Genetically Modified Organisms: A Rhetorical Analysis

Montgomery 1

Braelyn Montgomery
Professor Jared
WRT 111
1 April 2015 Unnecessary Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms In Thomas A. Hemphill and Syagnik Banerjee’s article,
Mandatory Food Labeling for
GMOs, they discuss why genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the United States are not and should not be labeled. Throughout the article Hemphill and Syagnik explain that the FDA is in charge of creating food product labels, but that the labeling of GMOs are not needed for several reasons. While the article is an easy read and is aimed towards the average adult audience, it is unclear and ambiguous what the authors are attempting to convey because they don’t support their claims. However, both authors are credible and the effectively rebuttal
This contradicts their argument because they argue only the nature of a product is important, but the products nature is being a
GMO. Immediately following the claim, Hemphill and Banerjee mention the organizations responsible for regulating biotechnology products including: the United States 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 topic sentence.
Through out the article Hemphill and Banerjee mention several times the FDA and the agency’s role in administering food. However it seems that they assume the audience knows what the FDA is, which is reasonable because previous knowledge of the FDA is common amongst American citizens. But oddly, the authors decide to finally mention in the middle of the article what the FDA is. This should have been defined in the article the first time the FDA was mentioned, not after it has been discussed for several paragraphs. This causes the audience
Instead the leave the audience to form their own conclusions again. This makes the authors seem lazy, and as if they don’t have many reason, details, or facts to back­up the claims they are making. Thus, forming a weak argument.

Montgomery 4

However, Hemphill and Banerjee 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 GMO label placed on it. This may support their claim that by labeling their GMO food products this can have a negative impact on consumers because it does look inferior, unsafe, and dissatisfying. It looks like a warning label which can cause consumers to panic, instead of consumer viewing it as a healthy, safe, and nutritious tomato. In contrast, this isn’t a realistic example of how GMOs will be labeled and a rational audience will make note of this.
Furthermore, Hemphill and Banerjee successfully use logos and address counter arguments others might have for the labeling of GMO and provide rebuttals. For instance, one counterargument is that American consumers should be entitled to know what the ingredients