Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Rhetorical précis

In Jennifer Steinhauer and Stephanie Strom's article "Senate to vote on GMO food labeling bill" (March 2016), they demonstrate the two sides of the public and their believes in the effects of labeling or not labeling foods. The author 's first illustrate their idea by stating the controversy and the two sides; then they demonstrate the effects that labeling will cause such as price increases; and to conclude they propose the response to products being labeled "Gmo-free." Their purpose is to present the conflict of passing the labeling bill in order to know if it will actually better the nation. They seem to have a liberal audience in mind because they show both of the opinions surrounding the issue of labeling coming from Democrats and Republicans.

Work cited:
Steinhauer, Jennifer, and Stephanie Strom. Senate to Vote on GMO Food Labeling Bill. New York Times, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/business/senate-to-vote-on-gmo-food-labeling-bill.html?referer=https://www.google.com/>.

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Visual against genetically modified foods

Summary: This image by Dave Granlund depicts a couple who's shopping for foods and they notice that most foods are genetically modified. Granlund further describes the idea that if labeling were to occur, most foods in supermarkets are noted as genetically modified.

Analysis: Granlund represents irony in this visual because in today's society labeling is not a requirement to Genetically modified food. What he is trying to prove is that even though the labeling of genetically modified isn't occurring at the moment that if it were, an excessive amount of foods at the local markets would be labeled. He wants his audience to understand that indeed most of the foods they eat are genetically modified. When he makes the woman ironically say "Would be easier to label the few items that haven't been modified" he creates the sense that today only a bit of foods remain normal while the rest are modified. The controversy comes in mind that many people want genetically modified foods labeled in order to know what they are eating, but the problem is that most items in stores are already genetically modified and the consumers do not know. Yet, what difference does it make to label if it's evident that most food in today's society is genetically modified as  Granlund represents thoroughly his point against genetically modified foods.

Work Cited:
Granlund, Dave. "GMO Food Label Laws." Cagle Post RSS. Cagle Post RSS, 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 04 Mar. 2016. <http://www.cagle.com/2013/08/gmo-food-label-laws/>.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Op-Ed Gentically modified salmon

In "Tell consumers what you're eating" by the Editorial board (2015) they really propel the topic of Salmon and its' distribution among the United States. The topic of Salmon being labeled is argued throughout with the authors plea of labeling salmon.

The Editorial board describes their argument thoroughly and clear, and their argument is against genetically modified food "label it as genetically engineered." By stating the issue about salmon at first, it gives the readers a quick background of the topic "The salmon...has genes inserted that allow it to grow to market size twice as fast." The author tries to enforce the main topic of genetically modified salmon being brought into the market in order to grow faster and bigger. The author then describes the responses of people towards the change of salmon being genetically modified and how it will be controlled "The salmon will be made sterile...unable to breed with other salmon." This statement is included as a counterargument, but the author rebutted it by stating that there could never be a true regulator because anything can happened. This issue has become a great impact to the consumers because salmon is being genetically modified, but there is no labels to actually notify them whether it is genetically modified or not. The author seems to be successful when building the argument against genetically modified salmon, and believing that it should at least be labeled for its consumers to know what they're eating.

Work cited:
Editorial Board. "The New York Times." Tell Consumers What They Are Eating. New York Times, 1 Dec. 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Thoreau's argument

Henry David Thoreau in “Walden” created the idea that simplicity is the key to living life. Thoreau’s idea about simplicity should be taken in account in today's world.

Thoreau states “Food, shelter, clothing, and fuel” (11). These four items in life are what are “necessary of life,” yet he emphasizes that man will want more; man only wants more because man never gets fulfilled. Today, people have the greatest material item but when they see someone with a greater one they emulate them. Thoreau states “I went to the woods...I did not wish to live what was not life” (80). This statement by Thoreau illustrates that because he went to the woods he uncovered the meaning of living. If he hadn't gone to the woods he would've never known he wasn't living life. Being in the woods, proved to Thoreau that a man needs to learn how to appreciate necessities. Since people today are surrounded by technology they don't appreciate what life has to offer as necessities.Thoreau questioned whether living his life was truly living life.

On the other hand, people argue against Thoreau’s ideas of simplicity when saying that people shouldn't focus on four essentials when life can offer many more. This is true but “Our life is frittered away by detail” (Thoreau 81). If man has many essentials in life, man will only focus on the materials in life. In today's world people should be pleased with having any materials, but when they see people with better they aspire. People should be satisfied with the needed and not the wanted in life.

Thoreau's ideals in the 1800’s connect to the 21st century because in this world people focus more on materials in life and this is preventing people from actually living life.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Negatives of Gmos

In Andrea Donsky's article "What's so bad about GMO's? Top ten reasons to avoid them" (2014), she proclaims the her unknowingly audience that they probably do not know they are eating genetically modified food because of the lack of labeling. Donsky then states all the effects that genetically modified food has on people and the environment.

Donsky's purpose of this article was to inform people about genetically modified organisms and their effects. By informing more people about this issue she can spark an ignition to start action against GMO's. One important factor she notes is about the lack of labeling food "federal regulations on labeling foods that contain GMO's, none have passed" ;and because of this food companies as well do not want to tell their customers if their food is genetically modified because of the fear of losing clientele. However, by not telling their customers, or not labeling, many impacts on human health could be rising without the person even knowing. As Donsky states "GMO's have only been in out diet since mid '90s...what the long-term health impacts truly are" she makes the point of the citizens of America being left out on any information regarding the true effects of GMO's because they haven't been around long enough to be justified. Some of the negative impacts Donsky states include "pesticides...cancer...environmental...super weeds...patent issues..." These are just some of the risks she states but there could always be more that have not been discovered yet. All these issues in some way revolve around the topic of the people or environment. Donsky chooses all these negative impacts for a reason; the reason being she wants her audience to not feel ignorant in society but "in the loop." She wants her audience to know the harms of GMO's and she does it well.

Donsky, Andrea. "What's So Bad About GMOs? Top Ten Reasons to Avoid Them." What's So Bad About GMOs? Top Ten Reasons to Avoid Them. 9 Sept. 2014. Web. 05 Feb. 2016. <http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/whats-so-bad-about-gmos-top-ten-reasons-to-avoid-them>.i

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Genetically modified food pros and cons

In Joshua Duvauchelle's article "Pros & cons of GMO foods" (2014), he proposed a neutral position towards genetically modified food. Health issues and "superweeds" are the consequences from GMO's; decreased pollution and herbicide resistant plants are the benefits of GMO's.

Duvauchelle's article is beneficial to the concerned citizens of America because it informs them on the factors of GMO's, whether negative or positive. His purpose throughout the article is not to give his audience a bias position but rather just to state the facts of what GMO's are and what how they're impacting the world. The "Pros & cons of GMO foods" article is the perfect suit to my topic because it gives off context of  genetically modified food and whether it should be banned or not. Duvauchelle gives off great points for each side, for example GMO's are benefiting the problem of pollution because it's decreasing the amount of herbicides that are needed for plants. However, he also states that GMO's are creating new allergens from all the transformations the food has gone through which is impacting society. Therefore, Duvauchelle's article is a great starter when it comes to choosing a position on genetically modified food.

Duvauchelle, Joshua. "Pros & Cons of GMO Foods." LIVESTRONG.COM. LIVESTRONG.COM, 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 30 Jan. 2016. <http://www.livestrong.com/article/213053-pros-cons-of-gmo-foods/>.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Anger: An American History

In Schiff's opinion editorial "Anger: An American History" (2015) New York Times she claims that America has evolved but it has not revolutionized because the same problems in America are still occurring. The author first uses examples by Ryan's quote "not what this country stands for" to show expert opinions towards her topic; she then compares old and present America using  New England; and to conclude she illustrates with diction such as "Amen" to Trump's statement. Her purpose is to prove to her reader's that it may seem as a lot of change has come to America but in reality it is not that different as it was in the 17th century, and the problem's that have risen since those dates have grown instead of disappeared. She seems to have an upscale audience in mind because she uses Trump as her evidence and Trump is an advocate who doesn't support minorities.