Ideology in My Controversy

In this blog post, I will discuss different groups related to the sucralose controversy. The questions that are answered are from the book, Writing in Public Lives.

Key Compounding

The main groups involved in the controversy are pro-sucralose and anti-sucralose. The pro team consists of manufacturers of artificial sweeteners, and companies that use them. The anti team consists of doctors and nutritionists who use experiments to prove that it has a negative effect on the body.

The major speakers of pro are the FDA, because they are the ones who approved it for use, and also companies (like Splenda), that try to convey safety to consumers. The major speakers of anti are scientific journals, who publish new information on the safety of artificial sweeteners.

The pros hold economic power because they are big companies. They don't want consumers to shy away from their products, because it would negatively impact their revenue. The antis hold scientific power, because if there is a new study out that proves something to be unsafe, they are able to publish it and spread knowledge to the community.

The same resources are generally available to both sides. The main one being science. Since science is supposed to be unbiased, if there are studies showing no harm, pro can triumph, and if they do show harm, anti can benefit.

The pro group values the ability to have diet products. No everyone can have sugar, but if companies can make it so diabetics can drink soda, they win. The anti group values natural foods. They are weary of chemicals, and don't want people eating unnatural things.

For the pro group, the FDA approval serves a lot of proof. They want to be able to tell consumers that their product is safe. The anti group relies on more recent scientific studies. They want to see sucralose negatively impact an organism, and that will serve as proof for them.

The power differential is that companies have advertising power. It is more simple for them to get diet soda into people's hands. Science is very powerful, but it takes so long to conduct studies, and scientists don't  really buy on air ad time.

The common knowledge between the groups is that sucralose is a more recent sweetener. It definitely won't kill you if you eat it, but there is uncertainty when it comes to long term effects.

I don't really think that there is any unacknowledged common ground between the groups. The pros want what is best for the company, and the antis want what is best for the people.

The groups don't really listen to each other. The reason why sucralose is in Pepsi now is because they listened to what the people want (which is not aspartame).