Sugar Is Essential: Reframing Or Lying?

As I was surfing the web today I came across a banner ad that said, "Skip artificials. 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.

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.

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.

Conversely, artificial sweeteners (or "phonies") are made by chemists (who are obviously evil and trying to kill us) and were all developed in the last half of the last century. I mean, how can you really trust something that hasn't been around since 200 B.C.? How can you possibly know the long term effects of Dextrose, Maltodextrin, Sucralose or Aspartame? (Actually, I do think these artificial sweeteners are somewhat evil but I am playing devil's advocate here.)

(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 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.'

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.

Article Source: http://www.rightbiz.com

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

Get Your FREE Report
Guide to Internet Entrepreneurship!

Simply fill out the form with your first name and primary email address to subscribe to the RightBiz Home Business Weekly Newsletter and claim your FREE copy of this amazing report, Now!