Paper Example. Rhetorical Analysis in Context and Research Practice

This paper analyzes the excerpt “Can GMOs Be Sustainable?” rhetorically from the Food Fight book authored by McKay Jenkins. The topic debates whether GMOs' (genetically modified organisms) negative impacts can still be accommodated in our routine life situations or whether should GMOs be done away regardless of its undeniable benefits (Jenkins 3). By the end of this rhetorical document, I hope to develop a clear conclusion by assessing the author's different arguments according to their justifications. The thesis statement, “sustainability of GMOs in the present and future life," will be reiterated in conclusion to justify whether GMOs are sustainable or not.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The author is enthusiastic about the rhetorical approach to the issues affecting human wellbeing. Therefore, recently published other humanity-related titles, including Food Fight to discuss the GMOs and the American diet future; Contamination, to discuss the synthetic chemicals harming human lives; and Poison Spring, to describe the unusual connections between the chemical industry and the Agency of Environmental Protection (Jenkins 6).

The excerpt's particular purpose was to characterize GMOs sustainability into three dimensions: social, economic, and ecological. The author was keen on portraying that product quality is not all about the physical nature but also the intrinsical fulfillment of all the three sustainability dimensions. The author terms it as TQ (Petrescu et al., 169), total quality – satisfying responsible labor conditions, controlled utilization of pesticides and other chemicals to minimize food contamination, a healthy working environment for GMOs production, affordable price of GMOs products, etc. (Dingman et al., 95).

The author used the excerpt to question the environmental plan concerning the water and soil quality protection, non-utilization of harming pesticides, integrated management of crops, protection of HCV areas (high conservation value), mitigation and adaption of impacts related to climate change (Dingman et al., 106). Jenkins purposed to show that agricultural production expansion can only happen based on rehabilitation, demonstrated land rights, intensification, and utilization of fallow terrains with insignificant carbon emissions.

For the audience, the writer targets the Americans and any individual globally that are involved or are planning to produce and use GMOs products for food consumption and production (Petrescu et al., 169). In my view, GMO technology has become rampant in the food production sector to cater to the high food demand of the rapidly growing population (Dingman et al., 03). Therefore, the author has or is likely to have a significant audience percentage since this excerpt might be a solution to all the GMOs' stakeholders or users.

From this excerpt, the author utilizes a rhetorical approach to the GMOs' debate. He asks the audience what they know concerning GMOs and their attitude towards them. Jenkins provides examples from the farm industry that is small-scale to complicate the readers perspective irrespective of their initial attitudes.

For the author's minor claims, Jenkins comprehensively views farmers that are majorly "sweet spot," earning their livelihoods on a scale ranging from market farmers and significant large agribusiness. The author discourages the entire relying on farming technology by portraying the edified local farmers to balance their utilization of technology and sustainable farming practices. Jenkins explains their decisions on the use of products and techniques for an in-depth understanding of his audience regarding on decision of utilizing the GMOs technology. He describes how some elements of GMOs technology face resistance from small scale farmers. "The local farmers have criticized romanticizing the "inorganic" development and strategizing companies like Whole Foods and Chipotle. The critics therefore makes one rethink what self-thought an individual has concerning the phrase “natural” or the implications of “sustainable” agribusiness” (Jenkins 8).

The author blames the food systems failure as a cause of rampant GMOs utilization (Jenkins 9). He suggests scaling back as a solution to industrial farming as the fault for the national food consumption disorder. Jenkins excludes interests of purity, the pursuit of utopian food visions, elimination of GMOs, or even pesticides as reasons for food consumption disorder (Petrescu et al., 169). Jenkins suggests small scale food production by farmers that ensure extraordinary care of their farming land.

Jenkins has used Schmidt’s’ farm as an ideal example of a successful farm that observes natural means of food production in conjunction with genetically modifying. He describes it as not enormous, but still occupies the food system's core industrially (Jenkins 12). “The farm is said to produce corn, soybeans, and tomatoes taken to giant agribusinesses, and are orchestrated and overseen by larger and influential companies globally, such as Perdue” (Jenkins 12).

Jenkins wants his audience to envision the associated benefits of dealing with natural ways of food production. Therefore, the author describes how Schmidt's farm won numerous awards and received positive appraisals for its environmental stewardship. The author precisely explains the significance of embracing soil conservation strategies that would appeal to even environmentalists (Jenkins 12). The author uses the farm as an example to demonstrate the best organic farming practices that should be adopted for safe yet yield means of food production. "Rather than leaving their fields uncovered after harvest, they utilize withered plants as manure and not the organic fertilizers” (Jenkins 12). “The farm practices crop rotation and incorporate pest management that is integrated” (Jenkins 12). The author adds that the Schmidts practice cover cropping that holds the soil intact to prevent erosion and future crops and the running of the attached nutrient and soil phosphorous (Jenkins 12).

The author portrays the methods to avoid harmful effects from GMOs and other related technologies. “Since the Schmidts spray their weeds, they do not have to cultivate their soil, thus reducing the carbon footprint — both by less driving their tractor and retaining the soil carbon in its place” (Jenkins 12). Jenkins further explains by utilizing the following sentences, "To prevent Star Link-style soybeans contamination, the farm flushes out the grain elevators that combines whenever it harvests to ensure no GM beans purposed for the chicken feed market gets in contact with the seeds cultivated for human consumption” (Jenkins 12).

In my view, the writer’s language is persuasive rather than to the readers rather than argumentized, which is, in most cases, expected for rhetorical questions. Jenkins has elaborately structured the excerpt to outline the GMOs' related issues clearly and suggested how to go about them. In some sense, the author has answered the question of whether GMOs can be sustainable. On what I have observed from Jenkin's thoughts, GMOs can be sustainable only if proper strategic planning are embraced and implemented to avoid the adverse effects of GMOs in food production and consumption (Petrescu et al., 169).

GMOs can both be sustainable or not sustainable depending on the approach methods according to the author. Therefore, the author’s ideas have vividly addressed the thesis statement, “sustainability of GMOs in the present and future life."

Work Cited

Dingman, K., Mayernik, J., & Mellin, S. (2019). Development of GMOs and sustainability.

Jenkins, McKay. Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet. Penguin, 2017.

Petrescu, Dacinia Crina, Iris Vermeir, and Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag. "Consumer Understanding of Food Quality, Healthiness, and Environmental Impact: A Cross-National Perspective." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17.1 (2020): 169.