Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical Analysis
Irais Tarango
University of Texas at El Paso

Rhetorical Analysis

Genetically modified organisms can be defined as organisms in which the genetic

material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural
recombination. There are many controversies over GMOs with regard to their use in
producing food. One author, Peter Lachmann concentrates on Genetically Modified
Organisms and the science behind a common myth. Genetically modified foods pose a
threat to human health. in his article named Genetically Modified Organisms. The
scientific background of genetic modification technology and its application to food
crops are discussed, along with the question of what risks, if any, it may pose to human
health. The author includes that his purpose is to alarm the public and bring about a
situation that is both farcical and alarming. ( pg .1) . He states a fact that health hazards
from the process of genetic modification of food are non-existent. There are, indeed,
reported health benefits from some currently grown, genetically modified crops. Which
can approve or disapprove the common myth.
In the article, Lachmann could have done a better job at giving more than just his
name. But because the article is in a book called Panic Nation, his credibility is
included, along with the backgrounds of other authors in the book. By using scientific
lexis like, virulence, pneumococci, double helix structure and recombinant DNA
technology (pg. 2) his audience can feel more comfortable in believing that he knows
what hes talking about. Peter targets the general public, mainly anyone who has any
concerns about GMOs and if theyre harmful or not. Researchers can be an audience on
the topic as well. With the fact mentioned Health hazards from the process of genetic

Rhetorical Analysis
modification of food are non-existent (pg. 1) he uses the scientific background to make
the common myth weaker and the fact stronger. He includes that Many applications of
genetic engineering in medicine are well established and not at all controversial (pg. 2)
to portray to his audience that other forms of genetic modification like medicine do not
harm human health. .
Lachmann puts all his information into sections. Starting with the introduction,
that includes his purpose and audience. Next is the scientific backround, which tells the
audience the first observation of genetic modification, the first application of genetic
engineering, and protests held against GMOs. Following with Do GMOs present health
risks?, in which Lachmann argues that with the procedure of genetic modification, there
is absolutely no reason to suppose that it is harmful to human health. He explains that the
possible toxic effects of introducing a new transgene, need to be tested. Just as well as all
new foodstuffs need to be tested for toxicity and allergenicity. Next comes the section
that answers this question What, then are the anti-GM arguments?, Peter gives his
audience the opinions of people who are against GMOs. GMOs in reality give no
advantage to the farmer and do now have the beneficial properties claimed for them.
Farmers are unlikely to grow crops which are of no benefit to them (pg. 3). With this
argument, the author claims that the anti-GMO campaign has overtones of moral
fanaticism meaning that the anti-GMO campaign sees GMOs as undesirable and
actually evil (pg. 3). And the last section The Future of GMOs, Lachmann suggests
that it carries huge potential and the elimination of known allergen and toxis compounds
is also possible. By organizing the sections, the audience has a clear understanding of the
authors purpose, which is also mentioned in the introduction of his article.

Rhetorical Analysis
I do believe that Pete Lauchmann is effective in achieving his goal for the topic.
By including the scientific background, and frequently asked questions, he fulfills his
purpose. The use of logos in his text are the strongest out of all the rhetorical strategies.
The organization is the biggest reason for that fact. Pathos plays a small role in this
article. He uses a very minimum of emotional appeal to try and convince his audience
that GMOs are not harmful by informing us with facts on all arguments. Instead of using
strong emotional appeals, the author uses facts from experiments and basic knowledge
that everything has to be tested before sent out to the public. By these facts, a sense of
persuasion is included. The weakest rhetorical strategy has to be ethos. The audience only
feels comfortable with the information present because they know that the writer did his
own research. But theyd feel much more confident if they knew where this man came
from and how he came across the exigence of his work. All of that is mentioned at the
beginning of the book, but for readers who dont know that this article is part of a chapter
in a book, this credibility is left behind.

Rhetorical Analysis
Feldman S. And Marks, V. eds. John Blake, Paul Lauchmann (2005) Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
q=genetically+modified+organisms+peter+lachmann&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44