Unit 3– assignment ideas, rubric, template phrases & sample papers

ContentsARGUMENT & CLAIMS............................................................................................................2SOME MAJOR CLAIMS.............................................................................................................2

RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................3Food, Inc. Synopsis.....................................................................................................................3NOTES ON STRATEGIES.........................................................................................................4

Tackling Food Inc. & the Strategies paper – some Notes...............................................................6Food, Inc. Project (GROUP WORK)..........................................................................................7Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies – Prompt & Assignment Options.................................................8

Rhetorical Analysis of Food Inc..................................................................................................8Extra Credit Options....................................................................................................................8Option 3: Applying Strategies (Creative Project) plus Self-Analysis.........................................9

RUBRIC/Peer Review ASSIGNMENT 3.....................................................................................10Template Sentences for Paper 3....................................................................................................11Sample Student Papers..................................................................................................................12

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 TITLES1. Introduction/Overview2. Fast Food to All Food3. A cornucopia of choices (‘the illusion of diversity”)4. Unintended Consequences (cows fed corn, e-coli, etc. KEVIN’S STORY)

1

5. The Dollar Menu6. In the Grass 7. Hidden Costs8. From Seed to the Supermarket9. The Veil10. Shocks to the System11. The Power of the Consumer

ARGUMENT & CLAIMSOverall 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

WHAT OTHER CLAIMS CAN YOU FIND? (See synopsis of the movie)

2

RESOURCES

■ WIKI MATERIALS ON FOOD INChttps://rhetoric.pbworks.com/w/page/28877495/Unit_3

■ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MOVIE: https://sdsuwriting.pbworks.com/f/FoodIncTranscript_revised.docx

Food, Inc. Synopsis CHAPTER 1 "FAST FOOD TO ALL FOOD" (12:52 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: This first chapter of Food, Inc. opens with a brief history of the fast food industry. It depicts how fast food has transformed not only what and how people eat, but also farming practices and the entire global food system. As one example of this transformation, the chapter focuses on how the food industry has altered the way that chickens are raised, including changes in farm operations, the living conditions of chickens, and even the chickens themselves. CHAPTER 2 "A CORNUCOPIA OF CHOICES" (7:54 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: In this chapter, the film explores the pervasiveness of corn in the foods we eat today and illustrates how government subsidies of corn and other commodity crops have greatly altered the way that food is produced and consumed in the United States. As the film describes, corn is a cheap ingredient compared to other sources, and food producers have found many uses for it, including high-fructose corn syrup, saccharin, xanthan gum, and a whole range of other food additives.CHAPTER 3 "UNINTENDED CONSEqUENCES" (13:56 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: This chapter of Food, Inc. focuses on one of the unintended consequences of our current food system: the occasional contamination of the food supply and the very real risks presented to the population. The film puts a face on this problem by interviewing the mother of a toddler who died from E. coli contracted from eating a hamburger. The film describes how feeding cows corn—a cheap and abundant crop because of subsidies—has increased the incidence of E. coli, since corn raises the level of E. coli in cows’ guts. In light of this higher risk of contamination, the film shows meat packers taking such measures as using ammonia to cleanse meat meant for human consumption.CHAPTER 4 "THE DOLLAR MENU" (5:12 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: This chapter of Food, Inc. focuses on the fact that fast food and processed foods are often less expensive than healthier foods like fruits and vegetables because many of the ingredients come from crops subsidized by the federal government. The film highlights one family’s dilemma at the grocery store: Since the father has diabetes, the family members are aware that a healthier diet with more fresh foods would be best for him, but they must choose foods they can afford. As the film suggests, people with lower incomes are more likely to eat cheaper, processed foods, and are also more likely to suffer from obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and other diet-related health problems. NOTE Be sensitive to the fact that the portrayal of the family in the film may hit close to home for some of your students. Make sure that the discussion avoids stigmatizing or blaming low-income individuals and families, or those with obesity or diabetes.CHAPTER 5 "IN THE GRASS" (13:44 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: This chapter of Food, Inc. explores differences between small-scale farming and industrial farming, and introduces issues of workers’ rights and immigration. The chapter opens with an organic farmer comparing his farm to industrial agriculture practices. After showing the small-scale butchering of some of his chickens, the film moves to show the large-scale processing of hogs in the biggest slaughterhouse in the world. The film portrays that while the unskilled laborers in large slaughterhouses have one of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S., they have low wages, little job security, and no union to represent them. It also describes how meatpacking companies have actively recruited workers in Mexico, where 1.5 million farm jobs have been lost since 1994, partly due to U.S. policies. The final scene of the chapter shows immigration agents arresting meatpacking workers at a trailer park. NOTE: This chapter of the film includes brief footage of a chicken being killed, as well as some disturbing images of a slaughterhouse kill floor. CHAPTER 6 "HIDDEN COSTS" (8:00 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: This chapter takes a look at the economics of our food system and some of the market forces that influence food companies. The owner of the organic farm from the previous chapter talks about industrial food not

3

being “honest food” because it doesn’t include the environmental, societal, and health costs associated with it. The CEO of a once-small organic yogurt producer that has been bought out by Groupe Danone (Dannon Yogurts) walks the filmmakers through the Natural Products Expo in Anaheim. He points out other small companies that have been acquired by corporations, and explains how Walmart is now selling his company’s organic yogurts.CHAPTER 7 "FROM SEED TO THE SUPERMARKET" (10:07 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: This chapter of Food, Inc. focuses on soybean seeds that were developed through genetic modification and patented by Monsanto. It explains that farmers used to save seeds from one year’s crop for the next year’s planting. Since Monsanto now owns the patent on most soybean seeds used in the United States today, the company has the legal right to protect their patent and keep people from saving the seed. In the film, three different farmers and the owner of a small seed cleaning company (which cleans seeds so they can be saved) describe being sued or investigated by Monsanto for alleged violations of its soybean patent. One farmer says that he doesn’t plant Monsanto soybeans, but his fields have been contaminated by his neighbors’ and he is still held accountable. Another says he was wrongly accused of violating the Monsanto patent but decided to settle the case because he lacked the money to fight it. The third also agreed to settle and must speak anonymously in the film as a condition of the settlement. CHAPTER 8 "THE VEIL" (7:59 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: In this chapter, Food, Inc. explores why consumers are unaware of the details of how food is processed and what it contains. The film describes some of the measures taken by businesses and lobbies to protect the image of their products, to hold onto intellectual property, and to avoid providing more detailed labels or warnings on their food products. It points out some connections between government regulators and agribusiness and suggests that these connections affect the regulation of the food industry. It also shows the seed cleaner (introduced in the previous chapter) defending himself in a lawsuit brought by Monsanto for “inducing farmers to break the patent law” through his seed cleaning business.CHAPTER 9 "SHOCKS TO THE SYSTEM" (7:07 MINUTES)SYNOPSIS: In this chapter, the film touches on some of the other major issues raised by our current food system, including the possibility of a world food shortage, the tremendous amount of energy that goes into food production, and the impacts of industrialized food on our health and environment. The film points out that while the average consumer may feel powerless in the face of these issues and the vastness of the food system, the system does respond to consumer demand.

NOTES ON STRATEGIESThe 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

4

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.

5

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 examineYou 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.

6

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 Due Date1 Fast Food to All Food2 A Corn-u-copia of Choices3 The Dollar Menu4 In the Grass5 Hidden Cost6 From Seed to the Supermarket7 The Veil8 Shocks to the System

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.

7

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies – Prompt & Assignment Options

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 EvaluationSuccessful papers will:

1. accurately describe the authors’ project and argument 2. signal the topic and give a clear indication of how the paper will proceed3. 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 strategies6. 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

Extra Credit Options

1. Analyze a fast food restaurant menuCompose 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.

8

2. Enter the food politics debate and compose your own argumentWatch (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-good-for-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-AnalysisLength = 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.

9

8. Create two political cartoons that address themes in the movie, each adopting a different perspective.

9. Suggest your own topic.10. 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 3Reviewed By________________ Person Being Reviewed Your grade reflects your ability to: 1 -- 10■ 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 discussin 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 usedto 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

10

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…”

11

Sample Student PapersFood, 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

12

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.

13

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

14

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

15

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,

16

“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

17

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

18

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.

Essay Three: Food IncThe 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

19

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

20

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 CitedFood, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Magnolia Pictures and Participant Media, 2008. Film.

21