In Joel Salatin's 'Declare Your Independence', Salatin urges the country to
migrate away from the commercialized, industrially produced food products of today and
revert back to the wholesome, natural food we used to put a collective effort into
growing. Today's society packs its shelves with food full of ingredients 'foreign to our
three trillion intestinal microflora' that did not exist centuries ago such as preservatives
(Salatin 188). Some people say there is no way to grow and produce enough food the old-
fashioned way to feed the entire world, but Salatin attests that it is very possible. That is
how people survived not too very long ago. Critics of his stance claim that without the
industrialized system, there would be no way to ensure proper safety standards. Salatin
rejects this notion just as harshly as the first, drawing on the example of the unhealthiness
of high fructose corn syrup, saying, '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' (189). Safety is subjective'an opinion formed by the consumer.

To put an end to the wrongfully crafted ready-to-eat food system, he suggests that
we simply 'opt-out'. We must remember that our kitchens are places to cook, not to grab-
and-go. We must reeducate ourselves on how to cook, buy ingredients from local markets
to stimulate the area's economy, and can or preserve the foods that are not available
during certain times of the year. Salatin's final suggestion is to plant a garden. We should
watch our food grow and take pride in eating what we have cultivated for ourselves. We
must 'adopt a proactive stance' our children deserve it. And the earthworms will love us
'along with the rest of the planet' (196).

Salatin's situated ethos stems from his life long career as a farmer who has been
featured in numerous books. His background leads the reader to expect him to be
knowledgeable about the market in addition to being a man of some credibility, since he
has been included in so many national publications that are climbing in popularity. He
does not, however, elaborate on his career in his composition too extensively. Instead, he
attempts'and in my opinion, effectively executes'creating his invented ethos by
relating to the audience with easily understandable and easily applicable concepts. He
does not push them away with fancy farming lingo or conduct his argument in a stiff,
unresponsive way. Salatin avoids seeming self-interested. He puts himself in the same
boat as his audience saying, 'the most powerful force you and I can exert on the system is
to opt out' and 'so much can be done, right here, right now, with what you and I have'
(192 and 196). His constantly developing invented ethos makes readers like myself more
apt to listening rather than simply reading.

The second rhetorical proof, logos, is seen in Salatin's use of deductive reasoning.
He begins with the all-encompassing premise that it is time to 'challenge the paradigm of
factory-produced food and return to a more natural, wholesome, and sustainable way of
eating' (187). The premise grows by acknowledging those who disagree with this idea
and refuting their arguments, allowing him to work in his point of view. This step is vital
in the success of his argument. Without overcoming those obstacles, he would not have
been able to proceed in moving his audience into his perspective. As the argument
continues, he moves to the specifics of how the government has done its people wrong in
food production by looking at an aspect of human life that is necessary for survival and
reforming it into a means of making a profit. Many people are on board with the idea of
Salatin's natural food until the 'money changes hands' and corporate profits are slimmed
(188). By noting his observations of government deception, he makes readers want to
agree with him. No one wants to be under the government's thumb. They want freedom
to have healthy options and not have them stripped away because the government can no
longer charge them for it. The push for food freedom convinces readers what Salatin is
saying is the best way to act.

The scope of Salatin's argument is whittled further into specifics by way of
proposing solutions to our country's food problem. Summing up his proposals into four
seemingly simple choices shows the reader that healthy, homegrown meals are not as
unsafe and difficult to prepare as the food industry would have us believe. Salatin's
simplification of his course of action makes it easier for the reader to swallow his policy
and more apt to do what he is suggesting. He deduces that since eating is such a
necessary right, we 'need to reclaim the basic food preparation that was once the natural
inheritance of every human being' (193). His experience and his reasoning are both
valuable contributions towards the success of his argument, but his pathos is what really
shines.

Throughout this piece, Salatin uses word choices that are both strategically
arranged and sarcastically implemented. When talking about the terrible environment
livestock are being raised in, he says this in regards to how his farm is run in comparison:
'Tyson-style, inhumane, fecal factory chicken houses have no place here' (190). His
inherent sarcasm melds with his anger about the topic, thus causing his emotion to seep
into his wording. The passion to make a change and anger at how far the food industry
has fallen into corruption reflects onto the reader, making them feel as he feels in order to
accept his proposition. He draws on the wavering degree of freedom the government
allots us, further appealing to the emotion of anger and patriotism. The emotional
transmission escalates the effectiveness of his argument. The reader reacts according to
their values with some provoking stimuli from Salatin. After all, no one wants to be apart
of an unscrupulous society that goes to the extent of manipulating their livestock's DNA
just so they can 'be crammed into even tighter quarters without cannibalizing and getting
sick' (190).

Salatin uses an appeal to embarrassment when he discusses how society has fallen
so far that we no longer know how to cook something as simple as a hamburger. Since
embarrassment is a negative emotion, the audience is more apt to implement his
suggestions. He also uses enargeia to capture his indifferent audience by incorporating
points that bring them under the umbrella of unhealthy food affliction as well. The issue
presents economic stressors, the passage of health dangers and lack of freedom down to
our children, and exposes the wrongs the government would have as to believe in terms
of not being able to thrive on our own without their help. All of us must take action now,
he says, because 'if anyone waits for credentialed industrial experts, whether government
or nongovernment, to create ecologically, nutritionally, and emotionally friendly food,
they might as well get ready for a long, long wait' (191).

There was one use of pathos, however, that may hinder the success of his
argument. He says that schools should begin producing their own food and 'students can
butcher the chickens and learn about the death-life-death-life cycle' (196). In today's
society'the misguided one, as he has defined'no longer functions as it did when nearly
everyone lived on a farm and taught their children to slaughter pigs, chickens, and cows.
Indeed, we did rear our children knowing about the life and death cycle of the animals we
eat because no one else was going to prepare the animals for them. That kind of exposure
is not as prevalent today. His wording in that sentence could be rewritten and explained
so as not to sound so extreme. Although a valid point, Salatin's wording and lack of
explanation surrounding it could dampen his success because it sounds almost repulsive
when placed in today's contexts. It is no longer in the norm.

The interdependency of ethos, logos, and pathos is superbly constructed in this
piece. Without Salatin's ethos, the reader may not have been as responsive to his logical
reasoning or his pathetic appeals because his goodwill would have been jeopardized.
They would not have wanted to listen to his propositions if he knew nothing about the
topic and would not have registered his emotion if he were only looking out for himself.
If his reasoning were incoherent, his ethos would have fallen short. The reader would not
have believed he was the proper advocate to propose what the country should do. In
addition, had his pathos been subpar, the reader would not have been receptive to his
reasoning because he would have given them no reason to care.

The success of Salatin's argument is chalked up to the way he interwove the three
logical proofs. He understood the needs of his audience and he understood the intrinsic
morals humans hold dear. The entirety of his argument convinced me of his point and
brought me into his perspective. It made me want to take action, to go plant a garden so I
can declare my own 'food independence' and make the 'opt-out decision' (195).
