Until a few years ago, no one knew about trans-fat’s existence or its health implications. However, upon realizing the dangers of trans-fat, little was done until 2006, when the F.D.A. passed a law that food corporations had to list any artificial trans-fats on the food label. Since then, trans-fat is commonly known to be extremely bad for one’s health, and it is not as prevalent in many foods as it once was. This article from the New York Times discusses a new F.D.A. ruling that trans-fat is not “safe” to eat. If the ruling is passed, companies that utilize trans-fat would have to scientifically prove that a “certain amount” of trans-fat is safe to consume in order to continue using it as an ingredient.
The article does a great job of presenting and defending the argument that trans-fat is in fact unsafe through various forms of rhetoric. Right from the get-go, the article mentions the F.D.A.’s new ruling. The Food and Drug Administration is a valid federal agency, so by showing that the F.D.A. supports the argument against trans-fat, the article establishes ethos. Also, the article continually quotes members of the FDA and other related government agencies to further prove the validity of the negative affects of trans-fat.
In addition to its establishment of ethos, the article also includes numerous logos appeals that directly display trans-fat in a negative light. For example, the following statistic, “the rules could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year,” clearly states that excising trans-fat from our food supply can save thousands of lives and prevent heart disease among the public. This begs the question, “why not eliminate trans-fat entirely?” By making the audience logically conceive of trans-fat in a negative way, the logos appeals used are extremely effective.
As the article is primarily an informative article, there is little pathos appeal employed. Merely thinking about the health implications of trans-fat consumption brings images of “clogged arteries” to mind. Of course, no one wants to have clogged arteries or heart disease. Therefore, an indirect pathos appeal is employed in that words such as “clogged” and “lurk” cause us to adopt a disgusted feeling towards trans-fat.
Clearly, this article is not an ordinary piece of rhetoric, as it is a news article that is meant to be unbiased. However, behind the statistics and figures lies a hatred of trans-fat and an agreement that its affects can and SHOULD be remedied through its elimination. This perfectly defended bias emulates throughout the piece of writing.
Works Cited
Tavernise, Sabrina. “F.D.A. Ruling Would All but Eliminate Trans Fats.” New York Times. (Nov 7, 2013): A1. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Article URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/health/fda-trans-fats.html?_r=0