From sugar to superfoods: How we're still being sold health without evidence
- Fotoprostudio
- Sep 11
- 5 min read
Índice:
Introduction: What we didn’t learn from sugar
In the 1970s, sugar wasn’t an enemy: it was energy, willpower, modern nutrition. Advertising campaigns wrapped it in images of doctors, scientific charts, and perfect family breakfasts. It was one of the biggest cases of visual and scientific manipulation of the 20th century.
Decades later, sugar has fallen from grace. But its legacy is more alive than ever. Because, even though its name no longer reigns on the thrones of healthy advertising, other products have replaced it using the same tricks: miracle supplements, detox shakes, gummy vitamins, glamorous collagen. The protagonists have changed, not the script. The images have changed, but the strategy hasn’t.
This post is a critical and visual look at how the same persuasion mechanisms are being repeated, directly comparing the historical case of sugar with some of today’s most heavily promoted products.
2. Sugar as vital energy vs. Functional gummies and "Anti-Fatigue" magnesium
1970s. "Sugar keeps you going." This was the headline, accompanied by images of smiling executives, organized housewives, and active children. Sugar was the ideal fuel for modern life. Its advertisements portrayed it as a clean, safe, and almost medicinal boost. Even the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition supported it, in studies funded by the industry.
Today. Sugar is no longer discussed, but energy is. In the form of "healthy" gummies, magnesium capsules, and pills for "cognitive performance." Brands like BetterMood, Yours, and Care/Of use a fresh, modern, and minimalist design to position themselves as natural alternatives for fatigue, stress, and lack of focus.
Visual comparison: Yesterday, an executive in a suit with sugar in their coffee. Today, an influencer in a beige sweatshirt with a photogenic jar of sugar-free gummies, promising the same: focus, energy, vitality.
The truth: most of these supplements have weak or non-replicable evidence. But the visual and verbal language works: it sells well-being without proof.
News Published in the 1950s About the Benefits of Sugar vs. Custom Vitamin Pack from Care/Of
3. Sugar as food Self-Control vs. Detox shakes and fasting with marketing
1970s. One of the most cynical ads in history said: "Sugar can be the willpower you need to eat less." Sugar as a strategy for weight loss. Thin, smiling women appeared next to sugar packets as part of their breakfast.
Today. Detox shakes, green juices, and MCT oil coffees are sold as weight control tools. The discourse has shifted: now, it’s not about calories, but about "reset," "balance," and "anti-inflammatory." But the result is the same: a quick promise of body control.
Brands like Fitvia, JuicePlus, Sbeltform, and Yogi Detox are filled with visually impeccable images: toned bodies, white backgrounds, smoothies with bamboo straws. Health looks easy, delicious, and photogenic.
Visual comparison: Before, a woman on a scale next to a cup of sugar. Today, a fitness influencer in beige attire, holding a detox shake with a spa-like aesthetic.
The truth: Most of these products lack scientific backing for their effectiveness. But photography has evolved to be even more convincing.
1970s Time Magazine Ad on Sugar for Weight Loss vs. Yogi Detox Advertisement
OCU Report on the lack of evidence and risks of detox diets and shakes:
4. Sugar backed by doctors vs. Collagen backed by celebrities
1970s. The Sugar Research Foundation funded studies that exonerated sugar and blamed fats. These were published in scientific journals without disclosing conflicts of interest. It was marketing disguised as evidence.
Today. Collagen is promoted by celebrities like Jennifer Aniston (Vital Proteins) or beauty influencers. There are no conclusive studies supporting its supposed effects on skin, nails, or hair in healthy individuals. But the promise of youth and beauty "from within" works.
The packaging of these products is luxurious, clean, and elegant. Photos use natural light, pastel tones, and marble surfaces. Everything communicates balance and authenticity.
Visual comparison: Before, a graph with a downward cholesterol curve. Today, a perfect smile in a white kitchen with a jar of collagen in the foreground.
The truth: Health marketing has shifted from the white coat to the celebrity, without losing effectiveness.
Dr. Keys, Father of Modern Nutrition, Explaining the Benefits of Sugar vs. Actress Jennifer Aniston Promoting Vital Proteins
OCU – “Collagen supplements: Do they actually work?”:
5. Sugar on the family table vs. Kombucha and "Mindful drinks"
1970s. Sugar was in every breakfast. Ads showed happy families, sugary cereals, white bread with jam, and sweetened milk. It was part of the domestic imagery.
Today. Sugar is hidden, but "consciousness" is glorified. Kombucha, kefir, plant-based drinks with added functional ingredients: probiotics, adaptogens, herbal extracts. They are marketed as the opposite of sugar, but many have equally questionable nutritional profiles.
Brands like Remedy, Captain Kombucha, Moyu, and Vive Organic use friendly, natural, and emotional photography. Young families on picnics, brunches in the sun, organized fridges.
Visual Comparison: Before, a mother serving sugary cereal. Today, a couple serving artisanal kombucha in glass cups. The message is the same: family wellness, but now with an eco-chic aesthetic.
The Truth: Many of these drinks contain sugar or lack scientific evidence to support the benefits they claim. But what matters is the image, not the information.
1970s-80s Cola-Cao Ad vs. Vive Organic Juice Promotion
6. Invisible sugar vs. The visual language of "Free from"
1970s. No one talked about grams. Sugar was an invisible, omnipresent ingredient. It didn’t appear on labels, and its effects were never questioned.
Today. The new visual argument isn’t about what the product contains, but what it doesn’t: gluten-free, lactose-free, no added sugars. Even if these claims are irrelevant (like "gluten-free" on water or "lactose-free" on plant-based products), the visual language builds trust.
Modern brands know how to design this aesthetic: clean labels, soft typography, trusted icons, and gentle colors.
Visual Comparison: Before, a label with no information. Today, a packaging adorned with eight "free from" seals and a pastel color palette that soothes the consumer.
The Truth: Often, what is visually omitted is more relevant than what is explicitly stated.
1970s-80s Nocilla Ad vs. New Nature Product Packaging
To delve deeper into the analysis of "free-from" labels and their real impact on consumer perception, you can consult this OCU report:
"Labels on food products" (OCU): https://www.ocu.org/alimentacion/alimentos/noticias/sellos-alimentos
7. Conclusion: Healthy image, sweetened reality
We laugh today at the ads that claimed sugar helped with weight loss. Yet, we continue to believe in gummies that provide energy, detoxifying shakes, and capsules that promise to rejuvenate. We keep falling for it, because the images that sell health are more convincing than any rational argument.
The marketing of sugar taught us that science can be bought and that imagery can disguise any truth. Today, design, photography, and aesthetics have elevated that lesson to a whole new level.
It’s not the product. It’s how we see it.
And as long as the visual packaging remains beautiful, clean, and aspirational, we will continue consuming what harms us, believing it’s healing us.
What about you?What product have you bought because of how it looked, rather than what it promised? Which brand convinced you more through aesthetics than evidence? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
Comments