Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Another Night and Day Alliance 020
* * * * * * * *
A A N N A A D D A A
A A N N N A A D D A A
A A N N N A A D D A A
A *** A N N A *** A D D A *** A
A A N N A A D D A A
A ****************************** A
A "Natural Means Nothing" aNAda #20 A
A A
A by J 02/28/00 A
A A
********************************************************************
There are several words today that advertising agencies have found
appeal to most people, particularly parents. Words like "natural" and
"fresh" seem to be favorites. In these two particular advertisements from
the Sugar Association, Inc., and the National Dairy Board, these words show
up with frightening regularity. Perhaps their products are "natural",
however, that does not mean that their products are any better than the
dozens of chemist-produced substitutes that take up endless shelf space at
the local supermarket. I understand that the purpose of advertising is to
sell a product, but these two particular ads make claims that are arguable
at best about their products.
The National Dairy Board (The Language of Argument, p 201) claims,
for example, that "..one of the hardest choices of all is deciding on the
kinds of foods you want your family to eat." With teen drug abuse, gang
warfare, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases spreading
throughout schools all over America, I'm sure that parents have more on
their mind than their children's choice of spread to eat on their
muffin. The ad continues, "That's why it's so reassuring to know that
when it comes to table-spreads, now, more than ever, butter is the
natural choice." Apparently I missed something, because their claim, if
you can call it that, did nothing to change my opinion.
I'm sticking to my squeeze-bottle of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.
They use words such as "pure, natural" and "made from fresh wholesome milk",
preying on the naivété of parents.
In the fourth paragraph, they make some absolutely ludicrous claims.
"Nothing else tastes like it". If nothing else tastes like butter, then
I must be retarded, because I can't tell the difference in the dozens of
various substitutes which cloud the refrigerated section at Kroger.
Nothing else "smells like it", they say. My grandmother's old Buick
smells just like butter. I think maybe that has something to do with the
age of the car, however, it still smells like butter. I'm fairly confident
that I would never refer to Grandma's Buick as "natural", however there are
thousands of substances which are "natural" that I don't want on my bagel.
Cow dung is natural and wholesome, but I'm not about to eat it. Billions of
varieties of fungi and bacteria are natural and wholesome, but I'm not going
to put them in the pan while I'm cooking dinner.
The Sugar Association, Incorporated (The Language of Argument, p115)
asks "Which would you rather put on your kids cereal?", sugar, or an
artificial chemical sweetener? Personally, the cereals that I eat are
already loaded with sugar, so this isn't really a personal issue. However,
I shall point out the blatant stupidity and meaninglessness in their
advertisement for your personal joy as well. "The decision is in your own
hands." From this opening line, I'm expecting to see perhaps an ad for
condoms, or another public service announcement from an anti-violence
campaign, or an anti-drug message, not this mindless drivel fueled by a few
farmers turned businessmen telling me what to feed my children. "Sugar is
pure and 100% natural. It contains no mysterious, unnatural ingredients."
Yeah, the dead horsefly I found in the sugar canister last week was 100%
natural as well, however, it was still disgusting. The ad neglects to
mention that sugar does not grow in these groovy little crystals. Sugar
cane grows in stalks, and these are cut and the juice from them is drained
and then crystallized, in an unnatural factory environment.
The advertisement also, for my reading displeasure, provides results
of "a recent taste test" in which "sugar was preferred nearly 3 to 1 over
the leading artificial sweetener". Now, I honestly cannot recall the last
time I agreed with anything remotely resembling the general public, and
without knowledge of which artificial sweetener is the "leading" sweetener,
these claims mean about as much to me as the butter ad. My grandmother uses
an artificial sweetener that makes me retch, but my lack of knowledge of
artificial sweetener sales nationwide prevents me from knowing if this
saccharin-loaded moose bile my gramma uses in her tea is "the leading"
sweetener. The advertisement concludes by playing on the whole nostalgia
trip, "Don't they (your children) deserve to have it as good as you did?" I
can dig that. I mean, when I was a child in my Superman pajamas watching
Scooby-Doo and drinking my Kool-Aid, sugar-free products were yet to be
forced upon the snarling drooling masses of baby-boomer parents who mow down
tofu burgers and bean sprouts.
I'm not at all sure where the concept of "natural means better" came
from, but I don't agree with it entirely. Butter has been proven to be
absolutely loaded with fat and cholesterol, leading to cause heart disease
and obesity. Sugar can lead to diabetes, and I'm rather hesitant to inject
myself in the gut with insulin simply because "there's really no substitute"
for sugar.
{**************************************************************************}
{ (c)2000 aNAda e'zine * * aNAda020 * by J }
**************************************************************************
