Joel Salatin uses the rhetorical proofs: logos, ethos, and pathos very well to make his
argument successful. The argument he is trying to get across is making us, Americans, opt-out
of the industrialized food system by growing our own food or buying it from the local famer's
produce stand so we can shut down the food industry. He compares the food industry to
government in a way; saying that Americans are getting robbed of their freedom by choosing to
buy and eat the processed foods.

Salatin uses deductive reasoning when discussing the industrial food products put on the
shelf and how the food has unnecessary additives, preservatives, unpronounceable names, etc.
added to it. 'They've been replaced by an array of pseudo-foods that did not exist a mere
century ago. The food additives, preservatives, colorings, emulsifiers, corn syrup, and
unpronounceable ingredients listed on the colorful packages bespeak a centralize control mindset
that actually reduces the options available to fill Americans' dinner plates' (188). He proceeds
to break down how a farm can work without all the machines and chemicals that the industries
use and gives specific examples of how Americans can opt-out of the food industry by learning
to cook again, buying locally grown foods, buying what's in season, and planting a garden. This
is rhetorically effective because he clearly states the problem at large then breaks down in great
detail the different possibilities to fix the problem of the food industry that has taken away our
freedom.

He uses scientific reasoning with the support of false reasoning. He does this by
introducing the different non-organic substances that are being put into the food by the food
industry. 'The food additives, preservatives, colorings, emulsifiers, corn syrups, and
unpronounceable ingredients listed on the colorful packages bespeak a centralized control
mindset that actually reduces the options available to fill Americans' dinner plates' (Salatin
188). Salatin uses false-reasoning by making the reality of the food industry known to
Americans and showing us how messy the process really is by giving examples of how the
animals are treated on the industrialized farms. 'The industrial pig growers are even trying to
find the stress gene so it can be taken out of the pig's DNA. That way the pigs can be abused but
won't be stressed about it. Then they can be crammed in even tighter waters without
cannibalizing and getting sick' (190). By using these types of reasoning, it affects his argument
by informing America that the food we are putting in our mouth is not good for us. He makes
everyone aware that the food industry is a mirror image to politics. The industries, being
compared to the government, have all the power toward making the regulations on our food.

Since Joel Salatin is a third generation alternative farmer, he uses his knowledge of how
to farm without going through the food industry to his advantage. He knows what to tell people
to do to be able to opt-out of the food industry and gain their freedom back. Although this is
nice to have on his side there is the limitation of people just seeing him as some hippie guy that
wants every one to eat all organic, home grown foods as he does. He points out that the animals
are treated horribly on the industrial farms and that if they took off all the food on the super
market shelves that had been sprayed with some kind of chemical there would be practically
nothing left on the shelves. 'In fact, if you just eliminate every product that would have been
unavailable in 1900, almost everything would be gone, including staples that had been
chemically fertilized, sprayed with pesticides, or ripened with gas' (187-188). He also discusses
a list of the bad things done to the food we eat on a daily basis from industrialized farms. 'To
make the point clear, here are the hallmarks of the industrial food system: centralized production,
mono-speciation, genetic manipulation, centralized processing, confined animal feeding
operations, things that end in 'cide' (Latin for death), ready-to-eat food, long-distance
transportation, externalized costs'economy, society, ecology, pharmaceuticals, opaqueness,
unpronounceable ingredients, supermarkets, fancy packaging, high fructose corn syrup, high
liability insurance, and 'No Trespassing' signs' (191-192). With this list we can see that we put
so many bad things for us in our body that we may not have been previously aware of.

Salatin uses enargeia by using vivid detail about the treatment of the animals and about
the microorganisms that live in our digestive tracts. Throughout the essay he shows the work he
does on his farm and shows how his neighbors think of it. 'In fact, to the shock and amazement
of our urban friends, our farm is considered a Typhoid Mary by our industrial farm neighbors.
Why? Because we don't medicate, vaccinate, genetically adulterate, irradiate, or exudate like
they do' (190). Through this display of work he shows reasoning for caring. He also suggest
that we do not need to listen to the food laws about safety when buying or selling food from our
neighbors. He makes this point by stating, '' realize that many of the same power brokers
(politicians and the like) encourage citizens to go out into the woods on a 70-degree fall day;
gun-shoot a deer with possible variant Creutzfeld-Jacob's disease (like mad cow for deer); drag
the carcass a mile through squirrel dung, sticks, and rocks; then drive parade-like through town
in the blazing afternoon sun with the carcass prominently displayed on the hood of the Blazer.
The hunter takes the carcass home, strings it up in the backyard tree under roosting birds for a
week, then skins it out and feeds the meat to his children' (187-189). With this great detail of
how a man hunts a deer he shows that safety isn't an issue here when he feeds it to his children
and is considered noble. Salatin is making the point that you don't have to listen to the food
safety laws when providing food for your own children so why should it matter when you are
providing food for the local neighbors and their families?

He is drawing on the emotion of freedom by referring to the industrial food system as the
'' figurative Kings in the industrial system' (191). In other words, saying that the food
industries are taking away our freedom of what we put in our body and the safety of it, which
needs to be stopped by opting out or not buying the food industry products anymore. He wants
us to care enough about what is going into our body to make a change. This is rhetorically
effective because when people think of America they think of freedom. We all want our
freedom and to realize that we are getting our freedom stolen from us by the food industries
makes us want to fight back and restore our freedom.

After analyzing 'Declare Your Independence' by Joel Salatin using the rhetorical proofs:
logos, pathos, and ethos he has an interesting approach by comparing the food industry to the
government to try to make his audience, Americans of today, care more by implying that their
freedom of food choices is being taken away by the food industry. By making his argument of
the food industry being bad and that we need to choose to opt-out of industrialized food. Making
this approach is very useful because America is a system built on freedom and by Salatin saying
Americans are getting their freedom stripped from them is a hard pill to swallow for many
Americans. This makes us want to choose the opt-out system in the future rather than putting the
bad, harmful chemicals into our bodies that we have been doing for many years.

