Hocus Pocus: Reframing Sugar

I recently came across a banner ad on the internet that read: "Skip artificals. Go natural. Sugar: sweet by nature. Only 15 calories per teaspoon."

Interesting. They seem pretty defensive, but quite clear. Somehow, though, the message is wildly absurd.

Here's what I gleaned from the ad: artificial is bad, natural is good. Mother Nature is responsible for sugar, the perfect sweetness of sugar. Why would mother nature harm us?

The banner ad linked to the main page of the campaign which offered up a taste comparison of sugar versus artificial sweeteners. Apparently, sugar, just like a crisp apple, is natural and has been around since 200 B.C.

On the other hand, we've got the "phonies", artificial sweeteners, which are concocted by chemists (who are clearly not Mother Nature, and don't have our best interests at heart), and were developed in the last half of the last century. It's all so scary and new. . . how can we trust something that hasn't been around since 200 B.C.?

(Pay no attention to all the non-chemical, all natural sweeteners such as molasses, honey, Agave syrup, maple syrup or barley malt sweetener, which have no impact on the human body's glycemic index and are therefore far healthier than sugar and far less damaging for diabetics. The website does not include these in their graph.)

It is entirely possible that I am a tad sensitive to the message being delivered here because of my recent brush with death (and diabetic coma) due to an over-appreciation of sugar. (I take full responsibility for this event and the amount of sugar I consumed to create the problem in the first place.) I will say, however, that this reframe rubbed me the wrong way.

We have a great many industries that are being bombarded by bad press in the recent years (for good reason)--the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, meat and dairy industries, oil and gas industries. Our use and reliance on all of them isn't doing our bodies or the earth any good, but we all partake to an extent.

Sugar used to be a luxury item, for special occasions, used sparingly. If you go down the aisles at your supermarket nowadays, you'll see sugar is one of the top ingredients in a huge percentage of the products.

Fortunately for us, (according to www.gonaturalsugar.com), "The sugar in a bag at the store is sucrose, *exactly the same as the sucrose you find in a piece of fresh fruit*. Sugar is not a substitute for fruits and vegetables."

Interesting thing to add. . . 'Sugar is not a substitute for fruits and vegetables.'

At the top of the ironically named "Sugar and a Healthy Lifestyle" page it says, 'Sugar is more than a "fun" food ingredient, it's an essential one you can consume with confidence.'

Essential? Really? There are three essentials aside from vitamins and minerals-proteins, fats and carbohydrates. Yes, carbohydrates are technically sugars, but reading this sentence about granulated sugar being essential is deceptive and fraudulent and yet, I have to admit, it's a fabulous reframe of a deadly substance.
SEOcontest2008 | Public Record

Kenrick Cleveland teaches strategies to earn the business of affluent prospects using persuasion. He runs public and private seminars and offers home study courses and coaching programs in persuasion strategies.

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5  

Not yet Rated | Article Directory
Hocus Pocus: Reframing Sugar

Please Rate this Article