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."

Hmm. . . seems like they have a fairly clear message. Too bad it's 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.

I clicked on the banner ad because my curiosity got the best of me. .. Besides, maybe there was some new research that would allow me to freely eat sugar instead of worrying about diabetes. The banner linked to a main page which offered up a taste comparison between sugar and artificial sweeteners. It also gave me the information that sugar is natural, just 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.)

(Oddly, the website gives no props to the non-chemical, all natural sweeteners such as Agave syrup, maple syrup, barley malt sweetener, molasses, honey. . .none of which mess with the body's glycemic index and are therefore not contributing to the diabetes epidemic we find ourselves in the midst of in this country. Weird. . . why not mention those options?)

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.

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 considered a luxury item. Now it's in almost every product you find on the shelves of your supermarket.

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 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.'

Interesting. Essential? Reading this sentence about granulated sugar being essential is deceptive and fraudulent and yet it's a fabulous reframe of a deadly substance.

---