I.
Layers
of persuasion
A.
Logos
B.
Pathos
C.
Ethos
II.
Infowrite
criteria
A.
Distinguishing Fact from Opinion and Bias from Reason
B.
Distinguishing Between Primary and Secondary Sources
C.
Evaluating Information Sources
1.
Perspective
2.
Timeliness
3.
Relevance
4.
Logical vs. deceptive reasoning
III.
Toulmin
model of analysis[lawn care example]
A.
Claim
1.
Qualifier
2.
Exception
B.
Reasons
C.
Evidence
D.
Objections and rebuttals
E.
Evaluation or interpretation
1.
Emotional response
2.
Reasoned response
3.
Writing a claim of your own
IV.
Claims
from readings
A.
BakerÕs speech
1.
Cal Poly finds it fitting and appropriate to associate itself
with the Talloires declaration.
B.
Talloires
1.
Thus, university leaders must initiate and support mobilization
of internal and external resources so that their institutions respond to this
urgent challenge.
C.
Lovins
1.
In the next century.. a remarkable transformation of industry
and commerce can occur. Through [which] society will be able to create a vital
economy that uses radically less material and energy[and]Éfree up resources,
reduce taxes on personal income, increase per-capita spending on social ills
(while simultaneously reducing those ills), and begin to restore the damaged
environment of the earthÉ promot[ing] economic efficiency, ecological conservation,
and social equity.
V.
Measure
Q
A.
Ordinance text
1.
Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity
to propagate, cultivate, raise,
or grow genetically engineered organisms in San Luis Obispo County.
2.
Finding. The people of San Luis Obispo County wish to protect
the countyÕs agriculture, environment,
economy, and private property from genetic pollution by genetically engineered organisms
until all the risks associated with these organisms are fully understood.
3.
Exemptions. Nothing in this Ordinance shall make it unlawful
for (1) a fully accredited college
or university to engage in scientific research or education using genetically engineered organisms under secure,
enclosed laboratory conditions,
taking precautions to prevent contamination of the outside environment, or (2) any licensed health
care practitioner to provide any diagnosis,
care or treatment to any patient.
B.
Arguments in favor
1.
GE never occurs in nature.
a)
Different from traditional plant breeding; forcing genes from one species into another
2.
GE bad for Farms and Farmers
a)
Maintains our strong agricultural economy
(1)
Trading partners demand GE free crops
(a)
US exporters have lost $300M year because of GE corn
(i)
American farm bureau
(2)
Provide economic
advantage
b)
GE crops contaminate conventional food crops at seed production
and transport, cross-pollination, harvest, milling, storing and processing
(1)
Examples
(a)
2001: 50% of
Iowa corn harvest contaminated
(b)
2002: 500,000 bushels of soybeans destroyed
c)
contamination raises liability questions
d)
2001-3: 73M more pounds of pesticides applied on GE acres
than on non-GE acres
e)
Some GE crops classified as pesticides by EPA
3.
Supporters
a)
Fetzer and a small winery
b)
Carlson M.D.
c)
Farm owners
C.
Rebuttals to Arguments in favor
1.
Q isnt just about cropsÑother products are GMO
a)
Q bans all GMOÕs in county
b)
Technology jobs go
c)
Medicine development prohibited and cleaner industrial products
and cleaner industrial processes
2.
Q cant be enforced
a)
Ag commissioner
b)
Enforcement is expensive
3.
Harms Farm Economy
a)
IB in trade with China for GMO soybeans
b)
Hawaii papaya industry saved by GMO
c)
Grape growers will be able to protect industry from PierceÕs
disease
4.
International acceptance for GMO is growning
5.
GMO crops are safe
a)
All evidence shows this
6.
GMO reduces use of other more dangerous treatments
7.
Cornell Public Information project:
(1)
extensive agbized information website claiming to be objective
8.
Authorities
a)
2 calpoly phdÕs president Greenhouse growers, cattlemen association,
Talley Vineyards
D.
Arguments Against
1.
GM improves environment
a)
Less pesticides and herbicides and reduce cultivation
b)
Improves air quality and worker safety
2.
UN, WHO, AMA, NAS have examined. UN reports GM Òpose no more risk than conventionally grown
cropsÓ Òno reports of health
or environmental harm.Ó
3.
GM enriches food and provides drug cures
4.
Enforcement would cost too much money
5.
Authorities: president of farm bureau, Jan Haynes director
of medical device company, director local biotech company, president Wine
Growers Association
E.
Rebuttal of Arguments against
1.
Q prohibits growing not sale of GMO
2.
Q allows
a)
University research
b)
All present grape growing practises
c)
Farm workers to be safer from increased use of pesticides
d)
Use of animal feed with GE byproducts
e)
Growing GMO crops elsewhere
3.
Testing is inadequate
a)
FDA, EPA, USDA leave testing of GE crops to companies that
make them
b)
Center for food safety says there cant be confidence in safety
of GE food
c)
NAS asks for more research to detect harmful effects 2004
4.
Alternate methods can address crop disease
5.
Enforcement is not expensive, compared to billions lost to
ag. Because of GE crops
6.
Authorities: five individual farmers
F.
Trib Editorial
1.
Without going
into the philosophical questions surrounding bioengineering, we find that
Measure Q is bad legislation for the following reasons:
2.
¥ Cal Poly,
as a state-owned property, would be exempt from the ban. This means the university
can, and does, grow GE food, which makes the measure discriminatory against
farmers in the private sector. It also means that research capital probably
won't be spent at a university located in a county hostile to bioengineering.
This is at a time when head-of-household biotech jobs are expected to increase
32 percent over the next 10 years, and business and community leaders have
suggested that the area should look to the biotech field as a source of good-paying
jobs that could stimulate the local economy.
3.
¥ The enforcing
agent would be the county Ag Commissioner who, with no offense to Commissioner
Bob Lilley, has neither the expertise nor budget to oversee compliance of
medical bioengineering.
4.
¥ Besides
the term "organism" having far-reaching unintended consequences,
the safety factor of keeping the ban in place "until all the risks associated
with these organisms are fully understood" is simply unattainable in
its subjectivity.
G.
ASPB
1.
This prohibition on field testing by university researchers,
will discourage further university-based research in the County.
2.
National Academy of Sciences
3.
using modern technologies, such as genetic engineering has
lead to the reduction of pesticide usage and to less disease.
4.
genetically engineered wheat, which will be much safer for
people with wheat allergies to consume.
5.
lower levels of mycotoxins, known potential cancer-causing
agents, have been found in lines of genetically engineered corn, compared
to conventional corn.
6.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations in a report issued in May of this year found that biotechnology and
genetic engineering of crops hold great promise for agriculture in developing
countries.
7.
Founded in 1924, ASPB is a non-profit society of nearly 6,000
plant scientists, including 450 scientists in California, based primarily
at universities.
VI.
Evaluate
and rank arguments; look for the strongest ones to critique; get further research
A.
track down Center of Food Safety
B.
go to Cornell website and get to hazards and dangers