A Rhetorical Analysis Monsanto

In the article entitled Monsanto's Harvest of Fear, Donald L. Barley and James B. Steele demonstrate that Monsanto already dominates the United States food chain with their genetically modified seeds. They are currently targeting milk production which is just as scary as the corporation's legal battles against the small farmers. This situation leads to a history of toxic infections or diseases. There were many disagreements between Gary Rinehart and a stranger about the innovative seeds. They were under surveillance and an investigator came in the picture.

Companies like Monsanto are destroying the lives of small scale farmers using their seeds. “The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to deregulate the seed sector. ”(“The Seeds of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming”) Rapidly Monsanto swooped in and began to overtake the seed market in India.

New regulations, an enforced code of ethics and striving to be more socially responsible has led Monsanto to enhance their relationships with stakeholders. Monsanto wrote a pledge to inform all of their

In 2008 “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” was published in Vanity Fair. Penned by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, this exposition presents acts by Monsanto that may be considered questionable. Acts such as possessing a “shadowy army of private investigators” and the production of “two of the most toxic substances ever known”. The company was established in 1901 as Monsanto Chemical Works.

The use of this magnitude of authors made this book a lot more interesting to read because of all of the clashing ideas and ideas that built upon other ideas about GMOs. The GMO Deception was Edited by Sheldon Krimsky who is a Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University, and adjunct professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. It was

“Today in the United States, by the simple acts of feeding ourselves, we are unwittingly participating in the largest experiment ever conducted on human beings.” Jeremy Seifert certainly knows how to get viewers’ attention, as exemplified by the film blurb describing his 2013 documentary, GMO OMG. The frightening depiction of the food industry is one of many efforts to expose consumers of the twenty-first century to the powerful organizations that profit from national ignorance and lack of critical inquiry and involvement. Seifert effectively harnesses the elements of rhetoric throughout his phenomenal argument against remaining complacent about the food industry’s act of withholding of information about genetically modified organisms from

The three essays assigned this week had several common threads running through them. The strongest core theme is the rapid change in the food cycle in America and the vast changes that have taken place in the way by which we grow, produce, and process the food that average Americans eat. The food we eat now is drastically different from what our grandparents grew up eating and the three essays each examine that in a different way. Another theme is the loss of knowledge by the average consumer about where their food comes from, what it is composed of, and what, if any, danger it might pose to them. “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele is a harsh look at the realities of food production in a country where large corporations, like Monsanto, have been allowed to exploit laws and loopholes to bend farmers and consumers to their

Monsanto’s low levels of charitable giving and history of ethical lapses do not help the company’s case that it is seeking to improve the lives of the people of the world. However, Monsanto

Companies have known that their pesticides and fungicides could cause cancer and birth defects, but have still used them. These companies acted to gain money without any thought given to the people who they were harming. When some of these companies were accused of not stopping the use of the harmful agents, many settled, but not many admitted or felt any guilt for the actions that they took. Corporations have no feelings other than their drive to gain profits, and many companies harm people for their own personal

In 1979, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 2.4 million veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange during their service in Vietnam. Five years later, in an out-of-court-settlement, seven large chemical companies that manufactured the herbicide agreed to pay $180 million in compensation to the veterans or their next of kin. Various challenges to the

A corporatist markets off what they know would put them in financial ruin if people found out the truth behind what they claim is bettering the world. Once gathering enough positive claims, they proceed anyway. This is the quintessence of GMO marketing. Now, as the newest generation, millennials are likely to have been fed these genetically modified foods growing up, but have the technology to research and make their own intelligent and informed decision on whether these foods should be continued to be produced and distributed throughout the world. It is not being overly suspicious to not believe a corporation such as Monsanto, the leading agrochemical company, when with minimal research they publicize that GMOs are safe to consume.

Over the decades, the topic of the environment has always ended in endless arguments and debates. In Edward O. Wilson’s book The Future of Life, he satirizes two passages about stereotypes of environmentalists and people first critics. Using rhetorical questions, ad hominems, Irony, and logos, Wilson illustrates the unproductive manner of environmentalists.

Had he gone further into the report he would have found that organic fruits and vegetables are significantly closer in price to conventionally grown ones. We are all paying extra for the fallout from GMOs. This case indeed shows that food labeling issues are not only vital and extremely important today, but also that there is very hard to come to a solution. It would be very easy to label everything, require companies to let consumers know every single ingredient and in turn, hope to increase global health levels. However, it seems that opposing side has very strong arguments and companies are reluctant to sacrifice their profits in order to improve consumers health, which, very interestingly, is sometimes argued would not be achieved by doing so

Al Gore exhibits an intense fascination with global warming in the world. Al Gore is hoping for an incline in the observance of global warming in today’s humans. To inspire change in the young minds of today Al Gore uses an emotional appeal to draw the audience in and establish a common ground. Gore also employs an ethical appeal, hoping to draw in another demographic in which are focused on the future of our country. Finally, Gore utilizes data, graphs, tables, and other such information. With the application of these rhetorical strategies Al Gore is able to reach out to a wider audience and impact more change.

It's plain negligent and potentially dangerous. Not only did the agency refuse to study these pesticides individually, but it also "refused to consider the impacts of benzovindiflupyr when combined with these other chemicals, despite the likelihood that synergistic impacts may make these products more