Seed of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering
In the article, “Seed of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering,” the use of rhetoric is prevalent throughout the text. To begin with, the text is published by Dr. Mercola. Given the significance of this text and the level of research and analysis required, then the publication of the text by a person who is a doctor increases the appeal. By reading the author’s title, regardless of whether they are a medical doctor or a researcher, we are confident in their work.
For starters, the author starts his post by taking us back to 1980, where there was a supreme court ruling. The case involved a seed patent decision where the decision was 5-4 in favor of seed patents. With the use of such analogy and reflection, the reader understands that the stage is set for a very fierce discussion where even the highest court on earth was also split down the middle. The use of such texts incorporates logos and pathos, where the author stimulates the readers to use logic while stirring their emotion on the said text.
In the post, the author uses ethos in his subtitle, “Seeds of Profit and Dominance.” The subtitle stirs emotions in the reader where they are intrigued and start to question where it is ethical for people to monopolize and sell such kind of technology. The title also employs pathos in ensuring the reader’s emotion is heightened due to the assumed abuse by influential individuals. The author also incorporates logos, where he quotes the number of biotechnology patents that Monsanto has won over the years. By the author quoting 674, as the number of patents Monsanto has won, it ensures the reader is intrigued by the monopoly that such conglomerates have and the need to control them. The use of ethos is brought to life where the author uses ethics as his basis for argument. He argues on the ethical nature of not allowing a farmer to replant their seeds where they do this by forcing the farmers to sign an agreement promising not to do so. The reader becomes intrigued and starts to question themselves regarding the security and safety of the seeds produced by the company. “If they are so safe, they why can’t the farmer replant them without the company’s permission?” is the most reasonable question that the reader will ask themselves; hence continue reading the text to see if they will get an answer.
The successful use of pathos is brought to life by comparing the seed companies to Mafia. People all over the world fear the Mafia and abhor their operations and how they operate, and comparing the seeds companies to them stirs emotions. The author even goes ahead to provide evidence to back up their claim, which attracts the author and effectively uses rhetoric to pass the message. The second instance of heightened use of pathos is where the author delves into the farmer’s suicide cases. The author paints a picture where the farmers are forced into a dilemma and hence result in increased suicide rates. The author goes ahead to use statistics where he incorporates publications from reputable institutions such as the New York University School of Law and also quotes the number that the institution’s research team has come up with. The number of deaths by suicide among Indian farmers stands at 17,638. The author uses this logical example and introduces an emotional angle by breaking down the numbers even further. By saying that one farmer dies every thirty minutes, then the author stirs emotion and get the required response from the reader.
The author does not stop there in his use of emotion to pass his point. He explains why the number of deaths is high compared to the previous years. He connects to his audience by use of ethical appeal, where he questions the mode of operation of these companies. It also brings to light the role of these companies’ monopolistic powers in the increased deaths by suicide among farmers. His possing of the connection between the use of GMO crops and the increase in the sale of drugs also raises ethical questions. The connection questions whether the two sectors’ players are in bed where they are using one another to benefit from the misery of the people.
I believe the “Seed of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering” article is more successful than the “GMO safety debate is over” article. In the “GMO safety debate is over” article, the author limits their use of logos. Instead of the author quoting specific numbers, the author uses phrases such as “Having examined hundreds of scientific papers written on the subject, sat through hours of live testimony from activists and considered hundreds of more comments from the general public” which may imply that the author of the article is not sure of the numbers. It also means that the author may be guessing his numbers and, therefore, the level of confidence is eroded.
Moreover, the author’s comparison of the United States and the United Kingdom’s data of illness and consumption that may have been caused by GMO crops is not factual. The author does not incorporate any data to support their claim. They make assumptions all through and do not introduce the data that the committee was researching the similarities of the cases used. This does not stimulate the readers’ confidence. However, the author of the “GMO safety debate is over” article restores the reader’s faith, where they implement the use of ethos. This is successful by them stating that they gave people with opposing opinion time to speak and express their opinion.
However, the article incorporates the use of ethos and pathos in its argument. In highlights the plight of bona fide scientists who are harassed by politicians and members of the public as they continue to do their jobs. The article states how political parties members such as senior Republicans have gone to the extent of humiliating them and discrediting them despite the people lacking any knowledge on Genetically Modified Organisms. Although the emotions and ethical appeal are brought to light, it is too little too late considering the lack of data and logic in the paper.
In a nutshell, the target audience of such articles is that of people who are involved in research and education. As such, the paper should utilize higher logos and ethos than pathos. The author of “Seed of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering” has reached his target audience by incorporating a lot of data and also raising ethical questions such as monopolization in such crucial sectors. With such analysis and proper delivery of the message to the target audience, I believe “Seed of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering” is a successful article.