The food movement has been debated about all around the world. Almost everyone knows of the battle between genetically and chemically modified food and naturally raised organic food. In “Big Agriculture” by Jay Rayner, he argues for genetically and chemically modified food. Rayner states that only mass producing food will keep the people from starving and rioting in the future. In “Big Agriculture”, Rayner uses various evidence and rhetorical appeals to successfully present his argument for commercial farming. Rayner claims that Britain may run out of food in the near future. He argues, “Having spent the past month travelling across Britain investigating the sustainability of our food supply for a new TV show, it’s clear to me that we risk replacing a culture of a cheap and plentiful present with one of hyper-expense and scarcity in just a few …show more content…
He uses proper grammar and syntax, but he doesn’t come across as an expert on the topic of the food industry. He writes, “Having spent the past month travelling across Britain investigating the sustainability of our food supply for a new TV show, it’s clear to me that we risk replacing a culture of a cheap and plentiful present with one of hyper-expense and scarcity in just a few years’ time.” (Rayner). He bases his research on the traveling he did to film a TV show. It is hardly the qualifications one needs to be an expert on the food and agriculture industry. He also comes across as being biased. He writes, “We need to make difficult decisions which a lot of people who regard themselves as serious foodies may find deeply unappetising. And we need to make them fast.” (Rayner). It is plain to the reader that Rayner sides with the commercial farming side of the argument. Rayner does not try to defend the other side of the argument in his article, and he leans too much to one side. Rayner tries to use ethos in his article, but it is