In order to build a rhetorically sound argument, a writer or speaker must have a
good understanding of the three rhetorical appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos. A well-
rounded argument will be dense and will cover each of the three appeals extensively. Joel
Salatin's, 'Declare Your Independence,' is an excellent piece of literature in which
Salatin strategically combines logical, emotional, and pathetic proofs to argue that even
in this day and age, people can avoid processed foods and eat fresher, more wholesome
options.

When analyzing Salatin's use of logical appeal in his essay, 'Declare Your
Independence,' one must first examine his choice to argue through the use of deductive
reasoning. This can be defined as Salatin's ability to first address a general issue and then
go into specifics on exactly how to act on the issue. In this case, Salatin's argument is
based on this statement: 'The time has come for people who are ready to challenge the
paradigm of factory-produced food and to return to a more natural, wholesome, and
sustainable way of eating (and living) to make that declaration to the powers that be, in
business and in government, that established the exiting system and continue to prop it
up. It's time to opt out and simply start eating better ' right here, right now,' (Salatin
187). Now, one may see that this is an extremely general statement, and as a reader, one
is left to wonder how exactly can we get away from processed foods? After all, that's
really the only thing that grocery stores sell; or at least that's what it seems like. Salatin
understands this, and does an excellent job of dividing his argument into different
sections or classes in which he gives step-by-step reasoning and instructions as to why
and how one can, 'opt-out.' Each class is placed strategically so that one leads to the
next, while all concerning his major premise. Salatin's technique makes his argument
very effective, convincing, and successful.

For Salatin to argue in an effective manner, he uses a mix of dialectical, scientific,
false, and rhetorical reasoning to gain the trust of his audience. It is evident that Salatin is
using dialectical reasoning because he is actually proposing an, 'opt-out strategy.'
Salatin argues that if we make the choice to opt-out of our current eating habits and make
the effort to eat more wholesome, natural foods, our quality of life will improve. He can
be considered trustworthy because of his use of scientific reasoning. Salatin states, 'The
notion that indigenous food is unsafe simply has no scientific backing. Milk-borne
pathogens, for example, only became a significant health problem only during a narrow
time period from 1900 to 1930, before refrigeration but after unprecedented urban
expansion,' (Salatin 188). Facts such as this one give Salatin's overall argument a boost
because it shows that he has done his homework on this topic, and because one of his
major points can be proved true scientifically.

Salatin incorporates false and rhetorical reasoning when proving the maxim that
safety is a subjective matter to people. First, he draws on the widely accepted premise
that processed foods and other things we find in grocery stores are safe, and prove how
unsafe they really are. 'Ultimately, food safety is a personal matter of choice, of
conscious. In fact, if high-fructose corn syrup is hazardous to health ' and certainly we
could argue that it is ' then half of the government-sanctioned food in supermarkets is
unsafe. Mainline soft drinks would carry a warning label,' (Salatin 189). Salatin then
uses rhetorical reasoning when he states, '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. This is all considered noble and wonderful, even patriotic. Safety? It's not
an issue,' (Salatin 189). This could be defined as rhetorical reasoning because it deals
with human action on a premise that is widely accepted as true. In this case, it is drawing
on the premise that skinning a deer and eating its meat without it having been processed
is totally safe.

It is important to understand that Salatin uses his dialectical and scientific
reasoning to draw on his situated ethos. Salatin, a well-known author, lecturer, and owner
of the Polyface Farm, is a man who has actually taken his own advice and has chosen to
opt-out. His choice to talk about food safety is his way of saying that he, like the people
of the generations before us, turned out just fine by eating indigenous foods.

In order to establish a strong invented ethos, Salatin successfully proves to his
audience that he is acting in good will. In other words, his reason for writing the essay is
because he has his audience in mind and he wants to benefit them. Salatin talks a lot
about how his Polyface farm is very respectful of their animals. For example, he states
that their chickens enjoy, 'bugs, forage, and local grain (grown free of genetically
modified organisms),' ( Salatin 190) their cattle are herbivorous, and they even respect
their pigs by allowing them to lay in a shed, 'where manure, carbon, and corn create a pig
delight,' (Salatin 190). This shows that Salatin has good sense and good virtue. By
understanding what he is talking about and being a trustworthy person, he is able to gain
an immense amount of credibility. Because Salatin utilized his situated and invented
ethos in this manner, he was able to make his argument extremely convincing. When an
audience realizes that that an author is speaking to them in good will, they are more apt to
listen and then act in the way the author wants them to.

In order to actually have a chance at making a good argument, it is imperative that
Salatin makes an emotional appeal to his audience. Making an emotional appeal is
extremely important because it helps to keep the audience interested. Salatin states,
'What could be a more basic freedom than the freedom to choose what to feed my three-
trillion-member internal community,' (Salatin 189). This is an excellent example of
emotional appeal. As Americans, we tend to take pride in the fact that we live in a free
country and have the ability to choose what we want to do and what type of person we
want to be. Now, when someone tells us that we are not free, that bothers us a little bit.
In, 'Declare Your Independence,' Salatin talks of how we are slaves to the processed
food industry. The aforementioned quote is Salatin's way of telling us to, 'wake up,' and
reclaim the freedom that we should be able to enjoy.

Salatin also addresses the concerns of his audience. He recommends that they try
a technique in which they close their eyes and imagine themselves walking down the
aisle at the grocery store. He suggests that we begin to eliminate things that cannot be
grown or produced within one hundred miles of our location. This sparks some concern
with his audience because not everything can be grown or produced near us, however,
'the lions share of what you eat certainly can,' (Salatin 194).

Often times, an audience may have no opinion about an issue because they may
not be educated on the topic, or they just may not care enough. Salatin uses enargeia in
his argument, which is a rhetorical technique used to grab the attention of these types of
people. An excellent example of enargeia is when Salatin states, 'The question is, who
decides what food is safe? In our society, the decisions are made by the same type of
people who decided in the Dred Scott ruling that slaves were not human beings,' (Salatin
189). Any normal human being is going to experience an uneasy feeling from hearing
something like this, whether they have an opinion on opting-out or not. Salatin makes this
statement pretty early on in his argument. This is a very strategic placement because it is
a narrative hook, allowing him to catch the attention of the audience almost immediately.
It is evident that Salatin expects that his audience will think negatively of these decision
makers after hearing such an intense statement, if they did not think so already.

Joel Salatin is an expert when it comes to using the three rhetorical proofs: logos,
ethos, and pathos, to build a mechanically sound and effective argument. His intelligence
has allowed him to gain credibility by forming his own opt-out strategy, which gives us
the ability to declare independence from the binds that the processed food industry has on
us. Through his use of enargeia, as well as letting the audience know that he has good
sense and good virtue, Salatin is able to deliver a successful, rhetorically strong
argument.

