Rhetorical Analysis of The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting History

In The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting History, Bruce Babcock and Jacinto Fabiosa present their finding and stance on corn subsidies and their effects on corn prices for consumers, farmers, and industrial manufacturing of biofuels, specifically ethanol. The authors use several distinct rhetorical tools when presenting evidence and when making their argument. The main rhetorical tools used by the authors when presenting evidence and when making their argument are the style of writing, the use of ethos, and the motivating occasion of the article. The methods and mannerisms the authors use when presenting evidence and when making their argument set it apart from other writing about this topic.

The style of writing used by the authors is very methodical a well-planned out and is a large contributor to the overall effectiveness of the authors main argument. It is introduced and has the layout of an academic and peer revied paper. The authors immediately recognize the history behind modern corn subsidies and the organizations and industries that pushed for and stood to benefit from higher corn subsidies. The language in the paper is very professional and academic. Their work does not use common language, but rather language one would expect from a peer reviewed article or paper. The paper uses visual aids and graphs to expand the argument beyond the limitations of written language. The authors attempt to expand the understanding of the reader through precise language and the use of graphs. The language is precise and leaves little up to interpretation, which makes some parts of this paper difficult to read. However, this complexity in the language used is necessary otherwise many readers would need a great deal of prior knowledge to understand the papers main argument. The content of the paper is very math driven and there for takes considerably more writing to explain than content that is not math based. Because of this, the writers intentionally explain the minute details in market forces to explain the relationship between corn prices, corn subsides, and ethanol production. The tone the paper conveys is very serious, but not necessarily argumentative. It reads like a congressional testimony, which is not surprising because Bruce Babcock has testified in front of congress several times. His previous writing on the subject undoubtably influence this work. This can be seen in the ways both authors choose to systematically lay out evidence to support their conclusion. The overall attitude of the paper conveys a need for methodical change and that the spike in corn prices between 2005 and 2009 did not occur due to the increase in ethanol production due to the Renewable Fuel Standard out into effect in 2004. The paper ultimately defends the use of corn subsidies through well thought out process that paints a cleat picture for the reader. The style of writing used by the authors is very methodical a well-planned out and is a large contributor to the overall effectiveness of the authors main argument.

The use of ethos in the paper is a reoccurring tool used by the authors to build their argument. The authors follow a very logical process of writing to build credibility. The authors use an unbiased process and unbiased language to present their conclusion. Their writing process uses minimal or entirely eliminates appeals to emotion and presents only objective facts as their evidence. In this process they discuss possible factors cause by the Renewable Fuel Standard and corn subsidies and their perceived effects on corn prices. The authors present their findings in a very methodical and thought-out way. The authors introduce entry level knowledge for the reader and expand on that knowledge to draw their conclusion. The authors also rely heavily on graphs and analytics to show there is less of a correlation between corn prices, corn subsidies and ethanol prices than was original thought. For example, the authors introduce a bar graph showing the average corn price per bushel and the production of ethanol in gallons to show that at peak production of ethanol, the price of corn dropped as opposed to rose with the rising production of ethanol in an industrial setting. Additionally, the authors add graphs in a specific sequence so that they are integrated within the reading and pertain directly to the reading before and after them as well as the previous graph. The authors recognize that the correlation between corn prices, corn subsides, and ethanol production is complex. The authors introduce other possible logical answers and then explain their reasoning. The authors build on their credibility by having their paper peer reviewed and published through the Iowa State University Digital Repository. This shows that given the information presented in the paper and process to draw their conclusion, that the conclusion they arrived at least partially valid. Additionally, Babcock has written extensively on corn subsidies and ethanol and as previously mentioned spoke on the economics of both corn subsidies and ethanol production in from of congress, and Fabiosa has written extensively about biofuels, especially ethanol derived from corn and its social effects. This lends both of them some level of expertise on the subject. The authors both have extensive research on this subject and ample education on the subject but avoid making the false appeal to authority. Instead, the authors let their research and writing prove their conclusion rather than relying on their own authority as evidence. The use of ethos in the paper is a reoccurring tool used by the authors to build their argument.

The motivating occasion of the paper is possible the most interesting and dynamic rhetorical aspect of the entire work. On the surface the motivating occasion seems to be the Renewable Fuel Standard put into law in 2004 which expanded the use of biofuels, especially ethanol by mandating is use in most types of fuel. Once considering the paper was published in 2011, the reader could assume this is only because of the necessity to gather data on the effects of corn subsidies and ethanol mandates on corn prices. Taking into consideration the authors may have wanted 5 years of data is sufficient evidence the paper would need to begin the writing process in 2010 to allow for the data of 2004 to 2009 to be collected in entirety and processed. The article contains data leading all the way up to 2010, so it a reasonable assumption it would have taken a year to publish. Another explanation for the motivation behind this paper could be the near constant debate on the subject. Corn subsidies are always a hot topic of discussion in the federal government, but take a back seat to bigger more immediate issues, so the issue of corn subsidies, corn pricing, and the effects of ethanol production constantly lingers. The national debate on corn subsidies picked up some time in the 1990’s surrounding Mexico’s own issues with corn pricing, corn subsidies and distribution. Mexico’s issues surrounding corn prices and corn subsides made many Western counties try to reevaluate the cultural impact, social impacts, effectiveness of corn subsidies. However when given another look the answer to the motivation behind the paper the conclusion drawn may be far more interesting. In 2008, Barack Obama was elected, and one of the main goals of Michelle Obama as first lady was to address the obesity epidemic. She along with other health officials began looking for certain causes of the obesity epidemic, especially obesity in children. In 2009, academic papers began linking the surplus of corn due to corn subsidies to the production of increasingly cheap, overprocessed, and unhealthy foods. Corn is a cheap substitute and sweetener. Its main link to the obesity epidemic is as cheap and sugary high fructose corn syrup. This started a debate as to who benefited from corn subsides and corn subsidies societal costs. Many debated the links between corn subsidies, corn prices, high fructose corn syrup and obesity. This lead many to look into possible links between low corn prices and ethanol production to find any possible link. The main claim was that with a growing market for corn and growing corn subsidies to offset corn prices, the price of corn had remained artificially lower than it otherwise would have. This ultimately lead to a surplus amount of corn being grown which made corn artificially cheaper than it would have in subsequent years after the Renewable Fuel Standard. This debate may have lead Babcock and Fabiosa to write their paper about the link between biofuels like ethanol, corn subsides, and corn prices. This is why the motivating occasion of the paper is possible the most interesting and dynamic rhetorical aspect of the entire work.

In The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting History, Bruce Babcock and Jacinto Fabiosa present their finding and stance on corn subsidies and their effects on corn prices for consumers, farmers, and industrial manufacturing of biofuels, specifically ethanol. The authors use several distinct rhetorical tools when presenting evidence and when making their argument. The main rhetorical tools used by the authors when presenting evidence and when making their argument are the style of writing, the use of ethos, and the motivating occasion of the article. The methods and mannerisms the authors use when presenting evidence and when making their argument set it apart from other writing about this topic.

Works Cited

Babcock, Bruce A, and Jacinto F Fabiosa. “The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting History.” Apr. 2011.

Babcock, Bruce. Curriculum Vitea of Bruce Babcock. Iowa State University Department of Economics, 26 Apr. 2016, www.econ.iastate.edu/people/bruce-babcock.

Schnepf , and Yacobucci . “Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues .” Https://Fas.org/Sgp/Crs/Misc/R40155.Pdf, Congressional Research Service, 14 Mar. 2013.

Alston, Julian M, et al. “Farm Policy and Obesity in the United States.” Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, vol. 25, no. 3, 2010.

Carter, Collin, et al. “The Effect of the US Ethanol Mandate on Corn Prices.” Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Sept. 2018.

Doroodian, K, and Roy Boyd. “The Impact of Removing Corn Subsidies in Mexico: A General Equilibrium Assessment.” American Economic Journal, vol. 27, no. 2, June 1999, pp. 150–169.

Google Scholar search of Jacinto Fabiosa