I was intrigued to read in my local paper that the Corn Refiners Association <http://www.corn.org/> has launched an effort to promote high-fructose corn syrup as healthy -- or at least not healthy -- if consumed in moderation.
I have not yet sussed out if this a purely in-house CRA effort, or they've retained a PR firm (most likely) to create this campaign for them <http://www.hfcsfacts.com/>.
The spots tout the syrup as "natural" -- but it does not exist in the natural world, and is created through chemical processes.
That said, it contains the same calories as sugar, but, because it is cheaper than sugar, it is in a ton of products -- so it can be difficult to know how much you are consuming, and thus a challenge to consume it in moderation.
I have to wonder, with concern about diverting corn as a food source to produce ethanol fuel, where this is all headed -- which faction, ethanol subsidies or corn syrup subsidies, will win?
The campaign, basically straightforward, provokes viewers to think about the large gray area between the poles of classifying it as nearly toxic and viewing it as inert and innocuous. One of the main reasons we PR folk seem to have work in many industries is to tell all the in-betweens of a story when two polar opposite views are easy to latch onto and trumpet to the world. A black and white issue is much easier to blast out to the public than a more nuanced one.
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment