In Joel Salatin's 'Declare Your Independence', Salatin urges the country to shy
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). Salatin begins by addressing public concerns with this topic concerning
food safety and the practicality of what he proposes. By first dissolving any initial
conflict his reader's may have, Salatin is able to create an effective argument when he
continues on to his main ideas.

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. He says 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. His final suggestion is to plant a garden. We
should watch our food grow and take pride in eating what we have cultivated for
ourselves. Salatin says 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 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, berating way. A connection
to the audience is made to ensure that he does not seem 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 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 expand upon his point of view. 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. He says 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 standards are subjective'opinions formed by the
consumer. These rebuttals are 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 narrowed 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 proposed course of action makes it easier for the reader to agree 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
translate 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,
making them accept his propositions. He draws on the wavering degree of freedom the
government allots us, further appealing to the emotion of anger and patriotism. This
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 to avoid this feeling. He also uses enargeia to capture his indifferent audience
by incorporating points that bring them under the umbrella of the unhealthy food industry
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 us 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 defined it'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, often having even the younger siblings perform minor culinary tasks such as plucking
the feathers off the chicken. However, 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 receptive 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 due 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).
