Part 1

#1

“The trouble with Paustenbach’s report is that it’s heavily biased.  He was hired by the Corn Refiners Association to investigate the problem, but they have a lot of money depending on HFCS and they stand to lose a lot if it is tainted by mercury.”

Argument to the Person (Ad Hominem)

I state that his argument is biased because the Corn Refiners Association hired him to do the research.  However, his research may still be valid.  I need to make sure I clarify that this is not the only reason I disagree with his report.  I need to make sure it’s clear that this is just one factor that makes it more questionable how in depth his research was.  There were other problems with his argument and those are what really need to be emphasized.

#2

“These four factories having been operating for as long as 43 to 51 years.  Most factories that don’t convert to mercury-free technology have to close before they’ve been operating for 50 years.  He concludes that they will be forced to either upgrade or shut down.”

Hasty generalization

In this statement, I’m summarizing an argument made by another author.  I need to explain that, just because other factories have closed down, doesn’t necessarily mean that these will have to close as well.

Part 2

For my poster, I will divide it into three main sections.  The first will be a brief history of how corn has become a large part of the food industry.  The second will address the problems of obesity and why it shouldn’t be as big a concern as my third section: mercury contamination.  The majority of the board will focus on mercury, how it effects us, how it may be making it’s way into our food, and why I think more research needs to be done.

The most difficult thing about the poster will be keeping the words under 300.  Because the research on mercury is so new, it’s difficult to find graphs and other images that I can use.