* * * * * * * * 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 } **************************************************************************