Contents
Brainstorm Pre-reading, jigsaw research, Discussion Questions.................................................... 2
ARGUMENT & CLAIMS ........................................................................................................... 3
SOME MAJOR CLAIMS ............................................................................................................ 3
NOTES ON STRATEGIES ......................................................................................................... 4
Tackling Food Inc. & the Strategies paper – some Notes .............................................................. 7
Food, Inc. Project (GROUP WORK) .......................................................................................... 7
Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies – Prompt & Assignment Options ................................................ 9
Option 1: Rhetorical Analysis of Food Inc ................................................................................. 9
Option 2: present your own analysis/argument ........................................................................ 10
Option 3: Applying Strategies (Creative Project) plus Self-Analysis ...................................... 11
RUBRIC/Peer Review ASSIGNMENT 3 .................................................................................... 12
Template Sentences for Paper 3 .................................................................................................... 14
Sample Student Papers .................................................................................................................. 15
Brainstorm Pre-reading, jigsaw research, Discussion Questions
Jig Saw Research for Students to Do:
Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, filmmaker Robert Kenner, Eric Schlosser, Michael Pollan,
Monsanto, Oprah and veggie libel laws, Joel Salatin, Polyface Farms, and Stonyfield Company.
Round-up and round-up resistant GMO seeds.
Pre-reading/Discussion questions
1. To what extent is obesity a personal choice, and to what extent is it caused by the larger
context – the regulatory environment, systems of subsidies, food policy, marketing and
advertizing, urban design and political choices? SEE OECD report on obesity
http://www.oecd.org/health/fitnotfat
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/worlds-highest-obesity-ra_n_738110.html
A new report has found that over two-thirds of the U.S. population is currently overweight. The
report, released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), says
that "soaring obesity rates make the US the fattest country in the OECD." More alarmingly, the
problem of obesity in the U.S. is not limited to adults: America also has the highest rate of child
obesity among developed nations. America, of course, is not alone among OECD nations in the
struggle to deal with weight issues. In almost half of OECD countries, 50 percent or more of the
population is now classified as overweight. Meanwhile, rates for obesity have doubled and even
tripled in certain countries since 1980. Most tellingly, before 1980, the report states, rates of
obesity in OECD countries were generally below 10 percent.
2. Do you know which agricultural products are subsidized, and whether that makes a difference
to what people eat, and what is in most foods?
3. Is America’s industrialized food system is making us unhealthy – obese, diabetic and primed
for heart disease?
4. Do your students know people with diabetes? Do you know which groups of people in the
U.S. have the highest rates or diabetes? Of obesity?
5. What role should the government play in a) regulating what people eat, b) informing people
about what goes into their food, c) taxing, subsidizing, or incentivizing people to eat some things
and not others?
Examples: NYC bans hydrogenated oils; soda taxes – should taxes be added to sodas the way
taxes are to cigarettes, to discourage consumption, and help pay for the health costs?
6. Should there be a soda ban in schools? (soda consumption shaped in early life – so banning it
may prevent kids from drinking so much, and reduce diabetes.
7. Should manufacturers be required to list genetically modified food so consumers know about
it? What about meat from cloned animals?
8. Should fast food restaurants be required to list nutrition information not just on walls, but on
the package, so consumers more able to see it – like health warning on cigarettes?
9. Cows are fed growth hormones to produce more milk – should this be listed on milk?
10. Is organic food healthier? Is it better for the environment and/or animals?
11. Is the industrial food system unhealthy? Is it unethical? Is it unsafe?
12. Are all the antibiotics put into animals a problem? Why are antibiotics used so often in food
production?
CLAIMS & EVIDENCE IN FOOD INC.
It can be hard to find claims in a movie where there is no narrator and thus no explicit claim-maker. Clues
to look for:
• Chapter titles, text/captions that appear on-screen, music
• Positions/ideas that are repeated
• Positions/ideas presented by the main authorities in the movie – Pollan, Schlosser, Salatin, etc.
• Motifs, images, symbols, visual tropes that are repeated often
• Question/answer patterns
• Problem/solution patterns
Remember that claims need to be contestable/controversial. This isn’t really a claim: “The way we
produce food has changed enormously in the last 50 years.” Instead, it’s a statement. However, “The way
we produce food has changed enormously in the last 50 years, and this has had a terrible effect on health,
the environment, and the way animals are treated” is a claim, as many people would disagree.
USE THE CHAPTER TITLES
1. Introduction/Overview
2. Fast Food to All Food
3. A cornucopia of choices (‘the illusion of diversity”)
4. Unintended Consequences (cows fed corn, e-coli, etc. KEVIN’S STORY)
5. The Dollar Menu
6. In the Grass
7. Hidden Costs
8. From Seed to the Supermarket
9. The Veil
10. Shocks to the System
11. The Power of the Consumer
ARGUMENT & CLAIMS
Overall argument: Our food system is harmful to the environment, our health, workers and animals, and
it represents a dehumanized, instrumental, technocratic view of the world.
SOME MAJOR CLAIMS
■ Power is concentrated in a handful of agricultural companies who use this power in deeply harmful
ways - to control regulation and policy, to dominate people, and silence opposition.
■ The people who are supposed to protect us aren’t, in part because of the power of industry.
Examples, evidence, illustrations: regulators come largely from industry.
“In 1972, the FDA conducted approximately 50,000 food safety inspections.
In 2006, the FDA conducted 9,164.” (Transcript, p. 8).
“Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) : After the first big push to establish food standards, people just got
complacent. We reduced funding for the FDA. We've relied increasingly on self-policing for all of these
industries. And now we just have, really, lost our system.” (p. 9)
“What was kind of adding more insult to injury--it took us almost two or three years and hiring a private
attorney to actually find out that we matched a meat recall….On August 1st, my son was already in the
hospital. They did an E. coli test at the plant that was positive. They didn't end up recalling that meat until
August 27th, 16 days after he died. (p. 10)
Department of Agriculture doesn’t have power to close down plants that repeatedly fail tests.
“In 1998…USDA implemented microbial testing for salmonella and E. coli 0157:h7. The idea was that if
a plant repeatedly failed these tests, that the USDA would shut the plant down because they obviously had
an ongoing contamination problem. The meat and poultry associations immediately took the USDA to
court. The courts basically said the USDA didn't have the authority to shut down the plants. What it
meant was that you could have a pound of meat or poultry products that is a petri dish of salmonella and
the USDA really can't do anything about it…A new law was introduced in direct response and this law
became known as Kevin's Law. It seems like such a clear-cut, common sense type thing…Kowalcyk:
We've been working for six years and it still hasn't passed.” (p. 11).
■ Veil: hidden suffering of workers, hidden suffering and maltreatment of animals, hidden filth and
hidden concentrations of power, hidden (“dishonest”) costs of the system – subsidies, health, etc.
How is this dramatized, illustrated, brought to life? Veggie libel laws: Kevin’s mom too scared to say
anything. Oprah – the queen of “talk” shows, afraid to talk (“It’s almost over - I think I can say that”).
Labeling laws – oppose all labels, from calories, to trans fats, to growth hormones and antibiotics, to
cloning. Packaging in supermarket – trick. Proposed CAFO laws – illegal to take photos. Companies
won’t appear in the movie, and won’t let farmer open his chicken farm to view.
■ We can make a change
NOTES ON STRATEGIES
The construction of the main voices for the narrator – Pollan, Schlosser, etc. Where they are shot,
the settings, clothes, etc. Eg could show Pollan, a Berkeley professor, in lecture hall or library. Instead,
see him in home or kitchen. KITCHEN – place of intimacy – he is just having a chat over a cup of coffee.
Many people are shown eating.
Schlosser shown at start in diner ordering a burger, which he says remains his favorite food. His research
framed as just being curious about where his food came from. Wanted to ask basic questions.
Kevin’s Story & Barb Kowalcyk
Every parent’s worst nightmare is to have a child sick, suffering, and in pain, and be unable to do
anything to help. There is quite a bit of evidence from behavioral psychology, anthropology and
evolutionary psychology that humans are hard wired to find the suffering of children particularly
troubling, and for this to have a dramatic emotional impact. Certainly my worst nightmare.
She is a republican. First see her traveling to Washington, and there is a crucifix dangling from the rear
view mirror.
Litotes – what she wants is so underwhelming, so modest, and so selfless. Her restraint in the face of
astounding provocation is deeply impressive. Her son is dead, and the company that produced the meat
waited months to do a recall. She just wants the companies to say sorry and make sure it doesn’t happen
again.
She is shown unable to get much done – frustrated, walking long halls, tirelessly working for change.
Water – juxtaposition of agonizing story of sponges and need for water, with him playing in the water.
Take idyllic moments of kids in sun, lazing, lying on dad’s knee, contrast with story of his suffering.
Visual tricks/effects used to represent the tricks and fabrications of industrial food, and advance the
Illusion/Reality trope. In introduction, zoom in on little farmhouse, and when pan back, see it’s a label of
a pound of butter. Then we move to a real CAFO, then to apocalyptic fields, with Washington and
factories and corn fields and clouds of pollution, sun that is being extinguished, and businessmen.
Call to action at end – the words on the screen are the closest we get to explicit narrative voice. It makes
the call to action as broad as possible, so everyone is included. Includes changing food stamp policy.
(Go over the list in class.)
It also makes the call fairly easy – everyone can do something, no matter how small. You don’t feel it’s
impossible, or that you have to sacrifice a lot.
There is uplifting but elegiac, wistful music played – Springsteen sings “This Land if your Land,”
originally by Woody Guthrie, who was a progressive.
Right before call to action, we get words of Kevin’s mom. She says it’s hard to talk to people, once they
know you have a dead child – the pity comes, and it’s hard to talk. She says, “I can have a pity party all
by myself.” What she needs is for people to do something.
Elements of traditional verbal argument can be found. For example, the introduction provides a
kind of overview and statement of purpose – the montage of voices and major claims.
Eg rebuttals – Gary Hischfield talking about his radical friends who criticize him, and how he responds,
and how he came to change his own views. This plants objections in the movie.
Concessions – the food system, and companies, have produced many “remarkable achievements, for
which they deserve praise and recognition.”
The contradiction between Salatin and Hirschfield is left to stand. Salatin represents one position,
Hirschfield another. But shown questioning the future – whenasked about all the big companies buying
all the small organic companies, and whether that will change things, he says “the jury is still out.”
Juxtapositions – assign groups to analyze the key juxtapositions, and how they work – what claims they
support.
STRATEGIES & NAMES
Names: organic v pesticide – quote from restaurant in la jolla. Why don’t we call organic produce
“produce” – isn’t organic farming the way it’s always been, so should add adjective “industrial” to
everything else?
Power naming, and what gets naturalized.
Tackling Food Inc. & the Strategies paper – some Notes
The following are some ideas to get you thinking about how you might approach the assignment.
You can focus on a strategy and how it is used across parts of the movie, or you can look at one segment
or section in detail and examine how several strategies are used to advance a point or have an effect. For
example, you could examine the way music and sound effects are used as commentary, or as a kind of
“Greek chorus” throughout the movie. You could look at the way music is used to contrast industrial
farming with the alternative farms shown – for example, with Joel Salatin and Polyface farms (the
“cowboy philosopher” wearing a straw hat and suspenders). Alternatively, you could focus just on the
end, and the “call to action” the movie makes, and consider the strategies used, and how this advances the
movie’s goals/claims.
Possible strategies/sections to examine
You could examine “Kevin’s Story,” and the way pathos is used to move the reader to care about a
potentially dry issue – food safety regulations. Consider how Kevin’s story is told, and the role it plays in
advancing key claims. For example, you could consider the use of music, or home video footage from the
holiday the family took, just before Kevin died. Consider how images of him playing in the water are
juxtaposed with the story of his experience in hospital where he suffered acutely from being denied water.
What details about the family are revealed, and why?
Consider how the family’s struggle to convince politicians to change the law and to enact legislation
protecting other kids, is framed and shot. Why are they shown walking long corridors, expressing
frustration and exhaustion, and how does the mother describe her project and what motivates her? How
do you think this is meant to impact the audience (remember, the filmmakers posed questions to these
people, and likely shot huge amounts of footage, and carefully selected pieces that fit their rhetorical
purpose.
There is no narrator in this movie, and yet a clear set of claims are advanced, and the movie is “cohesive”
– it ties together. How is this achieved? What recurring phrases, ideas, images and motifs are used to tie
the film together and present a unified argument?
How does the moviemaker achieve credibility (ethos)? How does the selection of people interviewed, the
presentation of issues, the images and footage shown, the sources drawn on, the data displayed, and other
such devices work to make the film seem believable?
Look at range of people selected, interviewed and filmed - how they are presented, in what contexts, with
what surroundings, and how are they framed? For example, 2 of the key authorities in the movie are Eric
Schlosser and Michael Pollan. One is a journalist and professor, the other is an author professor at
Berkeley. How are they shown? What are they wearing? How do they talk? What surroundings are they
shown in? etc.
How are rebuttals and objections handled? For example, consider the way the movie handles the objection
that food is all about personal choice and individuals are solely to blame for their health and diet. Pollan
states that this is always the argument that the companies make – that it’s not their fault if people eat
unhealthy food. The movie presents many objections to this, including the segment showing a Hispanic
family trying to find affordable food, who say that it’s really hard to eat in a healthy way.
Food, Inc. Project (GROUP WORK)
For this project, you will be part of a group responsible for leading a class discussion on a section of
Robert Kenner’s 2008 documentary, Food, Inc. You’ll present your answers to the questions below and
be prepared to answer the class’ additional questions on presentation day. Presentations should be about
20 minutes in length (including class discussion). Eight groups of four students each.
Groups Presenting
Fast Food to All Food
A Corn-u-copia of Choices
The Dollar Menu
In the Grass
Hidden Cost
From Seed to the Supermarket
The Veil
Shocks to the System
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Due Date
For your group presentation on each chapter, please prepare the following:









How does your section fit into the greater organization of the film (for example, it introduces a
topic, expands a topic, makes a conclusion to a section, etc.)?
How does this chapter relate or contribute to Kenner’s main argument?
What are the main claims in this section?
What are the main kinds of evidence presented?
What are the main strategies in this section?
How do these strategies work to persuade?
Critical analysis:
o How well does Kenner make his argument?
o Are the strategies effective? Why or why not?
o What could he have included or explained ore effectively to be more persuasive?
Explain at least two key portions.
o Include vocabulary, with definitions.
o Include key figures or terms with explanations.
Prepare at least three discussion questions for the class.
You will be graded on your thoroughness covering all of the above points. However, you may
choose to present these points in any way you wish.
Please be considerate of your group members and make sure that everyone contributes evenly by splitting
up the topics and tasks for this project.
Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies – Prompt & Assignment Options
Option 1: write a 6 page rhetorical analysis of Kenner’s Food Inc., as described below
Option 2: write a shorter, 3 page rhetorical analysis of Kenner’s Food Inc., plus a 3 page
analysis/argument from the “Option 2” section described below.
Option 3: write a shorter, 3 page rhetorical analysis of Kenner’s Food Inc., plus a creative text
from the “Option 3: Applying Strategies” section described below.
Option 1: Rhetorical Analysis of Food Inc.
Food Inc.is a documentary by Robert Kenner about the politics of industrial food production. The
documentary features interviews with writers Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, as well as farmers and
"environmental entrepreneurs." The film aims to “lift the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the
highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our
government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA.” The filmmaker suggests that careful examination of
our food system reveals shocking truths about what we eat, how it’s produced, and who we have become
as a nation.
For this paper you will analyze rhetorical strategies in Food Inc. You will describe, analyze and explain these
strategies, and discuss how they advance the film’s arguments.
Criteria for Evaluation
Successful papers will:
1. accurately describe the authors’ project and argument
2. signal the topic and give a clear indication of how the paper will proceed
3. describe the strategies, provide interpretation and analysis of how the strategies work, and explain
why the authors chose to use these strategies (purpose and audience).
4. explain how the strategy/strategies advances the authors’ arguments.
5. present ample evidence to support your analysis of rhetorical strategies
6. use an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one idea to the next and be
thoroughly edited so that sentences are readable and appropriate for an academic paper
Common strategies: metadiscourse, ethos pathos, logos, rebuttals, analogies, definitions, word choice,
framing devices, imagery, use of symbolism and icons; selection, presentation, and framing of evidence;
use of story, metaphor, and metonymy; music, lighting, scene selection, shot type and angle; use of light
and
Option 2: present your own analysis/argument
1. Judge a debate tournament and write an account of the experience
Californian high schools will be coming to San Diego State for a debate competition, Friday through
Sunday, April 15-17. There will be about 1500 competitors, and they need judges. Any student 18 or
over qualifies to judge, and they'll get some training. You can find more about the tournament, and sign
up to be a judge at http://www.cahssa.org/.
You will be asked to assess the strength of claims, arguments, evidence, and refutation strategies. The
extra credit work consists of judging a debate, and completing a short write-up of the experience in which
you explain why you chose the winner.
2. Analyze a fast food restaurant menu
Compose an analysis of a restaurant’s menu and examine the strategies used. Consider how the menu
invites you to think about the food, how it was produced, the eating experience, the values and reputation
of the restaurant, the customers, etc. Questions that may help you compose your analysis:
 What kind of reputation does the restaurant have? What elements of the menu support or
undermine that reputation?
 Who are the customers? What assumptions doe the menu make about your values, beliefs,
desires?
 How are images used in the menu? What fonts are used? What design choices can you identify?
Can you spot stories or cultural narratives? What is the combined effect of these elements?
Where does the menu suggest the food comes from? What does it suggest about the way the food
was prepared?
 What story does the menu tell about how food should be eaten – is eating about having fun,
connecting with friends and family, being healthy, helping the environment, saving money,
participating in a cultural experience, etc.
3. Enter the food politics debate and compose your own argument
Watch (or read the transcript) one of the debates below. Compose your own 2 -3 page argument that
summarizes the debate, describes who you most agree with and why, presents what you think are the best
claim(s), deals with objections, and states why we should care. For help with this, see Graff’s “How to
Write an Argument: What Students and Teachers Really Need to Know (from Clueless in Academe, How
Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind, Yale U. Press, 2004).
http://faculty.up.edu/asarnow/212/GraffHow%20to%20Write%20an%20ArgumentFall2010.htm
Argument Topic #1: “Organic Food is Just Marketing hype”
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/organic-food-is-marketing-hype/
Transcript: http://intelligencesquaredus.org/wp-content/uploads/Organic-041310.pdf
Argument Topic #2 “Genetically modified Food is Good for Us” (IQ Squared U.K. – you have to join the
web site to see the video of the debate.) http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/gm-crops-are-goodfor-us
Argument Topic #3: Debating GM foods
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Genetically_modified_foods
Option 3: Applying Strategies (Creative Project) plus Self-Analysis
Length = dependent on genre (if you are unsure, talk to me.)
You will compose a written or visual/digital/multimedia text that addresses a topic related to the themes
explored in Confessions, plus a 1-2 page self-analysis of the rhetorical choices you made.
Below is a list of ideas, but I invite you to come up with your own. The list includes both visual and
written rhetoric to give you some options depending on your comfort level and technical skill. I will ask
you to submit a prospectus for this project. Group projects are possible – see me.
Sample Ideas:
1. Take one scene depicted in the documentary and rewrite it as a play.
2. Write a pitch to a movie producer about your intention to adapt the documentary into a
feature film. In this pitch, you should identify how your movie would change given the
new genre and which actors and actresses you would be interested in casting.
3. Compose an op-ed for the Daily Aztec (or some other publication you read) that makes an
argument about one of the issues addressed in the film.
4. Compose a speech to an organization or person you are familiar with (your high school, the boy
scouts, your fraternity, the CA senate, a politician, etc.) in which you discuss a topic mentioned in
the film and try to persuade the group/person to see things your way/take action.
5. Imagine the movie was being remade by a different author – say Oprah Winfrey, Michael Moore,
Friedman, or the “in Plain English” company. Rewrite a section of the text, or imagine how it
could be translated to a different format.
6. Create a campus campaign linked to one of the claims in Food Inc. What specific
change(s) do you want to see happen? Identify an audience for your campaign. What
does this audience care about? What concerns, interests, or objections might this audience
in association with the desired change? What media choices will you make? What music,
colors, claims, images, or evidence will you use to appeal to this specific audience? Your
group presentation will include analysis of why you made these particular choices.
7. Take one scene depicted in the documentary and rewrite it as a play/movie.
8. Create two political cartoons that address themes in the movie, each adopting a different
perspective.
9. Suggest your own topic.
Self-Analysis
Compose a self-analysis in which you describe how you utilized strategies in your project. How did this
new genre/depiction change from the original? What was your purpose and who was your audience?
What specific effects were you going for? What specific strategies did you use and how did that help your
argument?
RUBRIC/Peer Review ASSIGNMENT 3
Reviewed By________________
Person Being Reviewed
Your grade reflects your ability to:
■ Introduces topic/gets reader’s attention. Describes rhetorical situation:
who is Kenner, what is his project, and what is the overall argument
made in Food Inc.
■ Statement of purpose - clearly signals to your reader what you plan to discuss
in your paper and how you’ll present/organize your analysis.
■ Introduces 1st strategy to be analyzed OR 1st claim & strategy supporting it
■ Identifies the strategy, and provides quotes/scene descriptions demonstrating
the strategy exists
■ Selects the best quotations/elements to show the strategy exists
■ Uses quotations that are fully introduced, integrated, explained and cited
■ Critically discusses 2 or more strategies in Food Inc.
■ Focuses on fine-grained analysis NOT description/summary
■Explains WHAT these strategies are, and presents evidence to support their
existence.
■Explains HOW they work, WHY they are chosen, and WHAT they are used to
achieve. What effects do they have, and how effective are they? How
do they persuade, and how do they advance the argument?
■ Explains how the strategies support or advance a specific claim
■ Uses an effective structure that smoothly guides the reader from one idea to
the next. Your careful attention to transitioning and topic sentences will be
considered here.
■ Creates cohesive, focused, fully developed sentences/paragraphs
Have thoroughly edited your paper so that sentences are readable and
appropriate for an academic audience. Adhere to MLA format, grammar,
and sentence structure.
Thoughtfully and eloquently conclude your discussion. Discuss the
effectiveness and the significance of Kenner’s project, OR present your own
perspective/position on the issue, OR connect the movie to your own
experience
Comments/suggestions/main things to work on
1 -- 10
ASSIGNMENT #3: ANALYZING STRATEGIES
Name:
Grade:
Your grade reflects your ability to:
Needs Imp.
Accurately and effectively introduce and contextualize Food Inc.--the project and
argument in your introduction.
Clearly signal to your reader what you plan to discuss in your paper and hint how
you’ll present/organize your analysis.
Accurately describe and explain Food Inc’s key claims and their relationship to the
overall argument. Demonstrate a critical comprehension of the argument.
Critically discuss 2 or more strategies in Food Inc. Explain WHAT these strategies
are, and present evidence to support their existence. Explain HOW they work, WHY
they are chosen, and WHAT they are used to achieve. What effects do they have, and
how effective are they? How do they persuade, and how do they advance the
argument?
Effectively use quotes or scene descriptions from the documentary to support your
analysis. Adequately introduce, correctly cite, and effectively comment on quotes.
Use an effective structure that smoothly guides the reader from one idea to the next.
Your careful attention to transitioning and topic sentences will be considered here.
Have thoroughly edited your paper so that sentences are readable and appropriate for
an academic audience. Adhere to MLA format, grammar, and sentence structure.
Thoughtfully and eloquently conclude your discussion. Discuss the effectiveness and
the significance of Kenner’s project.
Demonstrate a strong command of the written language. Voice and style will be
considered here.
Strong Satisfactory
Other comments:
Template Sentences for Paper 3
Introduction + overview of your project
“A Rhetorical strategy is a particular way in which authors craft language so as to have an effect on
readers. Strategies are means of persuasion, ways of using language to get readers’ attention, interest, or
agreement. It is important to be able to identify these strategies so as to…”
“In my paper I will begin by briefly describing the project and argument made by…”
“I will then identify and examine some of the rhetorical strategies used by…Next, I will present an
explanation of these strategies, explaining how they work and why they are used…Finally, I will conclude
my paper with a discussion of the significance of these authors’ work [or] a comparison of their use of
rhetorical strategies.”
Project and Argument Statements: “In article X, Tannen, professor of linguistics at…investigates Y…
Tannen’s project is A, or as she puts it “B, C and D.” Tannen uses several primary methods to achieve this,
most notably E, F and G…”
“Tannen’s central argument is H, or as she puts it, “Bla bla bla.” Tannen claims X is the case/advances
argument Y/asserts Z.”
Rhetorical Strategies: “Chua uses a number of rhetorical strategies throughout her text. However, I will
focus on J and K, which appear in her discussion of L…”
“A clear example of this strategy occurs on page iv, when Chua states… This strategy works by doing
C…it is effective because it does K…it has the effect of P… Why engage such a strategy? Chua chooses
this strategy in order to…”
“A second example of this rhetorical strategy is…”
Conclusion: “The significance of Chua’s project can be discerned in F…She stresses the importance of
Y, and argues that insufficient attention has been paid to Z…Chua claims that it is crucial that X… This
paper demonstrates the value of H, and how by paying close attention to the way authors do J we can see
T…”
Sample Student Papers
Food, Inc. Rhetorical Analysis Draft
Food Inc. is a film documentary that exposes the way food is produced in America in the 21st
century. The film, produced by Robert Kenner, sets out to investigate the “disturbing” aspects of the
industrialized food system and to uncover many of the harmful effects that an industrialized way of
producing food can have on the quality of the food, the environment, and the human body. Kenner’s
ultimate goal in the film is to reveal these harmful effects to the public and encourage the average
consumer to think about and choose what he/she eats in a healthier and greener way. In order to do this,
he makes many claims throughout the movie that help to steer the viewer towards this goal. These
claims are supported with persuasive evidence and powerful rhetorical techniques whose purpose is to
make the claims as strong and as compelling as possible, in order to have the biggest impact on the
audience. For the purposes of this paper, I will be looking at the claim made in the introduction of the
movie that the food industry is deliberately deceiving the consumer into thinking that our food is
something that it is not, and the claim made in the conclusion that we as consumers can make a
difference in the way food is being produced. For the purpose of this paper, I will analyze the rhetorical
strategies that are most evident in the introduction and conclusion, and I will show how these strategies
advance Kenner’s claims in each section.
The main purpose of the introduction is to familiarize the audience with the claim that the food
industry is deliberately deceiving the consumer. This claim is the central theme of the introduction, and
each rhetorical strategy works to promote it. The three most evident rhetorical strategies in the
introduction are the author’s use of imagery, music, and narration. Each of these elements is used
strategically to create a mood meant to scare the viewer, and they all work together to advance the main
claim of the introduction and foreshadow what is to come.
The introduction is organized into three main parts: the attention getter, the supermarket scene,
and the production scene. The attention getter is by far the shortest section, but it is no less important
than the other two. The film opens with a beautiful fly-by shot of lush, green farmland with trees and
mountains in the background, all covered in a light fog at some time in the morning. It then switches to a
clip of a farmer riding a tractor and collecting hay around midday, and finally to another farmer (or
cowboy) herding cattle sometime in the fall where yellow and green trees adorn the hillside.
Complementing these three images is the sound of soothing symphonic music playing in the
background, which adds to the pleasing nature of the scene. However, just as the viewer is starting to
feel good about the movie, the narrator gives a shocking statistic that reads, “The way we eat has
changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000.” (1). This statistic hints that the pleasing
nature of the images and music may not be representative of the movie as a whole. The producer couples
this statistic with the pleasing images on purpose to entice the viewer to keep watching and wait for
what comes next. This scene is essentially meant to capture the interest of the audience with its
aesthetically pleasing qualities and to foreshadow the types of information that will be revealed in the
film. The scene lasts only about fifteen seconds, but it leads the viewer to believe that the film will be
uplifting and educational.
The second section of the introduction is the supermarket scene. This scene is kicked off with a
close-up camera shot of a big red barn in a big green field. The shot looks real, just like the clips of the
other farmers and farmland, but then the camera slowly zooms out to reveal that the picture is actually a
photograph that is hung up on the wall of a supermarket. At this point, a different kind of music begins
that creates a sort of “twilight zone” effect, setting an eerie mood for the new scene, while the narrator
says, “the image that’s used to sell the food is still the image of agrarian America.” (1). This transition to
the supermarket gives the audience a sense of realization that the scenes of farmers and farmland in the
attention getter are not real anymore—they are just images. The contrast between the attention getter and
the supermarket scene acts much like the packaging of an item at a supermarket. The film gets our
attention with pleasing images, like product packaging does, and hints that the information in the film
will be educational, but it then tells us that what is behind the surface is much less appealing than what
the original images lead us to expect. The narrator captures this contrast perfectly when he says that
these images are “the spinning of this pastoral fantasy,” leading us to believe that our food is not made
the way we think it is (1). Kenner creates this feeling on purpose in order to push his claim that we are
being deceived by the food industry. The scene continues from this point with the eerie music, shots of
countless items on the shelves of the supermarket with packaging that depicts deceptively wholesome
images, and the voice of the producer, Robert Kenner, giving the audience more shocking examples of
misleading foods in the supermarket.
The next scene, the production scene, takes the information of the supermarket scene further by
unveiling the secrets of how our food is made and by giving some insight into how the movie will
proceed. It begins with a change of narrators from producer Robert Kenner to co-producer Eric
Schlosser, who says, “there is this deliberate veil […] that’s dropped between us and where our food is
coming from.” (1). He also says, “The industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you’re
eating, because if you knew, you might not want to eat it.” (1). Throughout the final scene, the narrator
continually switches between these two men and a few other experts who are featured later on in the
film. The scene proceeds to show disturbing images that switch rather quickly from images of huge cow
factories to the insides of chicken factories and finally to giant cornfields being reaped with huge corn
cultivating tractors. The music also dies down and is coupled with the sounds of engines and machines
in the factories. These elements directly contrast with the pleasing nature of the attention getter, further
illustrating the main claim that the pleasing images are misleading. The last image of this scene captures
this contrast perfectly. It portrays the words “Food, Inc.” sitting in a cornfield with big factories in the
background. There are also dark skies and tons of pollution along with the nation’s capital, suggesting
that the government is involved in the evils of the food industry. This image and the rest of the elements
together create a sort of ominous feeling for this scene. The producer uses these elements purposefully
in order to scare the viewer into thinking that there is something incredibly wrong with the way food is
being produced today, pushing the claim that the food industry is hiding the way food is being made
from the consumer.
All of the rhetorical elements of the introduction—imagery, music, and multiple narrators—
create a powerful introduction whose purpose is to intrigue the audience by providing an appetizer of
what is to come. The explicit images of the food production, the eerie music, and the narrator telling us
that something is wrong shock the viewer into believing that this information is true. Because of these
elements, the introduction itself illustrates the theme of deception and establishes the essential claim that
the food industry is deliberately hiding the way food is made from the consumer.
The conclusion of Food, Inc. uses similar rhetorical strategies to push its claim that states that the
consumer has the power to change the food industry. The conclusion is broken up into two parts. The
first part is made up of testimonials from the experts interviewed for the film. It starts off with a
statement by one expert who says, “The irony is that the average consumer does not feel very powerful.
They think they are the recipients of whatever industry has put out there for them to consume.” (32). He
then says, “Trust me, it's the exact opposite. When we run an item past the supermarket scanner, we're
voting for local or not, organic or not.” (32). This quote becomes the main focus and claim of the
conclusion. It basically states that people have the power to change the food industry through their food
purchases. In order to build his case, Kenner follows this quote with more testimony from experts
featured earlier in the film. One that was especially compelling was from a farmer who pleads with the
viewer to demand better quality food, saying, “we'll deliver. I promise you.” (33). These testimonies
make up one of the strongest rhetorical strategies in the conclusion because they highlight the most
important people of the film and provide ample evidence for the central claim of the conclusion.
Another way that Kenner advances his claim is by making an analogy between the food industry and the
tobacco industry. He says that in the same way people have forced change in the tobacco industry,
people can make a change in the food industry. According to Schlosser, “The battle against tobacco is a
perfect model of how an industry's irresponsible behavior can be changed.” (33). This analogy creates a
parallel between the food industry and the tobacco industry, which helps the viewer to better understand
the magnitude of the food issue. Kenner does this on purpose in order to convince the audience that the
food industry is not too big or solidified to be changed, that just like the tobacco industry, it is subject to
consumer influence. Together, this analogy and the testimonies provided by the food experts serve to
convince the viewers/consumers that they can make a difference.
The second part of the conclusion is a call to action that uses many rhetorical strategies to
convince the audience to make a change. The first strategy of the call to action is that it tells the
audience how changes can be made with specific instructions on what the average consumer can do to
help in his/her everyday life. It says, “When you go to the supermarket, choose foods that are in season.
Buy foods that are organic. Know what’s in your foods.” (33). These instructions are meant to
encourage the consumer to make a difference and to help the consumer know how. Another strategy is
that the call to action appeals to a large audience. It gives the viewer many different options to choose
from that all can make a difference. It suggests, “Buy foods that are grown locally. Shop at farmers’
markets. Plant a garden. (Even a small one.)” (34). Kenner knows, however, that not everyone has the
means to shop at farmers’ markets or plant a garden, so the call to action also suggests, “Make sure your
farmers’ market takes food stamps. Ask your school board to provide healthy school lunches.” (34).
Kenner uses each of these options to appeal to different people and reach as wide of an audience as
possible. The next strategy used is the presentation of the words on the screen. When the call to action
starts, the screen goes black and the song “This Land is Your Land” sung by Bruce Springsteen begins.
The song is upbeat and invokes a strong emotion and sense of American pride in the listener. The words
of the song are meant to inspire the listener to take pride in his “land,” encouraging him to take action.
Kenner’s choice to use this song by this artist is extremely strategic. By choosing a song that is patriotic
and that is sung by an artist known around the world, Kenner strives to help the viewer identify with him
and get on board with his cause. The instructions on the screen also appear in a dramatic way. Kenner
uses words that fade in and out, have varying colors, and have different font sizes to emphasize certain
phrases and keep the viewer focused on the most important concepts. These elements present the words
on the screen in a way that captures the audience’s attention and compels the audience to take the words
to heart. Together the explicit instructions, the appeal to a large audience, and the presentation of the
words make the call to action very compelling, and they ultimately work to advance the claim that we as
consumers can make a difference in the food industry.
Because of powerful rhetorical strategies like narration, music, imagery, testimony, and call to
action, the introduction and conclusion capture the central claims and provide a well-founded framework
for Food, Inc. The introduction uses music, imagery, and narration to set the mood for the movie and
introduce us to the movie’s main purpose, while clueing the viewer in on what to expect from the meat
of the film. In doing this, the strategies in the introduction ultimately push the claim that the food
industry is deliberately deceiving the consumer into thinking that our food is something that it is not.
The conclusion advances its claim in a similar, but slightly different way. It uses testimonials from
experts featured in the film and a call to action in order to remind the viewer of the main points of the
movie and to encourage the viewer to support the movie’s cause. Like in the introduction, these
strategies push the claim in the conclusion that we as consumers can make a difference in the way food
is being produced. Both the introduction and conclusion make good use of the rhetorical strategies in
order to promote their claims, and they ultimately support the film’s overall argument that the food
industry is in an unhealthy condition and needs to be changed for the better.
The Other Side of the Veil
Today, we have the luxury of driving to the store and purchasing an abundance of food
all year round, but have you ever wondered where it comes from? Director Robert Kenner, an
expert of documentaries renowned for his award winning social and environmental findings,
exposes the hidden truths underlying our nation’s food industry in his film, Food Inc., released in
2008. Kenner argues that American consumers are being manipulated into believing that the food
they are eating has been properly manufactured and regulated by the USDA and FDA
government bodies. However, according to the film this is not the case. It argues that the foods
we see on the shelves are only the result of a handful of companies, who tend to put their pockets
ahead of the health and wellbeing of the environment, livelihood, farmer, worker and consumer.
Kenner’s purpose in the documentary is to lift the “veil” that separates us, the consumer, from
the produce. Through his intentional use of visual rhetoric, music choice, imagery strategies and
purposely, selected evidence, Kenner, successfully informs the audience that a change in food
produce needs to occur. He notions that as the consumer we have the power to make a stand for
organic food by purchasing local, in season produce and by demanding government involvement.
In this paper, I will analyze “Kevin’s Story,” the death of a young boy from a harmful bacteria
found in meat produce, incorporated by Kenner to unveil the hidden truth behind our harmful
food system and in the conclusion discuss how his story impacts of the viewers response to the
“Call to Action.”
“There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of the truth, yet until
we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of brain must be added the experience of the
soul.” This quote by Arnold Bennet, British novelist, playwright, and critic, I believe captures
the idea that without an appeal to emotion we are not able to fully understand or grasp the impact
of an event. In Food Inc., Kenner acknowledges this idea because he makes a very successful
appeal to pathos. The movies strategic use of sound, cinematography techniques and the very
selection of dialect are all deliberately incorporated to evoke an emotional response from the
audience in order to authenticate the severity of our food industry predicament. I believe
Kenner’s most influential appeal to pathos is the inclusion of Kevin’s story. The story tells of
two women, a mother and her mom who advocate for food safety in the United States after a
hamburger unexpectedly killed the mother’s young boy of two years. The director intentionally
includes this story because it is not only supports several key claims but it also depicts a parent’s
worse nightmare. In other words, every parent can personally relate to feeling or being in a
situation where they cannot protect or help there hurt child.
Kenner acknowledges that there is gap between how the food is being produced and
how we, the consumers believe the produce is being prepared. He reveals this gap to the
customer by firstly establishing the women’s qualities through the use of symbols and selected
script. The audience is first introduced to the mother, Barbara Kowalcyk, and her mom, Patricia
Buck as they drive through the city of Washington D.C to meet with D- Colorado, Dianna
Degete. As both women discuss the brief interview about to take place the camera cuts from
them travelling in the back seat of the taxi to the front window of the car. In most scenarios, the
purpose of this shot would be to show the direction of travel, but in this instance the real
objective is to display a white, cross hanging from the rear view mirror. The cross symbolizes
Christianity and its color is a sign for peace. This is a clear technique, executed by Kenner to
subliminally establish the women’s values. Furthermore, the ladies honorable characteristics are
established more so when he takes the time to film them genuinely thanking the taxi driver.
These too shots are not coincidental, they are incorporated by the director, to establish the
consideration and respect both ladies demonstrate towards our society and as a result the
audience is likely to better trust what they say or have to offer.
Before Kevin’s story, the audience had only been educated on the flaws of the food system
and had not yet witnessed the repercussions of its actions. The telling of Kevin’s death from E.
Coli, found in hamburger meat, serves as a key turning point in the film because now that the
audience has been set up to trust Barbara and her mom, Kenner can unveil the truth in a approach
that is more intricate and personal. Kowalcyk claims, “I don't know if he knew what was
happening to him and I hope--I don't know. To watch this beautiful child go from being
perfectly healthy to dead in 12 days--it was just unbelievable that this could happen from eating
food” (9). A loss of life is an unbelievable phenomenon for anyone but more so when the cause
is totally preventable. Kenner enhances the impact of the story by juxtaposing real live, video
footage. He does a remarkable job at carefully selecting footage and linking it directly to the
story being told. He chooses to incorporate just one specific experience that occurred to Kevin in
the hospital. Barbara explains,
“He was not allowed to really drink water. We had these little sponges and we were
allowed to dip that into a cup of water and then give him that. He bit the head off of one of
them. You've never seen someone beg. He begged for water. It was all he could talk about.
They wouldn't let anybody bring any beverage into the room because-- I mean, it was all he
would talk about, was... water” (10).
Barbara’s description alone, without the use of any footage already impacts the audience because
every individual can relate to the horrible feeling of being dehydrated but Kenner doesn’t stop
there. He enhances the pathos appeal by showing a young and healthy Kevin splashing, laughing
and smiling in a freshwater lake. The irony of the situation is made very clear to the audience. In
addition to this he cuts back to the mother, using a close up shot to intensify her facial expression
of physical pain. The audience immediately sympathizes with the mother and her situation. Even
the slow, agonizing music accompanied with the scene creates a greater appeal to pathos and
intensifies the seriousness of the food industries lack of responsibility to deliver eatable products.
In addition, Kevin’s story asserts the claim that government authorities are not protecting
the general public. As citizens we put faith in administration to meet our basic human needs and
Kevin’s story demonstrates the simplistic and logical method needed to secure safe produce.
Barbara testifies,
“The courts basically said the USDA didn't have the authority to shut down the plants.
What it meant was that you could have a pound of meat or poultry products that is a petri
dish of salmonella and the USDA really can't do anything about it. A new law was
introduced in direct response and this law became known as Kevin's Law. It seems like
such a clear-cut, common sense type thing” (11).
Kenner strategically uses Kevin’s story to introduce this issue to the viewer because it is much
more impacting said by an individual who has experienced first hand the repercussions of
unregulated produce and it is no consequence that while this information is being relayed,
Kenner shows the two ladies walking down a corridor with an abnormal amount of U.S flags.
The director incorporates all these subtle but deliberate symbols to encourage the viewer to
respond proactively to the current food dilemma. Furthermore, if the food situation isn’t
seriously dangerous enough the fact that the initiative of Kevin’s Law still hasn’t passed after six
years of advocacy by Barbara and her mom is astonishing. To put it simply, the inclusion of
Kevin’s story is a clear strategy by Kenner because it plays an important role in establishing the
argument that the food industry cares more about their pockets then the wellbeing and safety of
innocent American citizens.
Consequently, the notion that Barbara and her mom don’t expect or want anything in
return for there food advocacy work besides a simple apology is so incredibly selfless that the
audience cannot help but feel an obligation to do more. “It will be seven years since my son died.
All I wanted the company to do was say "We're sorry. We produced this defective product that
killed your child, and this is what we're going to do to make sure it doesn't happen again." That's
all we wanted, and they couldn't give us that” (12). Barbara doesn’t take pity on herself and
doesn’t ask for money, all she wants is to carry on her son’s legacy and help prevent anyone else
going through the same ordeal. Kevin’s story is an intentional piece of evidence used by Kenner
to encourage the general public that as the consumer they can change the food system. If women
who have lost everything can help make difference for you and I then surely we can play our
small part in helping to create a healthy society.
Food Inc. is a very influential documentary that explores the food industry predicament
in a way that is gripping, credible and forceful. Kevin’s story serves as key strategy in the film
because it appeals to the audience’s emotions making the arguments explored in the production
more believable and concerning. At the conclusion of the documentary, Kenner calls us, the
consumers to take on a role of duty. The health and well being of future generations can be
protected and as Hirshberg, founder of Stoneyfield, the third largest organic yoghurt company
asserts, “when we run an item past the supermarket scanner, we're voting for local or not, organic
or not” (33). In other words, we have the ultimate say and therefore the ultimate power to make a
change for the better. Kevin’s story can be seen to impact the viewer’s response to the “Call to
Action.” In the closing minutes Kowalcyk claims,
“I can't change the fact that Kevin's dead. When you tell somebody you've lost a child, I
really don't like that look of pity that comes into their eyes, that they feel sorry for me. I
can have a pity party all by myself very well, thank you. I don't need it from other people.
What I need them to do is listen and help me effect a change” (33).
Barbara has more reason then anyone to sit back and let food industries continue their harmful
practices because she has nothing to gain. She has already lost her son, so what more could the
companies possible do to her and her family? But Kenner includes her story to show the viewer
that Barbara’s response is just the opposite, she is shown to fight harder for change then any
other individual. A strategic move incorporated by the director to provide the audience with
more reason to contest food regulations besides the obvious. In other words, if we don’t have
concern for the environment and our health then we should do it for Kevin, Kowalcyk and her
mom. The documentaries final words are, “you can change the world with every bite!” (34). It’s
true, I believe we can and Food Inc. is a great initiative that provokes thought in the right
direction for a healthier food system.
Work Cited:
Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Perf. Barbara Kowalcyk, Joel Salatin, Gary Hirshberg Michael
Pollan. Prod. Elise Pearlstein. 2008.
Who, What, and From Where?
Who makes it? Where does it come from? What is it? Is it really healthy for me to eat it? These
are the questions one may be asking themselves after watching the 2008 documentary directed by
Robert Kenner, titled Food Inc. This movie discusses the food industry we are all living with today and
brings to attention what seems like every problem this industry has. Its project is to inform consumers
about what really goes on in this industry, getting them to think before they eat and change this industry
for good. By changing this countries food industry they hope to change the world. The targeted audience
of Food Inc. is all American citizens from the lower class minorities, to the middle class families, to the
rich men and women running these massive food corporations. The main claim of this movie I believe is
said within the first ten minutes of it stating, “The industry doesn't want you to know the truth about
what you're eating, because if you knew, you might not want to eat it” (1). This is the overall topic of
this film and Kenner, the director, uses many different strategies in order to persuade his audience, but
there is one solid strategy that is used in many different ways. These would be visual strategies. I will be
providing three visual strategies that I have chosen out of the many in this film and explaining how each
of them help to further its project and purpose. Our food industry seems to be corrupt and with the use of
a few visual strategies the viewers of this film will believe the same.
Visual strategies can sometimes be harder than other strategies to pick out, but the first one that I
have chosen to discuss is a much simpler one to notice and understand, and that would be the animations
used throughout this film. In Food Inc. there were three animations used that really caught my eye and
what they did was, make it so that the audience of this film could understand the main claim with ease.
The first animation was an animation of long lines of cows on conveyer belts going into one factory, but
there were multiple conveyer belts going into the factory and each line of cows was from a different
meat company. They even showed a line of pigs going into the factory. The purpose of this animation is
to get you to think about where your food is coming from. The claim for this specific animation I believe
is, that meat companies can be deceiving in stores. The packaging on these products say “farm fresh, ”
when actually they are all from a factory, and the same factory at that. These companies have the
“illusion of diversity,” but in all reality they are all owned by one main corporation, and that is the
message this animation is getting across (5). The next two animations have different claims, but all three
of them relate back to the main claim of this documentary.
Chicken is a popular choice for a meal today, and one of the animations shows how the way
chickens are raised has radically changed over the years. It shows the growth of a chicken in 1950 next
to the growth of a chicken in 2008. In the end it showed the growth of the chicken in 1950 after 68 days,
and the growth of the chicken in 2008 after 47 days, and the result was that the chicken in 2008 became
much larger within a much shorter amount of time. The reason for this is the hormones being injected
into the chickens. This animation is effective because it easily shows what has happened to our food
industry. It is claiming that our food industry is not as natural as it used to be, which is also supporting
the main claim of this film, that we may not really know what we are consuming.
The last animation supports this claim straightforward. In this animation it is showing many popular
foods that have corn them that most consumers might not have thought did. The animations shows each
individual food rotating in the middle of the screen as a list of all the foods with corn in them scrolls up
the right side of the screen. So the viewer is seeing all these products they enjoy while reading a list of
so many more. The reason this animation is effective is because it is much easier to visualize all these
food items with them in front of you in a clear easy to watch and easy to read animation. It would not be
as effective if they had simply had a person naming off a few food items. The bright simple animation
makes it easier to fit in a larger amount of items and easier for the films audience to obtain the
information. That is the purpose of all three of these animations; to make it easier for the viewers to
obtain the information each one had to offer. Every one of these animations supporting the main claim
of Food Inc. and make it easier to understand, and that is why this is an effective visual strategy.
Not only is it what is happening in a scene that can set the mood, but a more subtle aspect that
can completely change it is the lighting and effects. In Food Inc. there are many scenes that use video
effects and lighting to make the audience feel a certain way, or in other words change the pathos. That is
the main use of these effects, is to alter ones feelings on what they are viewing. The first effect I noticed
in this film was one put on a scene of what seems to be business men in suits walking through a large
field of grass towards a large dark metal factory with black smoke pouring out the top, symbolizing that
they are the new farmers of this industry. The effects put on this is a dark shadow effect making the
scene seem eerie. It creates unsure emotions for the audience towards the factory farmers, and is in
effect claiming that, “big corporations are the bad guys.” This effect is also placed in the right time of
the film, the beginning, getting one to think about the topic before the film actually gets into it. There are
many scenes that use these effects to get to ones emotions, but there is one more that stood out to me the
most.
In one scene there is a young boy happily playing in the water at what look to be a lake and then
shown at a table eating. This is video footage of two year old Kevin, a boy who died within fourteen
hours after eating a hamburger that contained the deadly disease E. coli not but a few days after this
footage was captured. The story its self is sad enough, but the visual effects they use in this scene can
really get to the viewers emotions. On these clips of Kevin, there are effects used that match the mood
Kenner is attempting to get in this scene. These clips are cropped on the sides into a focused box in the
center of the screen where the only thing you notice in the video is Kevin. Added to this focusing effect,
the footage is shadowed around the edges and has a darker tone with less cool. And last it is slightly
slowed down. All of these effects make these clips seem as if they are part of the past, making one
realize what really happened to this young boy. These effects quickly get to the viewers emotions
without them realizing that the effects are adding to it, and in effect they are causing the audience to
think back to how our food industry is corrupt. Which is why these effects are extremely affective in the
enlightenment of this films claim. Each effect is put on a scene for a reason, to get to your emotions, one
of the easiest things to get to in a person, which is why this is a strong visual strategy.
Through out this documentary there are many people interviewed and the visual strategy here is
how people are presented. There are multiple farmers interviewed in this film, but two of them clearly
show the visual strategies used in different ways. The first farmer they interview is introduced to the
audience driving a car. He is filmed closer in more rugged clothes and is quoted saying, “Smells like
money to me” (3). The way he is presented here is not in the best way possible. His background is the
road and he begins driving by a whole line of chicken coops, which are now dark tunnels, and he
finishes his interview in front of his own large metal chicken coops where he will not let any filming
take place inside. All of these things create a negative look upon him and make the audience feel as if
this is not who they want their farmers to be. Once again effecting pathos. The second farmer is what
some might call, a natural farmer. The way he is introduced is out on the field harvesting crops by hand.
He is a nice clean-cut man wearing overalls and a straw hat. He is shown walking around with his
animals treating them with kindness and preparing his meals by hand. Everything about him seems “all
natural” or “farm fresh.” Because of the way that this farmer is presented, the audience tends to like him,
wanting their farmers to be like this one. When viewing this farmer on his farm and at his home one
might begin to realize why newer farming is not quite as stable. That is the claim here, “the old ways of
producing food were a lot better.” Simply because of the change of the background and the atmosphere
each farmer was presented in, the second farmer, even before you see how he makes his food, already
appears to be a more friendly and natural producer of the food that we consume. This visual strategy is
strong in the aspect that it makes its viewers feel a certain way about specific people. It works by
creating an opinion of the person being viewed right from the get go. As some say, presentation is
everything, and in this case it made a major difference.
The food industry we live in today is not what it was in the past. Stated in the documentary Food
Inc. it says, “The way we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000” (1). It is
changing and it is changing fast. The project of this film is to inform America what is happening behind
the closed of the farms and factories our food is being produced in. The main claim is that the food
industry does not want its consumers to know the truth, because they know what they are doing is
wrong, and this is what the film is trying to end, the unknown truth. In order to get this films message
across there were many visual strategies used. Three of them being short animations, effects and lighting
on scenes, and the presentation of people. These are all effective strategies that mainly appealed to
pathos. Food Inc. has a well-supported argument and a good way of presenting it. I know my thoughts
have changed about the food industry and I believe it is safe to say that after viewing this documentary
most all viewers of it will have some change of heart.
Professor Barbeau
16 May 2011
Essay Three: Food Inc
The next time you decide to eat fast food will you stop and think about the path that your
food took to reach your plate? The film Food Inc., directed by Robert Kenner, sets out to reveal
the truth about the American food industry by showing the audience how food is currently
produced in our nation. Kenner’s film also shows how the current methods of production that we
use are harmful to our environment. In addition, the audience is presented with the notion that
the entire system is based on the idea of quantity over quality, which can have in adverse effects
on the wellbeing of the animals and the people involved. Food Inc. presents many claims to the
audience such as how animals and people involved in the meat industry are mistreated, that the
food industry values its profit over the wellbeing of people, and that minorities are affected by
the food industry in unique ways. Kenner also argues that grocery stores have a false appearance
of diversity, that the old methods of producing food were better, and that the giant food
corporations are villains. The director Robert Kenner uses multiple visual strategies in the film
Food Inc, which he uses to provide support for his many claims. I will be specifically focusing
on Kenner’s use of statistics, expert interviews, and real world examples to show how they
provide support for the six claims that I previously mentioned.
The visual strategies portrayed by Kenner are essential to film because they are present in
order to provide the documentary with support. The visual strategy that I will analyze is the use
of statistics in the film, which were used to bolster the claims that grocery store products are
diverse, and that the older methods of producing food were much better than the current
methods. By supporting these claims with statistical data, Kenner’s movie also earns credibility,
or ethos. In the film a statistic was given that ninety percent of foods in grocery stores contain
some sort of corn or soybean by product (Kenner). This statistic not only shows that the food we
buy is not as unique as we wish to believe it is, but it also presents the idea that the food industry
relies too heavily on a few crops in order to keep on producing mass amounts of food. Using this
statistic as a visual strategy helps Kenner direct readers back to his main argument that the major
food corporations are more concerned with their output rate rather than the quality of their
products, because his data is designed to show the audience that the food at their local grocery
store is generic and mass produced. Also, Kenner’s use of this statistic leads back to the idea that
the major food corporations are wreaking havoc on our environment by over farming certain
crops. Kenner’s correct use of visual rhetoric causes the audience to think about the reality of his
claims, which inherently makes his arguments more convincing.
Another statistic in the film supports the idea that the older ways of producing food were better
than the current methods. The owner of Polyface Farms stated that an FDA test for pollution in
food found that his farm raised chickens had one hundred and sixty six units of pollution while
the factory chickens had around three thousand six hundred units of pollution (Kenner). The use
of this statistic gives Kenner a lot more credibility because this data completely supports his
argument that the major food corporations are more interested in the quantity of their food rather
than its quality. Overall, Kenner’s successful use of visual rhetoric in the form of statistics helps
him solidly defend his claims.
Another visual strategy used in the film was expert interviews. Expert interviews are
important in this movie, because they give credibility to the claims that are presented by way of
ethos. They also provide logos, because by using the words of some of the people involved with
these powerful food corporations the audience automatically finds Kenner’s claims more
convincing. This shows how Kenner’s expert interviews are a clear use of logic and reasoning.
The claims that the major food corporations are villainous, and that the people and animals
involved in the meat factories are mistreated, are both supported by the use of expert interview.
First, the claim about the mistreatment of animals and people in the meat industry is backed up
by a chicken farmer who deals with the Tyson Meat Company. The chicken farmer states that the
way the chickens are treated is wrong, because they are not well nourished or cared for and they
are also subject to abuse from workers (Kenner). This opinion from an individual with firsthand
experience in the meat industry supports the claim about the mistreatment of animals because it
gives Kenner’s argument more integrity. Also, Kenner’s use of this type of visual rhetoric shows
how he presents his claims in a logical, thought out manner, which helps to convince his
audience. The claim that the big corporations are villains is supported by an expert interview
conducted with a seed cleaner from the Midwest. The seed cleaner provided the audience with
accounts from his personal legal battle with soybean giant Monsanto. He stated that the
Monsanto Corporation had lobbied the government to make it illegal for farmers to reuse their
seeds from previous seasons, which puts people like him out of work (Kenner). From the
interview we learn how the Monsanto Corporation is more concerned about their assets than the
wellbeing of farmers. This use of visual strategy by Kenner supports his claim that the major
food corporations are villains in two ways. First, this strategy uses logos again because by
providing the words of a person who is affected by the major food companies, Kenner’s
argument is more valid. Second, the use of this visual strategy is successful, because the
audience is reached by pathos, which makes them feel sympathy for the seed cleaner. Both of
these factors help to make Kenner’s claims more convincing because they are presented with
strong visual strategy. The expert interviews conducted throughout the film support the main
claims and strengthen the credibility of the director.
Kenner’s visual rhetoric extends to include the real life stories of two different families in
order to support his claims that the food industry values its profit over people, and that minorities
are uniquely affected by it. I will begin by explaining how Kenner used the real life story of one
family to back up his argument that the food industry is more concerned with its profit than the
people it serves. In the film a tragic story about the death of a little boy named Kevin is shown.
Kevin was killed by eating a fast food burger that had been contaminated by the E. Coli virus.
The story continued to show how his mother continues to fight on for better quality food to this
day (Kenner). Kenner’s claim that the food industry is primarily concerned about the wellbeing
of their profits more than their customers is strongly supported by this claim because of his use
of visual strategy. Kenner’s use of visual rhetoric in the form of a real life story is successful in
persuading the audience to side with his claims because he reaches the audience through pathos.
During the film, another one of Kenner’s claims is supported by visual strategy. The claim that
the food industry affects minorities in unique ways is presented by the story of a Hispanic family
and their eating habits. In the film the Hispanic family discusses how it is hard for them to eat
healthy on a budget, because it is cheaper for them to eat at fast food restaurants (Kenner). This
visual strategy is used by Kenner to provide pathos once again by showing how low income
minorities are affected by the food industry. Kenner’s goal is to get the audience to feel
sympathetic for the Hispanic family in order to get them to side with his claim. Kenner
successfully supports both of his claims that the food industry both values profit over customers,
and that it affects minorities in unique ways by using visual rhetoric, specifically real life stories.
Kenner achieves this by using the visual strategy to appeal to the audience’s emotions.
The use of different visual strategies throughout the film helps support the arguments
presented by the director of the film Food Inc. The use of statistical data aids the film’s
credibility by supporting the claims that grocery store food is diverse, and that the old ways of
producing food were a lot better than the current methods by providing the audience with
tangible evidence. The use of expert interviews also adds credibility and reasoning to Kenner’s
claims that the major corporations are villains and that the animals and people involved in the
meat industry are mistreated. Kenner’s inclusion of real life stories as visual strategy helps him
gain a captive audience by appealing to their emotions. It is important to realize that the
messages in this film would not have been as meaningful and memorable if Kenner had not
successfully used the three visual strategies that I have discussed throughout this paper. His
sufficient use of visual rhetoric helps him earn the trust of the audience. Food Inc. is a film that
sheds light on some very important truths about the food industry that have been well hidden
from public eyes. This is important because when enough people come to understand the ways
that our food industry affects the environment and even the consumers it depends upon, changes
can be made that will help to improve the well being of our nation’s people and the environment
in which we live.
Works Cited
Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Magnolia Pictures and Participant Media, 2008. Film.
Rhetorical Analysis of Anderson’s Confessions of a Radical Industrialist
Most businesses today simply strive to increase their profits by any means, rarely
considering the environment. But what sets business leader Ray Anderson apart from others is
his peculiar (but inspirational) goal of having a company that is completely sustainable to the
environment-without cutting profits. In his book, Confessions of a Radical Industrialist,
Anderson explains his journey of transforming his business to eventually become completely
sustainable. With this book, his goal is to convince and inspire other companies to seek out
methods of production that will not have such harmful affects on environment as most industries
have today. He claims that it is in both business and society’s best interest to become completely
sustainable in the future. I will be analyzing some of the rhetorical strategies Anderson uses to
try and persuade other business leaders to follow in his footsteps. In this paper, I will identify
how Anderson uses the “3 pillars of persuasion-ethos, pathos, logos” defined in Julia T. Wood’s
book Communication in Our Lives to build a strong persuasive argument.
Let me start with defining ethos more in depth, and pointing out ways of enhancing it.
Ethos refers to a process in which the speaker builds a perception of good character and
credibility by the audience (Wood, 447). Ways that a speaker can enhance his/her ethos include
creating a perception that he/she-has integrity, is trustworthy, has a goodwill towards the
audience, knows the topic well, and demonstrates a dynamic commitment to the topic (Wood,
447). When analyzing Anderson’s argument, I saw how he uses all of the above attributions to
enhance his ethos. Now I will go on to show how he meets each of these points.
Integrity can be seen simply through his actions throughout both his lifetime and his
years of leading Interface. He has led his life and his company in a direction that is completely
consistent with his morals and beliefs in sustainability. He explains how he wants to do good by
the environment with considerations of people in the future, rather than have his actions be
dictated by greed like typical business leaders these days. Nobody in government or industry has
told him to make this bold move towards sustainability; he made the decision on his own based
on ethical values.
Another way to enhance ethos is to exercise goodwill towards the audience-business
owners and people in the community. In Chapter 10 of the book, he shows this goodwill by
telling about the programs Interface has launched to try and influence businesses towards
sustainability. Specifically, a program called InterfaceRAISE is a consulting arm that can
enlighten other businesses on how to become more sustainable, while still making a profit. In the
Chapter 10, Anderson provides a quote from the CEO of Wal Mart’s Sam’s Club speaking about
his experience with InterfaceRAISE reading,
“Visiting Interface and seeing the creativity to establish more sustainable practices made it
undeniable that the rest of us can do the same. We don’t have to spend time wondering if
we can do something. Instead, we can move on to figure out how” (156).
By including this quote, the author cleverly enhanced his ethos/credibility by showing
praise from other world-renowned corporations. Anderson clarifies his goodwill towards
other companies and society as a whole by the creation of a consulting arm meant to
help businesses increase profits and reduce their ecological footprint.
In the beginning of the book, Anderson further heightens his credibility by stating the
achievements of both himself as an entrepreneur and Interface as a company. In the first chapter,
he explains how he came of 17 years of working under another company before he took the
plunge of starting his own. Now, he says the company has grown “from scratch into the world
leader in carpet tiles (modular carpet) with annual sales of more than a billion dollars” (2). That
is about 40 years of solid industrial knowledge, which directly relates to credibility. In addition
to that, he is the only one who has lead a top company through an environmental transformation
so drastic, so he is clearly among the most credible individuals to speak on the topic. In the view
of others, Anderson is seen as an expert consultant on the topic. In support of this, he was chosen
to serve on the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, and served as its co-chair (xii).
It is beyond doubt that Anderson speaks with dynamism about the issue, further
increasing his ethos. With quotes like this one from Chapter 16, Anderson describes his new
view of reality as “accepting the fragile finiteness of the earth; adopting a long view and putting
humans in their proper relationship with nature;” he captures the reader and puts them into his
mind (267). By speaking on how his thinking has changed, and showing enthusiasm in his new
ideas, it causes the audience to be enthused as well.
Now I will move on to recognize a second strategy of argument used by Anderson;
pathos. Pathos involves techniques used by the speaker to arouse feelings among listeners.
Throughout the book, Anderson uses certain techniques to enhance his pathos, which include:
personalizing the issue, appealing to the audience’s needs/values, and bringing material alive
(Wood, 450).
Anderson provides a detailed example in Chapter 2, which personalizes the issue for the
audience by putting them in the same situation he faced. He builds up to this moment by
describing how proud he was of himself in taking a huge risk and building such a successful
company from nothing. In telling the story, he lets the audience feel the pride he felt up to 1994,
when a powerful question was introduced that changed his thinking entirely. The question, sent
to him by a sales associate, read, “Some customers want to know what Interface is doing for the
environment. How should we answer?” (9). Anderson exercises an effective strategy of pathos in
this instance by promoting feelings of inspiration among the audience through his story of
accomplishment, and then letting them feel the shame and/or confusion he felt on the day this
question was sent to him.
A second method found in Anderson’s argument to enhance his pathos is appealing to the
needs of his audience (Wood, 450). In this example, his intended audience is business leaders.
Significant needs/values of conventional business leaders today and tomorrow is always going to
be profit, reputation, and efficiency. The book provides many steps for businesses to take in
order to meet these values from a business point-of-view, and the author uses detailed examples
of how shifting to environmental innovations can help meet the conventional values of today’s
businesses. A good example of Anderson using this strategy is in Chapter 4 when he is talking
about ‘climbing mount sustainability’. In this chapter, Anderson appeals to needs and values of
businesses by saying that “capitalist, enlightened self-interest” can be a driving force for
companies to move towards sustainability (38). And he goes on to say that the payoff of
sustainability will be “nothing short of survival-while earning a solid, honest, ethical profit” (39).
These statements represent an effective strategy of argument using pathos by appealing to the
needs of business-profit, reputation- and saying that it’s in their own self interest to take a more
environmental path towards achieving these needs.
Finally, I will touch on the third method that Anderson uses to enhance pathos-bringing
material alive (Wood, 450). He does this by telling stories and using language that paints verbal
pictures. In the start of Chapter 14, Anderson writes,
“I explained how Paul Hawken’s book, The Ecology of Commerce, indicted me as a
plunderer of the earth. I was a captain of industry, a success by anybody’s measure.
And by my very success I was also an instrument of destruction, an unwitting
participant in driving humanity straight off a cliff” (225).
This section is a textbook example of how to choose language that will impact the audience, and
paint a vivid verbal picture. From the view of the audience, plundering the earth sounds worse
than harming it, and driving humanity off a cliff sounds more convincing than hurting humanity.
These words are clear-cut examples of how the author enhances the pathos aspect of the
argument with the instrument of language.
Last but not least, I will address the logos aspect of the author’s persuasive argument.
Logos deals with how the author uses logical thought and reasoning, along with evidence, to
persuade the audience (Wood, 450). Typically, two types of reasoning are used: inductive and
deductive reasoning (Wood, 450). I will show how Anderson uses evidence to enforce his
reasoning-which ultimately enforces his argument. Anderson mostly uses the technique of
deductive reasoning, introducing global/general claims and backing them using specific
examples and/or evidence.
In Chapter 14, Anderson uses deductive reasoning, first by stating a generally accepted
claim that “our universities have been very good for years at turning out professionals equipped
with skills appropriate to the first industrial revolution, but not the new one” (227). In other
words, Anderson blames universities for teaching students old ways of business practice rather
than considering the environmental issues that businesses will face in the future. The essence of
the author’s argument is that current business practices can be attributed to what universities
teach. He suggests that if universities would teach more environmental business practices, it will
greatly help shift business to be more sustainable in the future. Using deductive reasoning,
Anderson continues to support this general claim by providing a more specific example found in
the transformation of his own alma mater, Georgia Tech. Anderson explains how in 1995, the
university revised its mission statement to be more committed to teaching sustainability in its
business and technological practices. Anderson goes on to say that in years since, “Georgia Tech
is now among the world’s best in the areas of green policy, green practices, and integrated
academic curricula”, followed by a list of the institute’s environmental achievements (231). With
the previous quotations, the author effectively used deductive reasoning to state a general claim
that universities can help solve the environmental issue of sustainability in the future, and
supported this claim by showing a success story, making the claim more convincing to the
audience.
In conclusion, the author effectively used and considered the argumentative techniques of
ethos, pathos and logos when writing this book. In the beginnings of the book, Anderson does a
good job establishing his ethos by showing his integrity and goodwill towards the audience,
along with his knowledge and enthusiasm about the issue. His credibility is based off his 40
years of being a leader and participant of industrial business, and his story of coming from
humble beginnings to being mentioned in several business magazines. He exercised pathos by
appealing to the needs of other business leaders that may be reading, proposing steps they can
take that are in their own self interest of seeking more profits, while doing less harm to the
environment in the process. When appealing to readers who may not be business leaders, he uses
language to bring the issue alive and relate it to all of humanity. Towards the end of the book,
Anderson uses logos to convince the audience that his argument is based off sound reasoning and
evidence, suggesting that they begin to act now towards a more sustainable future. These three
strategies helped to make the book more persuasive, and convince readers to take action.
Works Cited
Anderson, Ray C., and Robin A. White. Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People,
Purpose : Doing Business by Respecting the Earth. New York: St. Martin's, 2009. Print.
Wood, J. T. (2009). Communication in our lives (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.