In the article, “GMOs are a Grand Experiment on Health, Environment (op-ed),” the author Katherine Tallmadge, states that GMOs, or Genetically Modified Organisms, are an unknown factor. She is someone well respected in the GMO field to be interviewed about GMOs by CNN, yet her expertise is hardly ever voiced in the article. Tallmadge is a nutritional expert as well as holding a degree in behavioral analysis, she is qualified to discuss the nutritional effects of GMOs in this article. She begins her article by highlighting the risk factors associated with consuming GMOs. Then she discusses what the government’s stance on GMOs are. Then she discusses the environmental impact GMOs have had. Finally she discusses the hazards of soybean oil, a product
…show more content…
This is another failure to properly use logos. She presented, and assumed, genetically modified soybeans as being this negative, bad thing. With this assumption comes the connotation that the article ceases to be about GMOs in general and more about one specific GMO, soybean oil. Tallmadge states in her article that soybean oil and genetically modified soybean oil have the same health risks (Tallmadge 2). This states that soybean oil is not bad for you because it is genetically modified. Thus, soybean oil becomes useless for her argument. Which, counteracts and undermines her whole paper, which ties back in with her organizational structure, or logos. Towards the end of the article, Tallmadge stops arguing about GMOs being an unknown factor and begins to discuss solely the effects of soybean oil at the end of her article. She targets specifically the omega-6 fatty acids found in soybean oil. This entire section of the article is a break off from her original argument and seems to be included with this article to provide what the author’s views on GMOs are, not following with her thesis or even the direction and purpose the paper started …show more content…
The closest she ever comes to an emotional arguement was on the second page, “Ironically, the National Academy of Sciences found that if every American followed these guidelines and attempted to eat those five cups a day, there wouldn’t be enough of the food to go around!” (Tallmadge 2). Followed by “Yes, genetically modifying soybeans and corn will allow the country to grow more at a lower cost. But at what other costs? Is it really what’s best for regular consumers, or what’s best for Big Agriculture and the food industry?” (Tallmadge 2). These are her only attempts to persuade her audience without using pathos. Even then, the two quotes do not provide any information that would help her encourage her audience to agree with her. Tallmadge was attempting to scare her audience away from GMOs by conveying that there may be a food shortage because of GMOs. Which would help her appeal to the audience, a little
This is another failure to properly use logos. She presented, and assumed, genetically modified soybeans as being this negative, bad thing. With this assumption comes the connotation that the article ceases to be about GMOs in general and more about one specific GMO, soybean oil. Tallmadge states in her article that soybean oil and genetically modified soybean oil have the same health risks (Tallmadge 2). This states that soybean oil is not bad for you because it is genetically modified. Thus, soybean oil becomes useless for her argument. Which, counteracts and undermines her whole paper, which ties back in with her organizational structure, or logos. Towards the end of the article, Tallmadge stops arguing about GMOs being an unknown factor and begins to discuss solely the effects of soybean oil at the end of her article. She targets specifically the omega-6 fatty acids found in soybean oil. This entire section of the article is a break off from her original argument and seems to be included with this article to provide what the author’s views on GMOs are, not following with her thesis or even the direction and purpose the paper started …show more content…
The closest she ever comes to an emotional arguement was on the second page, “Ironically, the National Academy of Sciences found that if every American followed these guidelines and attempted to eat those five cups a day, there wouldn’t be enough of the food to go around!” (Tallmadge 2). Followed by “Yes, genetically modifying soybeans and corn will allow the country to grow more at a lower cost. But at what other costs? Is it really what’s best for regular consumers, or what’s best for Big Agriculture and the food industry?” (Tallmadge 2). These are her only attempts to persuade her audience without using pathos. Even then, the two quotes do not provide any information that would help her encourage her audience to agree with her. Tallmadge was attempting to scare her audience away from GMOs by conveying that there may be a food shortage because of GMOs. Which would help her appeal to the audience, a little