the new future GMOs could hold for us. He persuades readers that he is knowledgeable by proving not enough research has fully been done on GMOs to come to the conclusion of fear. This document would be an error free document if the sources from which Paarlberg retained his information would be cited properly. Paarlberg attacks pathos strongly by his outward passion towards the issue of labeling GMO foods. He brings a sense of urgency and plays on peoples weakness to help one another for a better future. Paarlberg states farmers and consumers in India currently exposed to toxic insecticides when they grow and eat eggplant could reduce their exposure if farmers had access to a GMO eggplant, Bt brinjal, that needs fewer chemical sprays. Farmers and consumers in East Africa currently vulnerable to hunger and destitution when drought hits their maize fields would be more secure if growers had permission to plant GMO drought-resistant varieties of white maize. He relies heavily on third world

Allem |3 countries and the climbing starvation rate to sway his audience towards the opposition of labeling GMO foods. A critical piece that was missing in the article was opposition towards the subject. Paarlberg failed to mention any scientists who disagreed about GMOs. The article was extremely biased and was written for the sheer purpose of exposing readers to the hard ways of life people in third world countries are living without GMOs. Paarlberg does not exhibit empathy for the readers beliefs and values. He believes that GMOs are good for the world and should be taken advantage of to decrease world hunger. Paarlberg is persistent during the article by presenting research after research on advantages of GMOs. The article is broken up by paragraphs which makes it easy to read and comprehend. The information is presented in an orderly fashion which switches off from paragraph to paragraph neatly. Paarlberg does not use any visual imagery in his article. The use of graphs would have been a great contribution to the article. This article is a persuasive article that sways readers into seeing a different light on GMOs. The article was well written and organized. The information was well thought out and listed. If we were to change one thing about the article, we would cite the sources and show the opposing sides view.