Alden Farrar English 103-002 Professor Gould October 25, 2009 A Critique of James E.

McWilliams Food Politics, Half-Baked James E. McWilliam's proves that in order to have an opinion, one does not have to be radical or offensive. Both sides of the spectrum can respect a moderate viewpoint along with a credible argument. This succeeds in being more efficient and convincing. McWilliam's purpose of his New York Times article, "Food Politics, HalfBaked", is to portray extremist sides, regarding food cloning, as ludicrous. He achieves this by taking the middle ground. The author presents both opposing sides of the dispute, finding both the positive and negatives of each aspect. McWilliam's attempt is to educate the public about the possibilities, harmful and progressive, of genetically modified or cloned foods. He states, "Like abortion and capital punishment, biotechnology inspires knee-jerk rhetorical passion rather than rational debate." His desire is for the American people to become educated, expand his or her mind, and formulate individual opinions about the matter based off of logic, rather than pure, irrational emotion and radical viewpoints. In the article, he mentions the negative impact cloning can have on capitalism, while later combating it with the good it can provide for third world countries. This gives the reader the opportunity to weigh both sides of the argument, without automatically drawing conclusions. McWilliams thesis is, at times, difficult to pin point. In the beginning of the article he mentions that some people, such as Jerry Greenfield of Ben and Jerry' ice

cream, find genetically modified crops to be a danger to organic foods. He continues on with other's views on the subject, and it is not until the end of the second paragraph where he clearly states his opinion and objective: the moderate side. In his argument, McWilliams incorporates the opinions of the extreme anti-biotech, Jeremy Rifkin, who says food cloning is, "as serious a threat to the existence of life on the planet as the bomb itself." This depicts one extreme side as irrational and somewhat absurd. Then he continues with the positives which can emerge for it such as the fact that the, "insectresistant cassava or drought-tolerant maize could be a boon to subsistence farmers in Africa." Although a direct thesis is a bit hidden at first, by the end, the reader is able to fully comprehend his beliefs through his use of direct quotes and background. McWilliam's uses strong evidence to make his argument credible and convincing. His most persuasive support is Dr. Sundlof's idea of leaving the opinion open to interpretation. This thought is most likely introduced at the opening of the article to set the stage for his opinion and begin with a believable reasoning. Furthermore, he utilizes quotes from both ends of the argument. He speaks of the harm this can have to organic food industry while presenting the beneficial aspects that came come from genetically modified bacon with "omega 3s". Likewise, a similar style of opposing evidence is displayed throughout the piece. Furthermore, although the article maintains a logical feel throughout, he does appeal to human emotion at the end by incorporating the good cloning can have for the malnourished in Africa. In terms of refutation, McWilliam's conducts an excellent job. He is able to show two sides of a controversial argument without putting either down. If he depicts one side as ridiculous, he makes the other side look equally as outrageous. Some may consider

him to play a "fair game." He applies quotes from all different sides, touching upon all different arguments, ranging from the business to the health point of view. The author seems to be accurate in his reasoning and facts, which are all further proven by studies and individual quotes. McWilliam's uses the only persona that, according to his thesis, would not be hypocritical: a matter of fact tone. If he had been too assertive he may epitomize exactly what he is trying to avoid, by appearing as an extremist. If the article were injected with excessive emotion, too strong of a voice, and offensive language it would be opposing the very point of the article. This was the perfect tone to use as it did not discourage either view and as a result will have a mass appeal. The public will not automatically write him off as a radical "rightist or leftist" and will consider his argument with rational reasoning. As a result, he has the potential to be taken more seriously. Although he is not aggressive his point is still implemented and appears with a strong argument. McWilliam's use of the middle ground proves that one does not need to be radical in order to have strong support. His position is clear due to his strong message, proven thesis, trustworthy detail, and level-headedness. By incorporating logic without strong emotion he is able to instill his viewpoints in the reader. If opinion writers of the future neglect the hostile approach to their argument as done by McWilliams, it may be more effective.