Hocus Pocus: Reframing Sugar
Kenrick Cleveland
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.
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.
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.
Lately many industries have had to do some damage control as a result of bad press (and potentially dangerous products)--the tobacco industry, the dairy industry, the meat industry, the fast food industry, oil and gas industries. . .Our reliance on all of these products isn't doing the environment or our bodies good.
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."
At least they added, 'Sugar is not a substitute for fruits and vegetables.'
On the ironically named "Sugar and a Healthy Lifestyle" page, there's a paragraph of disclaimers. But at the top of the 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.
Kenrick Cleveland teaches strategies to earn the business of affluent prospects using http://www.maxpersuasion.com/ persuasion. He runs public and private seminars and offers home study courses and coaching programs in http://www.maxpersuasion.com/ persuasion strategies.
|
