Joel Salatin's essay 'Declare Your Independence', provides an argument that is
convincing enough to persuade the audience of this essay to participate in his opt-out strategy
(2010). The various rhetorical proofs work in concert with each other in Salatin's essay along
with other practices of invention. Salatin's essay begins with a portion of the essay devoted to
the idea that food is no longer food, that it is foreign to our bodies, and that, contrary to what the
corporations have been advertising, perhaps more problematic for the immune system than
organically grown food (2010, p. 187). Next, Salatin introduces the idea, and supports it, of why
our personal freedoms are being jeopardized by accepting the 'criminalization' (as Salatin
describes it) of the food industry. Following both his invocation of the food industry and of the
government for attempting to control us through suppression of sufficient facts, thus impairing
our God-given rights as American citizens to have the adequate freedom involved in choosing
our foods, Salatin suggests a means of 'declaring our independence from the figurative kings in
the industrial system' (Salatin, 2010). Salatin does this through the proposal of his opt-out
strategy. There are many instances in which Salatin employs the use of the rhetorical proofs of
logos, pathos and ethos, and I will describe a few instances in which each is utilized and how
they essentially are effective because he employs them in concert.

Salatin's argument is overall effective, partly due to his use of logical proofs. He sets up
his argument in the opening of his essay, with powerful language by stating his strategy can
'humble the mightiest of forces because it declares to one and all, 'You do not control me''
(Salatin, 2010, p. 187). Salatin proposes the reasons why we no longer possess this independence
that we thought we had, and concludes that due to the actions of the food industry, we have
surrendered our freedom. The essay leads with false reasoning; in the first section entitled 'What
Happened to Food', widely accepted beliefs are addressed and refuted, ones which Salatin also
claims we may have been persuaded to believe by the very people who are proposing that their
way is the right way. The first question Salatin answers is 'How can we feed the world' (2010,
p.188). Salatin draws on the premise that people have been influenced to believe that the world
cannot survive without industrialized food. His response is backed with scientific and dialectical
reasoning, and he responds to this question with historical evidence, asserting that 'when you
consider the fact that millions of people, including many vast cities, were fed and sustained using
traditional farming methods until just a few decades ago, the answer is obvious' (Salatin, 2010,
p. 188). The second argument about food safety is approached in a similar way; Salatin sets up to
disprove the issue of food safety, which is another topic that Salatin tries to disprove, stating,
'Here, too, the facts are opposite to what many people assume. The notion that indigenous food
is unsafe simply has no scientific backing' (p. 188). Salatin provides explanations for his
arguments in addition to providing the audience with solutions to suggest how we can begin to
make a change, which may incline the audience to take action.

Through his uses of each of the four methods to convince the audience of his argument,
Salatin also intertwines ethos within his logical reasoning. Salatin is a farmer, so he draws on his
situated ethos to support the invention of his ethos in his argument. It is evident when he
expresses the commonplaces of the visitors that participate in tours on his farm, suggesting they
have certain, mostly misunderstood, ideas about how the food industry works and should work.
He also draws on his situated ethos in minor ways to describe his experiences with the type of
organic farming he idealizes, but does not use his situated ethos as an ultimate means of
persuasion. Salatin (2010) describes his farm, 'On our Polyface Farm' we have consciously
opted out of the industrial production and marketing paradigms. Meat chickens move every day
in floorless portable shelters across the pasture, enjoying bugs, forage, and local grain (grown
free of genetically modified organisms). Tyson-style, inhumane, fecal factory chicken houses
have no place here' (p. 190). With this statement, Salatin uses this image of freedom to roam for
his chickens, which I extracted two separate strategies from. First, I feel as though this quote
does something for his essay overall, which suggests the importance of freedom, and perhaps
people are metaphorically becoming those chickens as the government influences people to yield
their freedom by removing personal choice. Similarly, Salatin comments on the fact that as an
organic farmer, he has many restrictions applied to his farming practices by the government.
Following this quote, Salatin continues to discuss the organic farming practices of Polyface
Farm, while incorporating the negatives that accompany industrialized farming.

In this section, Salatin is also aiming to undermine the ethos, especially the goodwill and
good virtue, of industrialized food companies. More effectively employed in this circumstance,
is Salatin's use of his invented ethos, which he effectively creates through the use of logical
proofs, of undermining the ethos of the food industry, and through his expression that he is aware
of what the great people of America want: freedom and personal choice. The section entitled
'Reclaiming Food Freedom' exemplifies just that concept, just by focusing on food safety. He
begins, 'Once we realize that safety is a matter of personal choice, individual freedom suddenly
' and appropriately ' takes center stage. What could be a more basic freedom than the freedom
to choose what to feed my three-trillion-member internal community'; he then goes on to
reference the Bill of Rights in asserting, 'In America I have the freedom to own guns, speak, and
assemble. But what good are those freedoms if I can't choose to eat what my body wants in order
to have the energy to shoot, preach, and worship' (Salatin, 2010, p. 189). What Salatin does with
this string of sentences is invents an aspect of his ethos which suggests that he is concerned with
our basic human rights. In fact, he is interested in protecting one ' one that he wants the audience
to concede ' of the most basic rights, more basic than even our most basic rights outlined in the
Bill of Rights: our free will to choose what we put in our body as food.

In order to support his logical and ethical proofs, Salatin incorporates the use of pathetic
proofs. In attempting to define his argument logically and ethically, Salatin keeps the audience's
basic human needs and wants in mind. In doing so Salatin presents an enargeia. He uses imagery
to describe Polyface Farm and the overcrowded farms of the industrialized food companies. The
colorful language that Salatin uses only helps his argument, claiming at Polyface Farm there is a
'magical land-healing process' which is used. To create an image of the contrast and of good
virtue, Salatin (2010) describes,

'Our pigs aerate anaerobic, fermented bedding in the hay feeding shed, where
manure, carbon, and corn create a natural create a pig delight. We actually believe
that honoring and respecting the 'pigness' of the pig is the first step in an ethical,
moral cultural code. By contrast, today's industrial food system views pigs as
merely inanimate piles of protoplasmic molecular structure to be manipulated
with whatever cleverness the egocentric human mind can conceive' (p. 190).

Salatin, in the above quote, specifically points out that he intends only to provide his livestock
with the best quality of life, similar to a natural habitat, whereas his competition views the
animals as simply malleable to their own agendas, much like he describes is the
'criminalization' occurring on production sites of the industrialized food industry. What he goes
on to say is an imperative comment in his argument, 'A society that views its plants and animals
from that manipulative, egocentric, mechanistic mindset will soon come to view its citizens in
the same way. How we respect and honor the least of these is how we respect and honor the most
of these' (Salatin, 2010, p. 190). He makes extensively clear that there is a small leap between
the attitude that the government has, or any individual, towards its livestock and a similar
manipulation of its people; Salatin also suggests here again the basis of his argument which
involves his good virtue, which suggests through recognition of Salatin's ethical character that he
is a person that we should place our trust in.

Based on the manner in which Salatin arranges his argument and utilizes rhetorical
proofs, Salatin is able to provide a rhetorically effective argument. He is able to provide his
opinion while also keeping the audience in his frame of mind. Salatin uses persuasive and
inclusive language to demonstrate to the audience that we need to make a change and band
together to opt-out of the industrialized food industry. Both an explanation for why we should
opt-out and how we should opt-out are present, so as to further incline the audience to take action
because we are handed simple and possible individual solutions to the problem that is described.
Through his use of logical proofs, mainly playing off of scientific reasoning, disproving false
reasoning and rhetorical reasoning, Salatin is able to expand his invented ethos by both
undermining the ethos of industrialized food and by supporting his argument to the audience
with trustworthy information. Both by engaging assumed emotions of the audience, and by
suggesting solutions, Salatin's argument provides a rhetorically convincing argument which
would compel his audience to action.
