While the article is an easy read and is aimed towards the VA rage adult audience, it is unclear and ambiguous what the authors are attempting to con eve because they don’t support their claims. However, both authors are credible and the effects vela rebuttal counterarguments. The authors do not establish ethos throughout their article, but after a small a mount of research the audience can easily establish that both authors are extremely cry edible. Thomas a Hemophilia is an Associate Professor of Strategy, Innovation, and Public policy at the University of Machinating (“Thomas A.
Hemophilia”). He holds a Ph.D. In Business Admits titration, a M. S. N Organizational Dynamics, and a M. S.
In Public Policy (“Thomas A. Hemophilia). Assaying Bannered is also an associate professor at University of Machiavellian Banners e has his PhD in Business (“Assaying Bannered”). The article begins by informing the reader how the the consumption of Smog originated with the Favor Save tomato in 1994 and Smog have revolutionized to become 7080 percent ofMontgomery 2 the American diet. This fact engages the reader’s curiosity. If such a large peer entangle of our food is genetically modified shouldn’t we be more informed about this?These Astor gashing statistics created a first impression that Hemophilia and Bannered would support the label ling of Smog, but as I continued to read discovered the opposite.
Hemophilia and Bannered begin their argument by mentioning the vast consumption of Smog is positive for society because it “k peps production costs down… By 1530 percent”. They then take advantage of logos by including g 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 drop get and withstand herbicides.In addition, Hemophilia and Bannered utilize logos by stating that safe TTY concerns of Smog have been analyzed by the European Union, World Health Organization n, American Medical Association, United States National Academy of Sciences, Health Can dad, and British Royalty Society. According to the evaluations that concern the health factors o f consuming Smog, the major organizations have concluded that there is no health risk co marred 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 AU hors make it apparent what their argument is.
They provide the reader all this information n 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. Hemophilia and Bannered begin to argue before the audience is aware what the argument is! In short, I believe that Hemophilia and Banshee’s thesis is the mandatory labeling of genetically modify De organisms is not necessary in the United States, but if it does occur it is the responsibility o f the FDA.Hemophilia and Bannered continue their article by mentioning how Smog are re Galatea federally and state that Smog should be “regulated by the nature of the prod cuts rather than the process of which they are produced. ” They make this claim but don’t provide evidence toMontgomery 3support it or why we shouldn’t care about the process. The failure to elaborate e and explain the claim and what they are intending to express may cause the reader to aqueous n the argument. The expression, the nature of, can be defined as the basic characteristics, qualities or circumstances. Therefore, a basic characteristic of a GUM is that it is a GUM.
This contradicts their argument because they argue only the nature of a product is important, but the product s nature is being a GUM. Immediately following the claim, Hemophilia and Bannered mention the o organizations responsible for regulating biotechnology products including: the United State s 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 e topic sentence.Through out the article Hemophilia and Bannered mention several times the FDA and the agency’s role in administering food. However it seems that they assume the a audience knows what the FDA is, which is reasonable because previous knowledge of the FDA i s common amongst American citizens. But oddly, the authors decide to finally mention n the middle of the article what the FDA is. This should have been defined in the article the first it me the FDA was mentioned, not after it has been discussed for several paragraphs. This cause s the audience to feel like the author’s are disorganized and forgot to mention the FDA.
As the article proceeds Hemophilia and Bannered mention the FDA argues labels Eng SMOG will cause the average consumer to view GUM food products as “inferior or u unsafe”. But once again the authors fail to elaborate the claim. They don’t mention to the audio once why viewing genetically modified foods as inferior or unsafe can create a negative result, o r why consumers will view these products as inferior or unsafe. Instead the leave the audience t o form their own conclusions again. This makes the authors seem lazy, and as if they don’t have e many reason, details, or facts to backup the claims they are making. Thus, forming a weak a argument.Montgomery 4 However, Hemophilia and Bannered 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 GUM label placed on it.
This may support their claim that by labeling their GUM food pro ducts this can have a negative impact on consumers because it does look inferior, unsafe, a ND dissatisfying. It looks like a warning label which can cause consumers to panic, instead of con summer viewing it as a healthy, safe, and nutritious tomato. In contrast, this isn’t a realistic exam el of how Smog will be labeled and a rational audience will make note of this.
Furthermore, Hemophilia and Bannered successfully use logos and address count arguments others might have for the labeling of GUM and provide rebuttals. For instance, one counterargument is that American consumers should be entitled to know who at the ingredients are in the foods they are consuming.They rebuttal by stating that according to A American Association of the Advancement of Science this may “mislead and falsely alarm consumer s” because “genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made FRR m crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques. They also mention that by create Eng 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 e through the experiences of other countries who have had mandatory GUM labeling.
The a authors suggest that we should learn a lesson from countries throughout the European union, Japan n, and New Zealand who have enforced the labeling of particular GUM products. Hemophilia and Baa nerve explain that his backfired on the listed countries because grocery stores began to remove GUM products from the shelves.