“Monsanto’s Harvest of fear” Analysis
Monopolizing on a certain product is a business practice that has been used for decades. While this practice is extremely beneficial to those who succeed in doing it, it is simultaneously harmful to every other business owner, usually smaller franchises, in the same line of work. While the one large business continues to profit, the smaller business owners usually go out of business or, if they’re lucky, loses an extremely large percentage of their sales. This is what Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele try to illustrate through their usage of both pathos and logos in “Monsanto’s Harvest of fear”, in which they attempt to get the readers to view big businesses as agricultural bullies. …show more content…
They began by informing the audience “… in 1980 the U.S. supreme court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply”(Barlett and Steele 133). They also go on to say “…Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to the U.S. Department of Agricultural data” (Barlet and Steele 133). This history was put in so that the authors could depict how an unnecessarily large company that took advantage of a fairly common product and used it to get an upper hand on its smaller competitors, forcing them to succumb to the larger company’s new rules of agriculture. It was beneficial to the overall piece because it did just …show more content…
They begin by talking about a small-town business owner named Rinehart. In an effort to get the reader to sympathize with Rinehart (who symbolizes the smaller businesses) upon first introduction to him, the authors mention that he is one of the few people left in the small town whose business has not failed. Barlett and Steele also say things like “Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area…” depicting Rinehart, the small business owner, as a hardworking, wholesome and respectable person. On the contrary, when introducing Monsanto, they depict the conversation between him and Rinehart, in which Monsanto is the aggressor. Monsanto threatens Rinehart with a lawsuit and even goes so far as to say “we will get you…” The authors’ inclusion of this dialogue was to insure that their readers would automatically have a negative mental image of the big business and their tactics. This method worked because it forced the reader to pick a side from the beginning and read the rest of the piece empathizing with the people on that
Monopolizing on a certain product is a business practice that has been used for decades. While this practice is extremely beneficial to those who succeed in doing it, it is simultaneously harmful to every other business owner, usually smaller franchises, in the same line of work. While the one large business continues to profit, the smaller business owners usually go out of business or, if they’re lucky, loses an extremely large percentage of their sales. This is what Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele try to illustrate through their usage of both pathos and logos in “Monsanto’s Harvest of fear”, in which they attempt to get the readers to view big businesses as agricultural bullies. …show more content…
They began by informing the audience “… in 1980 the U.S. supreme court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply”(Barlett and Steele 133). They also go on to say “…Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to the U.S. Department of Agricultural data” (Barlet and Steele 133). This history was put in so that the authors could depict how an unnecessarily large company that took advantage of a fairly common product and used it to get an upper hand on its smaller competitors, forcing them to succumb to the larger company’s new rules of agriculture. It was beneficial to the overall piece because it did just …show more content…
They begin by talking about a small-town business owner named Rinehart. In an effort to get the reader to sympathize with Rinehart (who symbolizes the smaller businesses) upon first introduction to him, the authors mention that he is one of the few people left in the small town whose business has not failed. Barlett and Steele also say things like “Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area…” depicting Rinehart, the small business owner, as a hardworking, wholesome and respectable person. On the contrary, when introducing Monsanto, they depict the conversation between him and Rinehart, in which Monsanto is the aggressor. Monsanto threatens Rinehart with a lawsuit and even goes so far as to say “we will get you…” The authors’ inclusion of this dialogue was to insure that their readers would automatically have a negative mental image of the big business and their tactics. This method worked because it forced the reader to pick a side from the beginning and read the rest of the piece empathizing with the people on that