Comparing Ad to Cartoon

The cartoon and the ad present different perspectives about genetically engineered food. The cartoon uses visual picture to elicit a response from the audience. It suggests an implicit idea that the overweight hippie, who wants to help the world, is blind (has sunglasses on that could be symbol of being blind) to the fact that issues related to genetically engineered food does not matter to the starving person. The famished male only wants calories and food. The obese do-gooder wants love and world peace. This cartoon makes the implied argument that it does not really matter if the food is genetically altered. What is important is to feed the starving population. It does not matter what type of food is feeding their mouths. This cartoon allows for

On the other hand, the ad tries to appeal to the reader’s logic and reason, especially those people who like natural, organic foods. It states facts so that one can agree with the author’s point of view. It explicitly asks the question “What if everything was labeled like genetically engineered foods?” to which it blatantly says “None of Your business”. The author is advocating that genetically engineered foods should have to labeled so that consumers know that they have been altered. The author suggests that genetically engineered products may be potentially dangerous and should be subjected to more testing. It is implied that that GE foods may be harmful to one’s health, to the environment, and to the “future of farming”. On the surface this appears to be a logical argument, however, there are no facts stated in the ad that would prove that GE foods are harmful.

Both forms of arguments have merit. The cartoon has more room for interpretation and has visual appeal. The ad is more to the point and appears to present facts to persuade one to agree with the author. However, under close examination it does not provide enough facts to substantiate the claims it makes. Both types are effective in that it makes the reader question the point of view.