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 essay 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.

In order to argue in an effective manner, Salatin 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 (in other words, people choose to believe whether
something is safe or not). First, he draws on the widely accepted premise that processed
foods and other things we find in grocery stores are safe, and then 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).
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). This shows that Salatin has good sense and good virtue. He is able to
gain an immense amount of credibility by understanding what he is talking about and
being a trustworthy person. 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. However, 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). Whether they have an opinion on opting-out or not, any normal human being is
going to experience an uneasy feeling from hearing something like this. 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.

