Joel Salatin's 'Declare Your Independence' takes a closer look at the problems
with the food industry and why it needs to be changed. His argument attempts to change
how people view food on a daily basis. Through the use of rhetorical arguing, Salatin
effectively convinces the audience to take action to control the potential hazardous and
minimally regulated food industry. Salatin creates a successful persuasion that allows the
audience to clearly view his argument through his rhetorical approach.

Salatin uses an inductive argument to make his argument more effective and
meaningful to the audience. He begins with his presentation of his argument by using
specific details before moving onto broader viewpoints. His introduction allows the
audience to understand that 'once we realize that safety is a matter of personal choice,
individual freedom suddenly--and appropriately--takes center stage' (Salatin 189). By
presenting this as the main argument, he produces a more direct approach to the topic.
Salatin is then able to proceed to the reasoning behind his argument when the audience is
clear on the subject. He not only presents dialectical reasoning, he also demonstrates his
use of rhetorical reasoning. By proposing that foods are not guaranteed healthy just
because they follow federal standards, Salatin utilizes dialectical reasoning. He
effectively compares today's food industry today to the past and the changing nature of
the healthiness of the food. Salatin uses opinions from credited sources to help support
his overall argument. He also uses rhetorical reasoning to present common
misconceptions. People tend to think that food today is healthier just because of the new
technological advancements instead of looking at what goes into making the food they
eat. It is more common for people to believe the government than it is for them to
question what they have been told and think for themselves. He forces people to think
about how today, 'the decisions are made by the same type of people who decided in the
Dred Scott ruling that slaves were not human beings' (189). Through his examples,
Salatin's combination of both reasoning techniques helps him create a more complete
argument. Presenting views from different standpoints makes it easier for the audience to
side with Salatin.

Salatin's presentation of ethos strengthens his argument by allowing him to make
a greater impression on the audience. He draws on his situated ethos by using his
background to his advantage. Being a farmer allows Salatin to make references that are
more reliable because the source, Salatin himself, has previous applicable knowledge.
Because his opinion is more relevant and educated, the audience is able to relate and
therefore trust him more. The audience sees that that what he is preaching can actually
work because even Salatin himself has 'opted out of the industrial production and
marketing paradigms' (190). He references his experience in a respectful way by being
very modest in his approach with the topic. Although he shows a sense of urgency, he
also refrains from offending the audience. He also establishes his invented ethos by
choosing a topic that shows great importance today. Instead of simply telling people to
change their lives completely, he promotes making little changes that could have a longer
impact. 'If all we did was rediscover our kitchens and quit buying prepared foods, it
would fundamentally change the food system' by forcing the industry to make changes.
The way in which Salatin utilizes his ethos increases not only his credibility but also his
trustworthiness. The argument will be more effective once the audience is able to believe
the rhetor and see where the argument itself is coming from.

The audience believes an argument when it recognizes with their emotions. A
person's emotions drive their decisions and have a large impact on how they react to
certain situations. Salatin specifically utilizes people's compassion and desire to help
others by using specific case examples. Many people feel deeply when it comes to
animals and by discussing the harshness of their situation, people are able to identify with
the reality presented before them. The shock value is increased when Salatin goes into
great detail in an essay where something would not usually be seen. He tries to force
people to look more closely at how 'a society that views its plants and animals from that
manipulative, egocentric, mechanistic mindset will soon come to view its citizens the
same way' (190). Many people choose not to acknowledge a cruel reality until it affects
them personally or its shoved in their face. Salatin's abruptness may create opposition but
helps create a more effective message. People are compelled to face the issues when it is
brought to a more personal scale by affecting their emotions. By using pathos as a
rhetorical device, Salatin is able to effectively portray his message without losing his
ethos.

Using enargeia in his argument allows Salatin to make the issue more personal.
Employing tactics that make the issue come alive helps convince the audience of
Salatin's argument. He uses many examples and references that contain great detail to
help show the true nature of the food industry. People should care about the issues at
hand because it affects not only how they live today, but also defines the future. He
argues for people to really take time to think about what they are putting in their body.
Salatin wants people to defy the government and learn for themselves the truth about
what is going on with the food they eat. People have a hard time realizing 'that the most
efficacious way to change things is simply to declare our independence from the
figurative kings in the industrial system' (191). It is not only affecting the animals and
the industry itself, but it also affects the health of each individual who chooses to follow
suit. People are not caring enough about the long-term health effects and the ingredients
that go into their food. Many just sit back while the government dictates what is safe and
unsafe instead of questioning decisions.

Salatin tries to play on people's emotions so that they decide to opt-out and think
for themselves. Too many people are relying on the government to make their decisions
for them instead of researching and deciding individually what is best. People are too
caught up in what doesn't affect them instead of realizing what really matters: their
health. 'Safety is a subjective matter' during industrialization and often comes second to
cost efficiency. Salatin uses pathos to try and get people to use their emotions and realize
what they are doing is detrimental to their body. He urges people to opt-out and
understand the processes of how their food is made and what the benefits are. Just
because the cost is low does not mean that it is also healthy. He tells people about local
farmers whose businesses need the profit to make people realize that the better and safer
choice might be just around the corner.

Joel Salatin's argument influences people to look more closely at what they are
using as a source of energy. People are not paying attention to what is happening with
their food and are ignoring what is most important in life. Putting health on the
backburner only creates the problems that many are trying to avoid. Instead of looking at
food as an industry, Salatin urges people to identify it as a journey. When you look at
food in a new way and really take time to consider everything going into your body, it is
easier to create a healthy lifestyle. Just because the government sets regulations and
declares that a certain food is healthy does not always mean that it is. Salatin engages
with the audience to help them understand that thinking for himself/herself is how to
really recognize what opting-out means. Through a rhetorically effective argument,
Salatin identifies with the audience and convinces them to take his viewpoint into
consideration.
