For eight weeks starting April 20, supermarkets will be stocked with Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback. This limited-edition retro soda will be made with “real sugar” to give consumers a taste of the flavor of the 60s and 70s, before high-fructose corn syrup replaced cane sugar in 1984. From the way websites have pounced on this bit of pop trivia, you’d think this soda is the solution to obesity. However, the truth is that while the halo of “pure cane sugar” may help Americans sleep at night, it’s not going to do anything for our waistlines.

Two months before the retro drink unveiling—before Pepsi had even issued an official press release—blogs and online news sites had already covered every imaginable detail of the “story.” BevReview.com, a website devoted exclusively to relaying news about the beverage industry, was, unsurprisingly, the leading source of information of the unfolding soda saga. The website featured a frequently asked questions section, pictures of unused prototype labels, and hypertext links to articles about other real sugar sodas. Just in case an 800-word essay speculating bottle design had left anything out, the blogger reminded the reader, “As always, keep your browser pointing here at BevReview.com for further updates… and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter to say informed!” I couldn’t bring myself to keep reading.

It could have been, perhaps, that I was tired of obsessive food babble. Or maybe because I don’t like soda, not even a bit. But I think the most likely explanation for why I was bitter was that this forced me to open an account on Twitter.

Seriously, though: a world where a Twitter feed unironically exists to unironically document the eight-week release of an oxymoron—natural soda—is a world where people seem to have lost all perspective. Though BevReview was covering the Pepsi story like television stations cover approaching hurricanes, no one seemed to notice that switching back to “real sugar,” though a nice effort, is a gesture ultimately as empty as the calories in the soda itself—cane and corn alike. Instead of offering six different kinds of Pepsi or 15 different articles about each kind, we should be figuring out a way to make soda less a part of our lives.

Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate that the soda industry is finally responding to the critical literature on high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Food writer Michael Pollen calls HFCS the “culprit in the nation’s obesity epidemic,” but the Corn Refiners Association has been airing commercials recently to dispel this myth. (You can find them on YouTube. They’re worth watching.) Either way, switching to a more conscious consumption of sugar is unquestionably a good thing. The release of Pepsi Throwback, following in the limited-run tradition of Pepsi Raw released last year in the UK, is a sign that Pollen’s words have made it to the CEO’s ears and, probably, wallet. The recent move to permanently remove HFCS from soft drinks is even more promising. Last year, Red Bull unveiled “Simply Cola,” their natural-sugar only soda. Snapple recently announced that they’ll be losing HFCS in favor of natural sugar. And just last week Pepsi announced that “Pepsi Natural,” will permanently populate shelves within the next few weeks. All this is a sharp reversal of the mindless use of high-fructose corn syrup that has been the case in this country since 1970.

This movement also promises to be at least a little bit greener. The energy necessary to turn corn into corn syrup leaves a huge carbon footprint. According to Chloe Frank ’09, author of “A Controversial Sweetener: The Hoopla over High Fructose Corn Syrup in America,” HFCS is made by milling corn into cornstarch. The cornstarch is then broken down into glucose, and the chains of glucose molecules—thanks to added enzymes—break down to yield hyper-sweetened syrup. All of this manufacturing drastically increases the amount of resources consumed and the pollutants produced. Natural sugar, by definition, requires a lot less refining.

Regardless, all this could just be a whole bunch of wasted energy. Think about it: in an attempt to be healthy, instead of pulling soda, we’re just adding new options to the shelves. For eight weeks between April and June, there will be at least seven different kinds of Pepsi on the market: Pepsi Natural, Pepsi throwback, regular Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Caffeine-free Pepsi, and Kosher Pepsi. I can’t blame the soda companies though. They’re responding to consumer demand by offering “natural sugar” alternatives to their product.

The real problem is that in all the brouhaha about inverted cane sugar vs. beet sugar, people seem to be forgetting that, whether soda is made with HFCS or pure cane sugar, soda is still empty calories. Even if the body processes the two differently, the difference of a few fructose molecules is not going to reverse the trend of American obesity.

It’s up to consumers, and, more importantly, the food writing community to call attention to the fact that this solution is merely a glossy bandage. It’s great that we’re finally talking about food issues, but I don’t think this is at all what Michael Pollen had in mind when he urged Americans to care more about what they put in their bodies.

Nothing could be further from his motto of “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants,” than the frequently asked questions section of BevReview.com where they ask a spokesperson from Pepsi whether the logo of throwback will have the 70s globe design or the swirly blue font. We’ve seen that food companies respond to journalistic pressure (McDonalds no longer offers supersized stuff), so we need to be more careful about what we draw our attention to, what we ask for, and what we celebrate. Right now, though the intentions are good, the energy, I’m afraid, is completely misdirected.

—Staff Writer Rebecca A. Cooper can be reached at cooper3@fas.harvard.edu.