Sugar Is Essential: Reframing Or Lying?
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."
Whoa! Clear, strong, and yet, somehow, completely absurd.
What's a person to think from this one little banner ad? Their main frame is artificial is bad, natural is good. I can almost get on board with that. Sure. They go on to presuppose that mother nature would never harm us. . . well, I don't know about that, but it's an extension of the first frame. And if mother nature makes the perfect sweetness of sugar, then it's obviously good for us or at least not bad for us. . .or not as bad for us as the media and the AMA has made it out to be.
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, artificial sweeteners, AKA "phonies" are made by chemists (evil) and developed in the last half of the last century. How can you trust something developed in the last half of the last century? I mean, seriously, it's all so new fangled.
(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.)
I don't know. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive because of my recent brush with death as a result of sugar poisoning (for which I absolutely take full responsibility as an adult with the ability to make healthy or non-healthy choices). But this reframe did kind of irritate me.
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.'
Is granulated sugar really essential? Hmm. . . I understand only proteins, fats, carbohydrates and vitamins and minerals to be essential. Of course, carbs are technically sugars, but in this context we're led to believe that the we must eat granulated sugar in order to live. While I find this deceptive and fraudulent, I also see it as an incredible reframe of a deadly substance.
Article Source: http://www.search-raven.com
About the Author
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.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License, which means you may freely reprint it, in its entirety, provided you include the author's resource box along with LIVE links (without "nofollow" tags).
by: KenrickCleveland
Total views: 41
Word Count: 554
Rating: Not yet rated