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.
From just the banner ad I got the main frame of “artificial=bad, natural=good” and that mother nature, which would never try to harm us, is responsible for the perfect sweetness of sugar. Obviously.
I had to see what kind of spin the sugar industry is on about now so I clicked on the banner. The main page, gives a “taste comparison” of sugar versus artificial sweeteners. Sugar is natural, like a crisp apple 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.?
(Seems like if the folks at gonaturalsugar.com were so eager to get us all on the natural path to sweetness, they might have mentioned Agave syrup, barley malt sweetener, maple syrup, molasses, honey. . .none of which effect the body’s glycemic index therefore being much healthier alternatives to both sugar and the artificial sweeteners mentioned on their site.)
I suppose it’s possible I’m being overly sensitive as a result of my brush with death as a result of sugar poisoning (which I take total responsibility for as an adult with the ability to choose between what is or is not healthy). This reframe, however, did irritate me.
Along with the tobacco industry, the fast food industry, the dairy industry, the trans fat industry (if there is such a thing) and the meat industry, the sugar industry as of late has been savaged by bad press which of course it needs to counteract.
Whereas sugar used to be a luxury, it’s now in nearly everything.
But take heart. 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.”
Indeed. . . ‘Sugar is not a substitute for fruits and vegetables.’
On the “Sugar and a Healthy Lifestyle” page they give a full paragraph of disclaimers like, you need to exercise, yada, yada, yada, everything in moderation, yada, yada, yada, but at the top of that page they say, ‘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.
Tags: artificial sweeteners, banner ad, barley malt, chemists, crisp apple, dairy industry, food industry, glycemic index, main frame, maple syrup, meat industry, molasses, mother nature, natural path, natural sugar, phonies, reframe, sugar industry, sweetener, tobacco industry
