Advances in the genetics sector of applied sciences have revolutionized the contemporary efforts of mastery over land. From selective breeding in the 17th century up until the prospect of "designer babies", the scientific landscape encompassing genetics has come a rather long way. However, with most progress comes resistance and such is the case regarding genetically modified organisms or GMO's. In particular, the most controversial point is the labeling of genetically modified produce for the benefit of the consumer. Tony Gilland utilizes a strong emphasis on logos in his article Food Policies Should Not Be Based on Irrational Fears, allowing for the debate of GM labelling to become one of philosophical note, providing a foundation for a successful argument of universal fear mongering instead of founded scientific woes. 

Presentation is paramount to a successful argument. When constructing his argument, Gilland relied heavily on a term coined as "common sense logic", as a form of logic that is not necessarily based on the philosophical borderline mathematical schematics of the practice but rather through presenting an idea using blanket statements seen to be universally true. The approach to GM labelling is primarily told largely in the perspective of the EU, providing a broad range of regions increasing the chance of relative application. From here, Gilland implements three "common sense" premises. First being the publics current preoccupation with risk, claiming that current governments cater to their citizens desire to feel "safe" even if and when this safety is not present. He secondly argues that labeling GM foods only exacerbates such unfounded fears fostering a fear mongering environment to be played upon by the media. And finally, Gilland accredits the general issue to an irrational distrust of scientific progress, rooted in what he claims is a historical precedent against significant change. While composed well logically from the standpoint of validity, this argument falls flat due to lack of soundness. The premises and conclusion, although well opinionated, are not true; allowing by definition an argument that is valid but not sound. Therefore, the argument as presented is true in the reality created by Gilland but in actuality has a myriad of imperfections. 

To support the proposed label of an unsound argument, the evidence backing the premises submitted by Gilland require review. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the reader's viewpoint, Gilland uses very few outside sources in regards to evidence supporting his direct claims. In his first argument, the sole direct quote used is from Margot Wallstrom of the E.U. Commission for Environment who states the "[E.U.] should not be deflected or distracted from pursuing the right policy for the E.U.". Gilland than interprets the latter of Wallstrom's statement to mean the "impact of G.M. crops and food is not a universal reality, but something specific to the culture of the E.U." (Gilland). Such a liberal interpretation of the speech becomes even more important when one reads the full text of Wallstrom's address to the commission. Similar discrepancies are apparent and crucial in the remaining premises of Gilland's argument, the most flagrant appearing as a reassuring and authoritative statement to justify the entire premise of labeling G.M. foods exacerbates unfounded fears. In response to his own rhetorical question, Gilland submits that "as it happens, scientists are not alarmed by G.M. technology" with no citation or further evidence to support this claim (Gilland). His argument in support of his "common sense logic" premise then diverts into several avenues based on the assertion that the consensus in the scientific community is the relative safety of G.M. foods. However one needs only to google GMO's to see that the controversy and varying of opinions is the defining characteristics of the debate within the scientific community. Although appealing to the readers logos, the analysis of the submitted evidence exposes the inherent holes in the presented argument of Gilland utilizing his "common sense logic".

From an academic understanding of logic and its rhetorical advantages this overall article falls flat for it entirely relies on Gillands misplaced believe that logos can be backed by appearance. While he may be correct for a general audience who most likely does not know the nature or necessary construction of an argument, from a rhetorical critique, this technique only exposes Gillands flawed thought process and overall skewed perception of the overall debate. Amendments to the argument could range from incorporating and actively citing scientific data and aligning his own opinion with the correct interpretations of other leading experts in the field. In its current state, the piece serves merely as a fool's gold template of a well-founded argument enriched and fortified with an appearance of logos to the average audience. In terms of overall success, Gilland achieved what he sought out to do by the nature of his argument and its necessitated validity. However, the way in which he achieved his results is responsible for the ending merit of an unsound argument, garnered by the egregious misuse of concrete details or lack thereof. 

