Maker of Equal Sues Marketer of Splenda

By DAVID B. CARUSO

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The company that makes the artificial sweetener Equal filed a false advertising lawsuit claiming its hot-selling competitor, Splenda, isn't really made from sugar, as its packaging claims.

In a complaint filed Friday in federal court in Philadelphia, Merisant Co. said Splenda's marketing slogan, ``made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar,'' should read something more like, ``made from dextrose, maltodextrin and 4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha, D-Galactopyranosyl-1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta, D-fructofuranoside.''

JOHNSON & JOHNSON



NYS:JNJ
Updated: 11:19 ET
61.09 +0.77
The third substance in that list is the chemical name for sucralose, the sweet part of Splenda. The other two ingredients are bulking agents, found in many foodstuffs, that help control Splenda's taste. Sucralose alone is about 600 times as sweet as sugar.

Merisant said McNeil Nutritionals, the unit of Johnson & Johnson that markets Splenda, had misled consumers into thinking the artificial sweetener was ``natural,'' or made with raw sugar, when it is actually a synthesized chemical.


``In reality ... there is no sugar in Splenda and Splenda's sweet taste does not come from sugar,'' the lawsuit said, ``Splenda is not natural in any sense of the word. Instead, the truth about Splenda is that it is sweetened with a synthetic compound that is the result of a complex chemical process.''


McNeil Nutritionals spokeswoman Monica Neufang said the lawsuit has no merit.


``Splenda,'' she insisted, ``is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.''


According to the Fort Washington, Pa.-based company, sucralose begins its life as pure cane sugar, which is then chemically altered during the manufacturing process to create a new compound that doesn't contain any calories.


``We have never claimed that it is natural, nor would we. It is a sugar substitute,'' Neufang said. ``Consumers are not misled.''


Such disputes between companies about advertising truthfulness are often refereed by the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau.


Merisant sought to have the group intervene, but McNeil instead filed a lawsuit in a court in Puerto Rico earlier in November, seeking to have its advertising claims declared valid.


It isn't yet certain whether the court in Puerto Rico or the court in Philadelphia will get final jurisdiction over the dispute.


Chicago-based Merisant asked the Philadelphia court to prohibit McNeil Nutritionals from making any further claims associating Splenda with sugar. It also asked a judge to order McNeil to pay unspecified cash damages, and to initiate a corrective advertising campaign clarifying that Splenda is a synthetic chemical.


Since its introduction in the United States in 2000, Splenda sales have soared. It has since passed Equal in the U.S. retail market for sugar substitutes.

Even if it's proved that Splenda is not made from sugar, I'll still use it over Aspartame. It tastes better, cooks better, and I feel better.

I agree I just posted this because I think its funny! I think they are doing it because they are loosing sales to splenda!

Maker of Equal Sues Marketer of Splenda

By DAVID B. CARUSO

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The company that makes the artificial sweetener Equal filed a false advertising lawsuit claiming its hot-selling competitor, Splenda, isn't really made from sugar, as its packaging claims.

In a complaint filed Friday in federal court in Philadelphia, Merisant Co. said Splenda's marketing slogan, ``made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar,'' should read something more like, ``made from dextrose, maltodextrin and 4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha, D-Galactopyranosyl-1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta, D-fructofuranoside.''

The third substance in that list is the chemical name for sucralose, the sweet part of Splenda. The other two ingredients are bulking agents, found in many foodstuffs, that help control Splenda's taste. Sucralose alone is about 600 times as sweet as sugar.

Merisant said McNeil Nutritionals, the unit of Johnson & Johnson that markets Splenda, had misled consumers into thinking the artificial sweetener was ``natural,'' or made with raw sugar, when it is actually a synthesized chemical.


``In reality ... there is no sugar in Splenda and Splenda's sweet taste does not come from sugar,'' the lawsuit said, ``Splenda is not natural in any sense of the word. Instead, the truth about Splenda is that it is sweetened with a synthetic compound that is the result of a complex chemical process.''


McNeil Nutritionals spokeswoman Monica Neufang said the lawsuit has no merit.


``Splenda,'' she insisted, ``is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.''


According to the Fort Washington, Pa.-based company, sucralose begins its life as pure cane sugar, which is then chemically altered during the manufacturing process to create a new compound that doesn't contain any calories.


``We have never claimed that it is natural, nor would we. It is a sugar substitute,'' Neufang said. ``Consumers are not misled.''


Such disputes between companies about advertising truthfulness are often refereed by the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau.


Merisant sought to have the group intervene, but McNeil instead filed a lawsuit in a court in Puerto Rico earlier in November, seeking to have its advertising claims declared valid.


It isn't yet certain whether the court in Puerto Rico or the court in Philadelphia will get final jurisdiction over the dispute.


Chicago-based Merisant asked the Philadelphia court to prohibit McNeil Nutritionals from making any further claims associating Splenda with sugar. It also asked a judge to order McNeil to pay unspecified cash damages, and to initiate a corrective advertising campaign clarifying that Splenda is a synthetic chemical.


Since its introduction in the United States in 2000, Splenda sales have soared. It has since passed Equal in the U.S. retail market for sugar substitutes.

http://channels.aimtoday.com/pf/sto...684.htm&sc=1333

I knew that! (Aren't we in the war zone?) If my tone sounded disparaging it was directed at the Equal manufacturers, not you. It's a good post and I look forward to reading the responses.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

As far as I'm concerend, Splenda is a far tastier product!

What a bunch of doofuses!

This is also posted in the War Zone

If Equal is correct, then I'm glad that Splenda is being held accountable. If they are wrong, then accountability is still a good thing. As the consumer, I'm tired of always having to be the one to be aware. I already don't know what I can or can't trust anymore.

Interesting!!!!

About the bulking agent improving sucralose's taste: It's really odd. I have sucralose in a liquid form. It is much, much sweeter than Splenda without the bulking agent. It bakes and tastes just fine. Could it be the bulking agent is there to make it look as if the purchaser is getting more product?

I will continue to choose to use sucralose over Equal or (sucralose)Splenda. Splenda has done its share of attempting to suppress the liquid sucralose market. If Splenda were natural, it wouldn't need a patent.

No, its there so that you can measure and use it just like you do sugar. It's a pain to measure out 1/600th of a cup, when all you want is the equivalent to a cup of sugar.

As far as liquid splenda is concerned, I have a feeling the sucralose manufacturer's don't really like it being sold that way. Otherwise they'd probably do it themselves. I seem to remember they actually caused some liquid splenda products to go away, or be relabeled or reformulated or something.

Well I mostly use it in coffee or tea, but I also use it as an adjunct to erythritol and inulin in baked goods. Once in awhile I just have to have homemade brownies. I don't mind doing the computing. Trying new ways of using foods is fun for me. I don't have that Frankenfoods fear that some people have. (However, most sugar alcohols have unpleasant side effects.)

Yeah, I use the more concentrated liquid form too, so I don't have to worry about the extra carbs. But someone like my sister can't be bothered with details like that, so measuring just like sugar is a good thing for her.

I can't wait until Tagatose is available! I hope it will have the cooking properties of sugar.

What is that!

Yeah Nanc, what is Tagatose?

Tagatose is a sugar (natural, but the process of extracting/refining it is patented.) Its a 6 Carbon Sugar (like Glucose/Dextrose, Fructose, and Galactose, among others.) It is poorly absorbed (0-38% or something like that) and has a near ZERO glycemic index. I think it tested at GI=3 or something like that for a large amount. Its sweet. I believe very close to, if not the same as White Sugar.

The company that holds the patent has not yet released Tagatose to the General Public. Its been available to food makers for over a year now. 7-11 uses it (along with Eryhritol and Sucralose) in their Diet Pepsi Slurpees, which taste very good IMHO. Wal-Mart uses it in their Light Orange Juice I believe. I heard that Kellogs is also using it in some reduced Sugar Cereals.

Supposedly, it improves the taste of Low-Sugar/Sugar-Free (though, since it is technically a sugar, the products are no longer sugar-free,) making them taste more like they were made with real sugar, even when used in small amounts.

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/128/9/1481
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fi...bohydrates.html