Leslie GloriaRHE 309SBuckley

The Sugar Ad

According to a newspaper article published in 1987, the decrease in demand for sugar in

the late 20th century prompted the Sugar Association to launch a campaign. Then, as well as now,

pro-sugar ads and pro-artificial sweetener ads sold their products by making a case against each

other—which is healthier? Which tastes the best? One of the Sugar Association’s ads answers

such questions with the warrant: “Natural is always better.”

“Which would you rather put on your kids’ cereal?” reads the headline. Above it, we see

a selection of sugar substitutes nestled inside a quaint bowl that lists a series of hard-to-

pronounce, even scary chemical names. Beside the little bowl is an identical one filled with

white sugar that says, “Pure 100% Natural Sugar.” And—voilà!—we’re bombarded by rhetoric

before even getting to the prose. I don’t know about you, but all the chemistry on the left brings

back unpleasant memories….

The scene is reminiscent of a family’s dinner table. It’s sexist, but generally, moms set

the table, and do the cooking and grocery shopping. Because moms are usually the ones who

decide what their children eat, they are the target audience.

It’s also sexist to say that women have to be beautiful to be fully feminine. Unfortunately,

since that’s a predominant way of thinking in our society, women feel they have to be lean—

another dominant discourse—to achieve a certain level of beauty. Though we may forget it

sometimes, moms are girls too; they’re susceptible to these pressures. At first glance, you’d think

the ad’s goal is to get moms to feed their kids real sugar. Using pathos, or an emotional appeal,

the ad brings up a mother’s golden years of childhood. “Don’t they deserve to have it as good as

Leslie GloriaRHE 309SBuckley

you did?” it asks. A good mother would respond, “Yes,” and give her little rascals real sugar. But

what’s with the calorie count? That’s for her. By means of their children, the Sugar Association

is trying to get moms to use real sugar themselves. Our society’s group mentality makes this

argument a persuasive one. A woman not only has to be thin and beautiful to fit the American

ideal, but she also has to have that natural maternal instinct—she has to be a good mom.

The logic, or logos, in the ad helps moms make the “right” choice concerning their

children’s diet. It provides the following evidence to support the claim that real sugar is

healthier, safer, and all-around better than artificial sweeteners: “sugar is on the government’s

FDA GRAS list,” “sugar is pure and…contains no mysterious, unnatural ingredients,” “real

sugar has only 16 calories per teaspoon,” and that “in a recent taste test, sugar was preferred

nearly 3 to 1 over the leading artificial sweetener.” Airtight logic, no?

Well, it isn’t.

When analyzing a piece of rhetoric, readers should be willing to challenge. You shouldn’t

have faith in everything the Sugar Association says because of its background as a reputable

research foundation or because of its notoriety. You should test the message’s logic, and analyze

objectively.

The word “natural” is all over the ad. Yet, sugar is refined. How can something that’s

supposed to be 100% natural have been chemically processed? In fact, the chemicals used to

refine sugar are more “mysterious” than those that make up artificial sweeteners because

consumers are oblivious to them. Furthermore, the chemicals in artificial sweeteners are

engineered for consumption.

Leslie GloriaRHE 309SBuckley

The ad’s underlying argument is flawed. Just because something’s natural, doesn’t mean

that it’s safer, healthier, better. People get sick from natural diseases and are treated with

manmade medications every day. In cases where a lot of sugar is necessary—and 16 calories per

serving can add up—artificial sweeteners, which have practically 0 calories, may be the best

option.

Stating generalizations as definite like that can damage ethos, or credibility. It’s a red

flag because it makes the reader ask himself/herself what else has been exaggerated. So, again,

feel free to contest. Questioning is key.

You’re in high school, a time when you should feel comfortable with “stickin’ it to the

man.” Challenge everything. Put Sweet-N-Low in your coffee. And don’t let someone else

define who you should be. Entities like corporations and the media—called agents in the study of

rhetoric—manipulate others into thinking a certain way for personal gain. When you accept that

real sugar is better than artificial sweeteners, you’re also accepting that natural is better,

regardless of the principle’s fallacies. If agents shape your beliefs, they also shape who you are.