Sugar in the 60's: A low-Calorie Source for Boundless Energy

In my last post I explained how scholars have debated the relationship between truth, knowledge, and rhetoric. My take from their readings is that people try to speak the truth (or maybe sometimes don't), but are limited by language and their own humanity, so through rhetoric those limitations end up influencing what we take away as knowledge. All of that makes for a great scholarly discussion, but I want to demonstrate just how relevant this is in the health industry with examples from history before delving into more modern material. Check out the following advertisements from the Sugar Information office:

Both ads are clearly dated and anyone could see through these claims. Does sugar give the body energy? Yes, but everyone who's eaten a candy bar or a big bowl of ice cream knows that your blood sugar plummets after that spike. Not only that obvious omission, but plenty of research is currently demonstrating the inflammatory effects of sugar and it's cancer-promoting properties. You might have a buzz after the candy bar, but you're just increasing the odds that in a few years you'll be bed ridden from cancer.

But the point isn't that we can see through this ad's claims; the point is that when it came out people probably fell prey to it's good rhetoric and took it's “truth” as “knowledge” without realizing the other perspective on sugar.

So, what rhetorical tools does this ad use to sway the consumers? Campbell states that “Only rhetoric combines appeals to all the faculties, connecting ideas with aesthetic images and emotional desires to an action of the will.” Both these advertisements prompt people to eat more sugar by attaching aesthetically pleasing images and promising means to specific emotional desires.

The first ad shows a reasonably attractive man smiling with a candy bar in hand. Who doesn't want to be attractive and still eat candy? Clearly, that's a pleasing image. Similarly, the second ad showcases a young girl bopping to the beat of popular music (or least that's what's assumed based on the text). Once again, most people seek youthful looks and the carefree feeling of dancing the night away. The sugar industry nailed Campbell's first criteria by offering envious visuals.

They also satisfy Campbell's second description of rhetoric by suggesting that sugar will help you reach your goals. The first ad promises to give you “energy fast” and implies easy weight loss. Stating that sugar is only 18 calories per teaspoon indicates that you can incorporate sugar into a low calorie diet to lose weight and who wouldn't love to eat ice cream and candy before meals like the ad suggests? Additionally they claim that sugar's energy boost will help dieters say no to extra helpings. As if the main culprit of weak behavior is feeling sluggish.

The second ad also promises to satisfy deep desires of humanity. The short narrative depicts not just actions that Mary has completed, but that she is popular, successful, and enjoys friendships. She didn't just have enough energy to arrive early to school, she's on school counsel. She didn't just keep up with her team in P.E., her team won. You get the point—the sugar isn't just giving her energy, it's giving her the capability to accomplish and thrive in high school. Not only is this what most students desire, it's what their parents desire for them. The convincing narratives in both advertisements exemplify the sugar industry's good rhetoric in moving the will of the public.

Hopefully these two ads give you a better idea of what theory looks like in the real world and how you might succumb to these same traps with some idea that hasn't been disproven so heartily.