http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2011/04/0404_milk.jpg

Got Rhetoric? Kellie Hermansen

ENG 450

Professor William Brugger

10 April 2013

Hermansen 1

Cancer and Casein 380,350 Americans are expected to die from cancer this year according to the American

Cancer Association—that’s 3,160 more people than last year. This means that today 1600

people have or will die from cancer. Cancer is becoming a worldwide epidemic. Where did the

epidemic of cancer start, and if it’s not contagious, then why is it rapidly increasing every year?

Thomas M. Campbell, author of The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition

Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long Term Health, has

conducted dozens of research projects on the origins of cancer. It was while working in the

Philippines, trying to help malnourished children become well that he made his first discovery

into the origin of cancer. He observed, “Children who ate the highest protein diets were the ones

most likely to get liver cancer!” (Campbell, 5). He says it was a heretical statement to make, but

dozens of further studies supported his observation. Furthermore, it was discovered that not all

proteins are created equal. He stated, “What protein consistently and strongly promoted cancer?

Casein, which makes up 87% of cows milk protein, promoted all stages of the cancer process”

(Campbell, 6). We are not dealing with a contagious disease, rather a rhetorical contagion of the

mind.

Today the walls of elementary schools across

America are littered with Got Milk? posters, teaching

children that milk is a necessary commodity in order to be

healthy, fit and beautiful. Milk is included in school

lunches, provided by parents and advertised on TV and the

web. Children are being taught at a very young age of the

health benefits of milk. John McDougall, author of The

http://pzrservices.typepad.com/vintagea

dvertising/got_milk_ads/

Hermansen 2

Starch Solution, shares his experience as a boy growing up around farms and plantations:

I grew up hearing the steadfast agreement among the government and very other

source that the healthiest diet was a well-balanced one, taken from the four food

groups: meat, dairy, grains, and fruits and vegetables. Yet on the plantation I

watched elders thriving late into their senior years sustained by grains and

produce—just two of the four food groups—while each successive generation got

sicker and sicker as they increased their reliance on the other two groups—meat

and dairy. (McDougall)

If what Campbell and McDougall say about milk protein is true, then how is the dairy council

able to legally advertise in this way? Campbell says, “Most, but not all, of the confusion about

nutrition is created in legal, fully disclosed ways and is disseminated by unsuspecting, well-

intentioned people” (Campbell 250). So how is it done? Rhetoric is the art of presenting

material to persuade an audience to action. In this case, to buy a product: milk. It can include

ambiguous language, appeals to our emotions, intellect or social morality. It can trick or mislead

us into believing something that was never said, and Got Milk? advertising is highly rhetorical.

A Shift in Sales Pitch

It was 1993 and milk sales were dropping all over the country. The California Milk

Processing board hired Goodby Silverstein & Partners to create a campaign for milk in the U.S.

The first commercial aired was an impressive success. This commercial portrayed Sean Whalen

spreading large amounts of peanut butter on a slice of bread. Just

as he puts the entire piece of bread into his mouth, he hears a

$10,000 question on the radio to which he knows the answer. He

calls in, but due to his mouth full of peanut butter they are unable

http://www.frequency.com/video/

all-superheroes-must-die-

official/68254896/-/5-100191

Hermansen 3

to understand him. He desperately tries to pour a glass of milk and discovers that his carton is

empty. The telephone line goes dead and he doesn’t win the $10,000. Then for the first time we

hear the now famous tag line, “Got Milk?” It is interesting to note the dramatic evolution in the

Got Milk? advertisements in just 20 years. Back then, the company relied on humor to sell their

product, but today they promote health benefits of milk to a health-conscious American public.

In the later 1990’s there was a movement toward realizing the connection between diet

and health that is still blossoming today. Books such as Food for Life: How the New Four Food

Groups Can Save Your Life (1994) and Diet for a New America (1998) were only the beginning

of a flash flood of health literature in the U.S. Now food propaganda ranging from Super Size

Me (2004) to Fast Food Nation (2003) to The Starch Solution (2012) and The China Study

(2006) threaten fast food owners everywhere. But they will not go down without a fight. Dr.

Campbell, author of The China Study says,

There are powerful, influential and enormously wealthy industries that stand to

lose a vast amount of money if Americans shift to a plant based diet. Their

financial health depends on controlling what the public knows about nutrition and

health. Like any good business enterprise, these industries do everything in their

power to protect their profits and their shareholders. (The China Study, 249)

Got Milk? was quick to recognize this trend and began promoting milk as a wonder tonic.

These shifts attempted to increase milk sales and profits, but despite their desperate

measures, milk sales have steadily decreased since the 1970’s. In Time Magazine, Brad Tuttle

poses the questions, “Why are we drinking less milk?” He continues, “According to recently

released U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, U.S. milk sales came to about 6 billion

gallons last year. Sounds like a lot, but it’s actually the lowest total since 1984” (Tuttle). There

Hermansen 4

are many theories as to why milk consumption is decreasing, among them the increasing rapidity

of the food we eat, thus milk is inconvenient; spiking prices; and the lack of desire to drink milk

after a hard workout even though milk is now advertised as a sports drink. Whatever the cause,

there continues to exist a mentality among many Americans that milk is a necessary part of the

human diet. From where does this mentality spread? Got Milk’s lack of success does not

discredit their ability to sway the masses into believing that milk is good for you, even though

they don’t always drink it.

Ambiguous Artifices

The message of Got Milk? is concise and concentrated. Milk is good for you. Their

language in advertising, however, is vague. In one print ad featuring Chris Brown a sentence

reads, “some studies suggest that teens who drink milk tend to be leaner.” In this sentence alone

there are five ambiguous elements worthy of

deeper study. First, Some studies could refer

to two studies out of hundreds, or it could

refer to far more—it is unknown. All we

know is that some studies—not all studies—

suggest that teens who drink milk tend to be

leaner. Second, the word suggest indicates

that something is unsure, it is being hinted

at, or hypothesized, but not declared. Third,

this statement is referring to teens, not to

people in general, so there could be other

contributing factors as to why they are

http://entertainmentrundown.com/2008/12/10/chris-

browns-got-milk-ad/

Hermansen 5

leaner. Teens have a faster metabolism. Most health problems from diet don’t manifest

themselves until after the teenage years have past. The public is led to believe that milk will

cause all who drink it to be leaner, but by using the word teens, Got Milk? has eliminated a large

clientele from this statement. Fourth, the teens from the some studies suggesting more leanness

only tend to be leaner. Tend meaning to be apt or likely to a specific action or state of being.

Fifth, usually the teens from some out of who knows how many studies are more likely to be

leaner. Leaner than what? Does leaner equal lean? Is it possible for an overweight person to be

leaner than another overweight

person? With all this ambiguous

language, it is impossible to come to

any real conclusion about the

proposed health benefits of drinking

milk.

Fame is Drinking Milk

Even though Got Milk? ads

are ambiguous in the fine print, their

full color advertisements scream

fame and fitness. Got Milk? learned

very quickly the power behind a trusted testimony. In 1995 Got Milk? began using celebrities

such as Vanna White, Isabella Rossaellini and Joan Rivers to be their voice. They kept it current

as the years went by and others came into fame. Not only that but they sought to reach people by

the sheer volume of advertisements. “A series of print ads featuring celebrities wearing milk

mustaches appeared in over 90 magazines, the largest print buy ever for a beverage advertiser”

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/multimedia/Wallpaper-

Images3/got-milk-wallpaper-tb.html

Hermansen 6

(Blisard 185). These celebrities are looked to as role models or voices of authority, at least

examples of success.

These celebrity ads can also lead to false inferences suggested by the campaign and

perpetuated by the viewer. Richard W. Pollay, curator of the History of Advertising Archives at

the University of British Colombia observed, “The intent of advertising, especially in the

aggregate, is to preoccupy society with material concerns, seeing commercially available goods

or set-vices as the path to happiness and the solution to virtually all problems and needs” (Pollay

899). Thus one is led to assume that

drinking milk will help them become

famous, appear beautiful, and be fit,

when really this may not be the case. A

poster with Miley Cyrus says, “Actress

by day. Rocker by night. I’ve got to

keep fit to keep up. So I drink milk.”

She is positioned so as to accentuate

her small waist, and everything about

her seems flawless. Yet the campaign

doesn’t stop there, it even wanders into the unreal with testimonials from fictional characters

such as Superman, the Powerpuff Girls, and Pikachu. With the range of celebrities from sports

figures to musicians to pixilated superstars, they leave no demographic stone unturned.

The Oz behind the Ad

Because they let the celebrity on the poster have their voice, it allows for confusion in the

ethos behind the Got Milk? advertisements. Ethos refers to the speaker and his/her values or

http://thebosh.com/archives/2008/05/miley_cyrus_got_milk_a

d.php

Hermansen 7

credibility. Usually, when we watch a commercial we can see companies advertising

themselves. It is easy to break down logical fallacies when we see a company trying so hard to

persuade us to buy their product. Their credibility can be detected upon seeing their faces,

hearing their voices, or knowing their background. But in the Got Milk? ads the presence of the

speaker is eerily absent. This absence provokes a feeling of mystery and omniscience. This is a

productive rhetorical device because it does not

allow the audience to discredit the author. In

order for an author to have credibility they must

have intelligence, virtue, and goodwill.

Intelligence is conveyed by well reasoned or

sound evidence, virtue by honesty and goodwill

by the ability to relate to and care for the

audience’s needs. If one of these three is

lacking, the audience’s trust in the speaker

could be severely damaged. However with a

detached speaker it is far more difficult to

recognize faults because there is nobody to

blame.

The voice of the Got Milk? ads is

actually the California Milk Processor Board, a

non-profit organization that receives revenues from dairy producers in California. They hired

Goodby and Silverstein to advertise their product, a company which also markets Frito Lay,

Comcast, Nintendo and the National Basketball Association. Their name does not appear on the

http://www.ssworks.net/advertising/omnicom-

groups-goodby-silverstein-partners-named-u-s-

agency-of-the-year-by-adweek/

Hermansen 8

bulk of their Got Milk? advertisements causing the ads to appear as omniscient and accepted

truth. To make matters worse, the government bolsters the claims made by Got Milk? because

they work so closely together. This broadens the voice of the milk campaign and allows it to

seep into governmental institutions. W. A. Wiley, author of “Drink Milk for Fitness”, an article

in American Anthropologist, states, “The close relationship between government and the dairy

industry leads to policies that fail to seriously consider variation in digestive physiology among

the diverse U.S. populations” (Wiley 506). This close connection between government and the

dairy industry causes confusion among the masses of Americans seeking for dietary answers.

Not only are they bombarded with facts and opinions that so often seem to contradict each other,

not understanding the source of these opinions deepens and sustains confusion about health.

Milk Cares about You

Mysterious though it may be, the voice of Got Milk? seeks to show that they care for

their audience by appealing to their

emotions. Appealing to the emotions is a

wise tactic to those trying to make a

profit because of the psychological effect

it has. In a study called “The Role of

Emotions in Marketing,” Bagozzi states,

“An interesting finding was that positive

moods

seem to reduce counter argumentation

when weak arguments are used in ads”

(Bagozzi 195). Therefore by effectively

http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/got-milk-ads-1990s/2

Hermansen 9

appealing to their audience’s emotions, the campaign is able to provide weak arguments that still

produce desired results. If there is a lack of sound evidence, then playing off the emotions of the

viewer will likely distract him or her from asking logical questions before purchasing a product.

The Got Milk? campaign uses several methods to engage the emotions.

There is one Got Milk? poster with Alex Trebek, TV game show host for Jeopardy, with

a milk mustache and a caption that reads, “your bones may be in jeopardy.” It conveys the idea

that milk is the only way to keep your bones from degenerating and if you aren’t drinking

enough of it, than you are a candidate for osteoporosis. This produces fear in an audience, but

also a façade of virtue in the speaker because it comes as a concerned admonition for those who

don’t drink milk. This keeps the viewers from feeling wary of the warnings, but rather helps

them feel gratitude that they might have dodged osteoporosis.

Another example of Got Milk?’s appeal to the emotions of their audience is a commercial

that aired featuring 2 young children and their mother sitting around a kitchen table. The

children complain that they don’t need to drink milk because their elderly neighbor is doing just

fine without it. However, when they see him in the yard next door he tries to pick up a

wheelbarrow and his arms fall off. The children and the mother all begin to guzzle their milk in

great fear. Through this appeal, the audience feels it an absolute necessity to drink milk.

Zero in on the Milk

Not only do they appeal well to audiences by playing off their emotions, but the Got

Milk? campaign employs an expert use of kairos in their televised advertisements. Whatever the

commercial is, the entire display leads up to the climax where it suddenly ends. There is a

dilemma, a short pause when the character and audience realize the gravity of the situation, and

then, “got milk?” and the commercial is over. This short pause between the climax and the tag

Hermansen 10

line is a powerful moment when everything hangs in the

balance. Ending it there creates the feeling that something

has not been properly finished, therefore keeping the viewer

fixated on the point. When the need for a drink arises, milk

is already the first thing on the mind.

Another tool to get an audience focused on a specific

topic is the use of rhetorical questions. Questions provoke

thought, even when they don’t demand an answer. It is not

expected that anybody will answer the question “got milk?” but it gets us thinking nonetheless.

There have been several studies done exploring the use of rhetorical questions. All agree that it

is not completely understood the reason why they are so powerful, yet they tend to be very

successful in persuading others to action. Got Milk? has become extremely famous for its one

rhetorical question. Wikipedia says, “The trademarked line has been widely parodied by groups

championing a variety of causes.” There are advertisements that read, “Got beer?”; “Got

tuition?”; “Got laughter?” and “Got faith?” to mention a few. These examples show the effective

nature of the rhetorical question, especially that of “Got Milk?”

Color scheme plays a role in the marketing of milk to the masses. The majority of “Got

Milk?” posters are featured on a softly lit blue, brown or grey background. Blue can suggest

trust and dependability. It is a conservative color so it comes across very professional and allows

the viewer to trust the claims being made. Brown is an earthy color, which in this case is very

persuasive to those who want to eat healthy, a practice which usually includes eating foods that

come from the earth. It is also associated with the natural and organic, thus tying milk in with

this category. Grey is classy and refined. It suggests high class, maturity, and authority allowing

https://twitter.com/GotMilk

Hermansen 11

those featured over a grey background to appear authoritative on the matter of milk. With these

colors, “Got Milk?” is taking on a tone of professionalism that helps the consumers trust and rely

in their product.

The Milk Mask

An even more devious rhetorical method than color scheme or rhetorical questions is

applied by the Got Milk? campaign. Their claims are based upon highly skewed evidence.

Martha Rosenberg, a health reporter whose work appears in the Boston Globe, San Francisco

Chronicle, Chicago Tribune and other outlets, makes several observations about Got Milk?’s

supposed evidence. When commenting on their claim that milk reduces the symptoms of

premenstrual syndrome in women she says, “the study on which the campaign was based,

credited calcium, not milk, with relieving PMS -- a substance found in many sources besides

milk” (Rosenburg). In a recent Time article,

Laura Blue explores the studies that were done

to reach these conclusions. She states,

The study behind that calcium-PMS claim can

be found here, and it does indeed show that,

among PMS-suffering women, 55% of those

randomly assigned to take daily calcium

supplements showed substantial improvement

in PMS symptoms after three months. But that

still means, of course, that 45% taking calcium

did not show much improvement. What’s

more, about a third of women who didn’t take

http://www.breakingcopy.com/milk-pms-ads

Hermansen 12

calcium also got better over time, experiencing substantial improvements in

symptoms without the supplements. (Blue)

Got Milk? commits the fallacy of composition in this claim. Because consuming calcium

reduces the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome in women, drinking milk does the same,

because there is calcium in it. Not only that, but the study shows that those who didn’t take

calcium had similar results to those who did.

Another claim Got Milk? made, and continues to make, is that drinking milk is good for

your overall health. However, this claim was debunked when a 2001 news release states, “A

newly released U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) expert panel report largely supports

complaints raised by a physicians' organization that many "milk mustache" and "got milk?"

advertisements make untruthful health claims.” They go on to say that there is no real scientific

evidence behind the claims that drinking milk gives you stronger bones, or increases ability in

sports. Not only does milk not make you healthier, but it is detrimental to your health. Dr.

Bernard of the USDA panel said, “We should think of drinking milk the way we think of

smoking cigars. Some people like it, some hate it, but it is not necessary and, in fact, carries

health risks that people need to be aware of” (News Release). Where is Got Milk? getting their

facts? How is it possible that their evidence can be so skewed?

The claims of Got Milk? are likely based on numbers obtained by faulty or tenuous

studies. Common mistakes in reporting statistics include evidence based on random data shifts,

unusual sub-populations, summarized statistics, confusion in word usage, unnatural baseline, and

hidden numbers. The ambiguous language found in most Got Milk? advertisements should be a

red flag suggesting that their claims are not based on solid foundation. But why would Got

Hermansen 13

Milk? go to such lengths to sell their product? John Robbins, author of Diet for a New America,

Reclaiming our Health and The Food Revolution states,

The inescapable fact is that certain people are making an awful lot of money

today selling foods that are unhealthy. They want you to keep eating the foods

they sell, even though doing so makes you fat, depletes your vitality, and shortens

and degrades your life. They want you docile, compliant and ignorant. They do

not want you informed, active and passionately alive, and they are quite willing to

spend billions of dollars annually to accomplish their goals. (The China Study

Forward)

With recent evidence continually discovering the detrimental effects of milk on the human body,

the milk industry has a lot to lose should their consumers convert to a dairy free diet.

Rhetoric floods the world in which we live. There is no advertisement that does not

employ it in some way, and often its schemes find their way into our everyday conversations.

We may even use rhetorical devices without knowing it. Got Milk? has expertly employed

several rhetorical devices into their

advertising, successfully publicizing their

product. This has resulted in increasing

amounts of confusion about the health

benefits or lack thereof that milk has to

offer. Only recently have scientists been

uncovering the truth that milk intake

increases the risk for cancer and heart

disease. Yet despite scientific evidence,

http://www.theslowcook.com/2010/08/12/school-nutrition-

association-dances-to-milk-industry-tune/

Hermansen 14

many consumers continue to claim milk’s dire necessity in the American diet. This confusion

continues because “Got Milk?” has learned to wield rhetoric. Their color schemes leave viewers

feeling calm, confident, and trusting. Their testimonies from authorities can cause false

inferences that their product will transform users into thin, beautiful stars. Their ambiguous

language can lead others to assume what is not actually said. And their appeal to fear causes

wavering users to keep buying, just in case. With increased awareness on rhetorical devices used

in the media, product consumers of all types can avoid deceiving pitfalls that may detriment their

well-being. In this case, our survival.

Hermansen 15

Works Cited:

Bagozzi, Richard P. „The Role of Emotions in Marketing.“ Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science. 1999: 27: 184. Sage. 183-206. Web. 10 April 2013.

Blisard, Noel. „Advertising and What We Eat: The Case of Dairy Products.“ America’s Eating

Habits: Changes and Consequences. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division. Agriculture Information Bulletin

No. 750. Web. 10 April 2013.

Blue, Laura. „Got PMS? Milk Marketers Launch an Audacious Funny New Ad Campaign.“

Time. Time Mag., 15 July 2011. Web. 10 April 2013.

Campbell, T. Colin, and Thomas M. Campbell II. The China Study: The Most Comprehensive

Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted. Dallas: BenBella Books, Inc, 2006. Book.

McDougall, John A, and Mary McDougall. The Starch Solution. City of Publication: Rodale

Books, 2012. Print.

Pollay, Richard W. “The Distorted Mirror: Reflections on the Unintended Consequences of

Advertising.“ Journal of Marketing. April 1986. Web. 09 April 2013.

Rosenberg, Martha. “Got Propaganda? Why All of the Milk Industry’s Health Claims Have

Been Proven Wrong.” AlterNet. 12 March 2012. Web. 09 April 2013.

Tuttle, Brad. „Got Milk? Increasingly, the Answer Is No.“ Time. Time Mag., 07 September

2012. Web. 10 April 2013.

“USDA Panel backs Doctors’ Complaints against Milk Ads.” Physicians Committee for

Responsible Medicine. 20 September 2001. Web. 09 April 2013.

Hermansen 16

Wiley, A. S. (2004), “Drink Milk for Fitness”: The Cultural Politics of Human Biological

Variation and Milk Consumption in the United States. American Anthropologist, 106:

506–517.