Meade 1

Jillian Meade
Bret Zawilski
RC 2001
31 August 2015
Rhetorical Analysis
When discussing nutrition, undernutrition and malnutrition are some of the more
talked about terms in this day and age. Malnutrition can be defined as not receiving enough
sufficient nutrients, or a having a poorly balanced diet. Essentially one has access to some
varieties of foods but chooses not to utilize those varieties, therefore they do not receive all
nutrients. On the other hand undernutrition can be defined as those who cannot access a variety
of food therefore they lack key nutrients. The terms can somewhat be used interchangeably but
the most important thing to take away is that both are a serious issues happening in the world
today. The Lancet Journal and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
website both discuss these terms in detail while arguing their solution to the problem.
While both texts focus on these interchangeable terms they vary in their content and
approach. When examining the rhetorical features of these texts it is evident that both share a
similar exigence. According to the Lancet Journal (2013),
Accelerated gains are possible and about a fth of the existing burden of stunting can be
averted using these approaches, if access is improved in this way. The estimated total
additional annual cost involved for scaling up access to these ten direct nutrition
interventions in the 34 focus countries is $96 billion per year.

Meade 2
While examining the other text Peter Mayer (2014) of the Food and Agriculture
Organizations Media Relations personnel states,
Governments are urged to educate and inform their citizens about healthier eating
practices, and also to introduce social protection measures, such as school-feeding
programs, to provide nutritious diets to the most vulnerable. Initiatives to combat obesity
should be reinforced by the creation of healthy environments that also promote physical
activity from a young age.
Both texts discuss the difficult task at hand and what it will take in order to improve the
problems with malnutrition. While the approaches to the problems may be slightly different there
is no argument when it comes to the fact that something must be done. I think that both articles
discuss these alarming solutions because they want individuals to realize that malnutrition is a
serious issue happening all over the world. By making statements about the billions of dollars
that will need to be spent to implement access to important nutrients for over 34 countries it
allows one to look at the bigger picture of malnutrition.
The purpose of both of these texts is not to point out all the alarming statistic on how a
large percentage of people in the world are not getting sufficient nutrients. Instead both texts
mission is to state the problem and provide numerous resources and examples for the people on
what they can do to see a change. For example, The Lancet Journal (2013) states We identied
and relied on the most recent reviews with good quality methods for all interventions and
updated the evidence by incorporating newer studies, when available. The FAO provides a
similar statement by saying The Framework lays out effective accountability mechanisms,
including monitoring frameworks to track progress as well as nutrition targets and milestones
based on internationally agreed indicators.

Meade 3
Another feature that can be compared is rhetorical appeals. The first appeal, ethos zooms
in on the authors or the sources credibility. The source, The Lancet Journal has credibility
because it is a well-known independent medical journal. It provides the names of those who
contributed information into the journal, which includes professors like, Professor Z A Bhutta
PhD, Professor R.E. Black PhD, and Professor S. Horton PhD, Hospital for Sick Children, and
Johns Hopkins University all of which are well-known. The Lancet also listed several pages of
statistics and charts that one would not know unless they were a part of that academic field. The
journal did this so that when others read this excerpt they will know that what they are reading is
coming from a reliable source of experts. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations uses the same tactic. The Food and Agriculture Organization is also a well-known
organization and is used by the United Nations. Attached with the article featured on the FAO
website is a video of the international conference discussed in the text. By including this it shows
that what the article is reporting is correct and is backed up by the actual footage and pictures
from the conference.
When looking at pathos, again both texts are very similar. Both texts seem to pull at the
heart strings when they describe the millions of people that go hungry or lack important nutrients
every day. It allows one to look at the bigger picture and see the struggles that millions face
every day. For example The Lancet (2013) goes into grave detail by saying Maternal
undernutrition contributes to 800,000 neonatal deaths annually through small for gestational age
births; stunting, wasting, and micronutrient deciencies are estimated to underlie nearly 3.1
million child deaths annually. The Food and Agriculture Organization (2014) uses the same
tactic by saying Undernutrition is linked to almost half of all child deaths under five years of
age, some 2.8 million per year.

Meade 4
Pathos also highlights the tone of the authors, or text. In the Lancet Journal a very serious
approach is taken. Both professors like Professor Z A Bhutta PhD, Professor R.E. Black PhD,
and Professor S. Horton PhD, childrens hospitals, and University Health departments contribute
their research into this piece. The text in the journal uses a wide variety of technical jargon, and
is quite discussion based. For example the text uses serious medical terms like, Iron, and folic
acid supplementation, delayed cord cramping, severe acute malnutrition. The subject matter is
not light and there is a clear emphasis on maternal, and child care in order to avoid
malnutrition. The journal wanted to do this to let its audience know that the material discussed is
to be taken series, because malnutrition is not a common cold. While the FAO is serious in
regards to the solutions for malnutrition the author takes a lighter approach. The article is not
discussion based, and does not include excerpts of research from multiple academic fields. The
website also steers away from u sing technical jargon, therefore the audience is able to
understand its meanings. There is a box available that allows you to tweet your opinions of the
article and to see what others have to say. This makes the tone of the entire article seem much
lighter, because it is open for opinion whereas with the Lancet Journal leaves no comment box,
or room for other to contribute.
There are other appeal factors to both the journal, and web article. For example the FAO
(2014) uses a photo gallery that includes images of families around the world and the type of
foods they have access to as well as the serving sizes. The website also includes video and audio
from the conference held, along with a related links tab, as well as a twitter feed. By including all
these things it allows the audience to feel like they can be a part of the solution, and they can
contribute something to the cause. The audience for this piece of text would most likely be
everyday people therefore by using a form of social media that is so prevalent in this day and age

Meade 5
the website is automatically able to connect with its audience. While the Lancet Journal does use
an extreme amount of technical jargon and leaves little to no room for the audience to contribute
it does have its appeals. The journal includes pages upon pages of charts, and diagrams. By doing
so it does open some doors for those who do not necessarily understand the technical vocabulary,
they are able to visually see the numbers and trends.
In conclusion both the Lancet Journal and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations both use similar approaches in there rhetorical features and appeals they both
differ in the way they are structure and the audience both target. The Lancet Journal takes a very
scientific approach to the solutions to malnutrition by using technical terms, a serious tone, and
not including ways for the audience to contribute. While on the other hand The FAO article takes
a much lighter approach to the problem with simple terms, and tons of appeals that would make
an audience want to be a part of the solution. However it is very clear in both texts that at the end
of the day malnutrition is huge if not one of the most important issues in our society today and
something must be done to help.