The F. A's Blatant Failure On Food Rhetorical Analysis

The article, "The F.D.A’s Blatant Failure on Food" is written by Ruth Reichl and is published in The New York Times. In this article, Reichl builds up her argument that people should take a proactive role in protecting against superbugs. Reichel uses logical flow, compelling evidence, and striking diction to persuade her audience.

Reichel uses clear flow throughout her article. This helps her persuasion because her argument can be easily followed by the reader. Reichel starts off with a simple statistic that draws attention because vaccines have been thought to be accessible to all, so the fact that the numbers are so high for illnesses is appalling. This immediately hooks the reader. Following the introduction, Reichl explains the reasons why the number are so high, and smoothly transitions into exactly, “Why should we be concerned”(5). After addressing this, it creates a sense of duty and a need for closure. Then, Reichel ties into even more escalating numbers of the people harmed by these superbugs. Reichl brings in historical elements and sources that provide even more compelling evidence to support Reichl’s point. This way it makes her

For example, Reichl often describes the FDA using negative connotations such as, “toothless” (4). This is very contradictory as the FDA regulates the quality of people’s food, so the FDA should be thought of as very strict with their regulations. However, the useless of words like “toothless” for a government organizations meant to protect the health of millions of people draws a very negative view. Furthermore, Reichl includes some of her own comments and thoughts as at the end of paragraph six, she writes, “That’s a truly terrifying prospect” (6). Here, she is describing the prospect of scientists and medical practitioners not having medication and cures to these antibiotic resistant illnesses. This provides a sense of intimacy with the reader and emphasizes her