I remember the first time I saw “organic evaporated cane juice” on an ingredient list, years ago.  I was reading a box of cereal in the aisle of Whole Foods or a co-op, locations which inherently infused into their products a sense of righteousness and  a conviction that anything for sale there was free from unwholesome taint. 

I have to admit, my brain flashed a thought that went something like this: “Oh, that has to be better than refined sugar!  After all, it’s organic.  And evaporated juice!  I bet fairly-paid workers pick the sugar cane and let it naturally evaporate into something nutritious while they take breaks to sing folk songs in the sunshine...”

I’m exaggerating; I’ve always been a skeptic.  But the marketing worked on me for that flash of a second before my critical side showed up with a mallet and a list of questions.

What worries me is how effectively marketing is playing this kind of insidious trick each and every day on people who buy food.  A name is just a name, but we’re trained to pay attention to names and packaging and purported new-found benefits.  Let’s say Joe has decided to cut sugar out of his diet because he’s heard it’s not good for his health.  But one day Joe sees cookies sweetened with organic evaporated cane juice.  Well, they wouldn’t put that on there if they meant sugar, right?  And organics are good for you.  So, Joe buys the cookies.  Marketing department: 1.  Joe: 0.

It’s deceptive to change an ingredient’s public image to make it seem like a health food.  Most people care, at least to some extent, whether the food they’re eating is good for them, but they have a hell of a time finding out for sure.  Unfortunately, marketing often means “re-branding” existing unwholesome ingredients, then regurgitating them back into the food supply.  It seems like as soon as Joe is almost there with realizing that an ingredient is bad for him, the marketing folks come in and rename it, repackage it, or tout its new-found health benefits.

So, what if we renamed high fructose corn syrup next?  The image at the top of this post is a fake ad I designed (out of four or five different pictures I found online, plus my own text) for our new, re-branded product.  Meet kinder, gentler fructose-infused Zea Mays nectar.  How could you not love this new product?  It’s nectar, and just look at how that puppy and kitten are getting along.  Of course, underneath the words and pictures, it’s the same stuff we knew before was bad for us.  But does Joe know this?

It’s hard enough for the average person to get accurate information without deceptive marketing muddling things up.  There’s a bigger picture problem of how we passively absorb information in this country, trained for life by advertising.  It’s not too different from how we’re marketed medicines (ask your doctor about fructose-infused zea mays nectar!) or anything else. 

We’re stuck in an information tug-of-war between advertisers and mainstream nutrition, each side wanting the public’s attention and each side messing up (albeit the advertising side more insidiously).  We’re trapped not between a rock and a hard place, but between a food pyramid and an ad space.  I’ll write more in another post on how inaccurate public health information leads people to give up seeking healthy options. 

The bottom line is, if you don’t know exactly what an ingredient is, where it came from, or how it’s produced, it’s worth finding out so you can make an informed choice about whether to eat it. Look beyond packaging and wholesome reputations, and nourish your inner skeptic. And if the name sounds like marketing gobbledygook, I wouldn’t put it in my mouth.