Too Much Sweetness

Splenda has taken the artificial sweetener market by storm, much to the disappointment of Merisant, the manufacturer of Equal. The lawsuit made known to the public in early 2007 is all over the interpretation of how McNeil, the makers of Splenda have been marketing their product. The gist of the lawsuit is that the makers of Equal believe that the makers of Splenda have been misleading consumers by inferring through all of their marketing campaigns and even on their product that Splenda is made from sugar and is all natural, when this statement is not true. The makers of Splenda state that they have not been misleading consumers by inferring a sugar reference, as the process involved in making Splenda does in fact start with sugar.

What is the problem you ask? The problem is that the artificial sweetener market is a very competitive one. In fact, if someone comes out ahead in this lawsuit the estimated $1.5 billion artificial market may be theirs. Equal was once the most well name and best selling artificial sweetener on the market and could be found in more than 6,000 different consumer products such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, two companies that are known to be the biggest buyers of artificial sweeteners anywhere in the world. These are huge contracts and one company does not want to give them up to the other.

Unfortunately for the makers of Equal, when Splenda was introduced to the market in 1999 sales have dropped off and Splenda is now the number one artificial sweetener in the world, holding onto 62% of the United States artificial sweetener market.

The thing that is odd about this case is that disputes over advertising rarely make it in front of a jury. But, this case is difference as there is an argument about the slogan that Splenda used, which was “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” which is what the makers of Equal are so opposed to, as it indicates to a consumer that they are consuming a natural product when Splenda is in fact an artificial sweetener. Both sides are expected to come before the court with scientific explanations of the processes that are involved in making both Splenda and Equal, which will be meant to do support the argument of whether or not the slogan was in fact misleading or not.

The term “made from sugar” is where a lot of the problem lies because McNeil, the maker of Splenda has stated that the term excludes the meaning that Splenda is in fact sugar but the makers of Equal disagree. Language, and the use of it, is what will come into play here and the jury will clearly have their hands full when they are handed the case and they have to determine whether or not McNeil Nutritionals, is in fact guilty of misleading consumers with their verbiage.

Merisant is seeking as much as if not more than $176 million in Splenda’s profits as well as the ability to force the maker of Splenda to change its marketing strategy and slogans to offer a clearer picture to consumer as to what it is they are actually buying. It should be interesting to watch the approach that each side takes to defend its position in this war to secure the #1 spot in the artificial sweetener market, which is what many contend this is actually all about.

The Jury Has a Tough Job

What the jury will need to determine in this case is if McNeil Nutritionals, which is a division of Johnson & Johnson, has intentionally misled consumers. The Sugar Association believes that the company has misled consumers because it states in its marketing for the product and even on the packaging that the product contains sugar. This is troublesome for the Sugar Association because it believes that the company is trying to dupe consumers and food manufacturers into believing that this is an all natural ingredient that is exactly like sugar with just fewer calories when this is not true.

Merisant, which is the manufacturer of Equal and NutraSweet, has a problem with the makers of Splenda because Splenda does not contain sugar, despite the fact that it has been marketed that way. Merisant says that Splenda is sweetened with a synthetic compound that involves a very complex chemical process. Of course, McNeil replies that Merisant is just trying to win a battle since they have lost the battle in the grocery stores where consumers are buying more Splenda than NutraSweet and Equal.

The lawsuit is based upon the fact that McNeil has led consumers to believe their advertising and even their packaging that Splenda is safer and healthier than other artificial sweeteners on the market, though many studies show that it is no more safe or healthy than the aspartame based products that are out there. Merisant lawyer Gregory LoCascio stated, “McNeil documents show that they knew consumers were confused and they didn’t do anything to stop it.” Being that the judge has decided that this case should go before a jury, the jury will certainly have a tough job as it wades through all the evidence in an attempt to determine what is fact, fiction, and what is simply competition.

Troublesome Taglines

Many believe that the tagline that McNeil has used with Splenda is what has made them a target for all of this legal action. When the product first hit the markets their tagline was “Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar. But it’s not sugar.” When sales were not as impressive as the company had hoped they dropped the last sentence and suddenly sales skyrocketed. The company used this slogan as they didn’t want it to be labeled an “artificial sweetener” as they thought this would be the death of the product before it even got its start yet it is an artificial sweetener.

The tagline not only attracted consumers but it also attracted companies like Pepsico that wanted to use the product as they thought it was healthier and they knew their customers thought so, as well. Merisant believes that McNeil has made $183 million in unfair profits since 2003, all based on what many believe is a misleading tagline.

Despite legal action and research that suggests that Splenda may not be any better for you than Equal and NutraSweet, Splenda is outselling Equal four to one. Most Americans state that the reason they buy products with Splenda is that the products taste more like sugar than those with Equal. No one knows how this legal battle will ultimately turn out, one thing is for sure, both companies are in it to win.

Hard Times for Tate & Lyle

After telling stock holders and consumers about the legal battles with the different import and distribution firms at the International Trade Commission shares for Tate & Lyle closed down 40p at 605p with 30 million shares changing hands, which is three times the usual daily average. Consumers are obviously responding to the announcement and they feel like it is better to sell than stay on board, at least for the time being. This fall in stock prices came after an announcement in January of 2007 when the company warned that the product was not selling as quickly and as much as they had expected, which caused shares to fall by 16%. Apparently after the fall in prices in January and then another ominous report in May many stock holders were ready to jump ship and watch from a distance as those who stayed on either sink or swim.

A lot of the problem for Tate & Lyle is that the makers of Splenda are involved in an ugly court battle in the United States. The problem is that the maker of NutraSweet and Equal believe that the makers of Splenda are guilty of false advertising by likening their product through unclear language to sugar. While times seem a bit grim for Tate & Lyle their product is gaining market share internationally with shares going up from 26% to 28% for the year to March 31, 2007.

While there are struggles stateside with Splenda and Tate & Lyle have been seeing some drops in shares as a result, the chief executive, Iain Ferguson, has stated that he will continue to produce Splenda and they are expected to reach a respectable 70% of capacity by 2012. This is good news for the group because until the fall of 2006 they had been unable to meet the demand for Splenda and was even forced to ration the product that they did have on hand because its one plant in Alabama did not have the ability to produce any more. Luckily for Tate & Lyle, the plant has been expanded and is now two times as large as it was and the group has also added a £100m plant in Singapore that has tripled the previous capacity.

Tate & Lyle jumped on the Splenda wagon when consumers who were following the Atkins and South Beach diet were looking for low calorie sweeteners, especially in the United States. Production of Splenda took off and has quickly become the number one seller of artificial sweeteners. In fact, Splenda outsells Equal four to one in the United States, and though shares have suffered a bit because of legal action, the numbers don’t lie: Splenda is a force to be reckoned with and Tate & Lyle knows it.

One Doctor’s Take: Splenda Is Bad for Us from the Inside Out

Dr. Bowen says of Splenda, “Splenda/sucralose is simply chlorinated sugar; a chlorocarbon. Common chlorocarbons include carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethelene and methylene chloride, all deadly. Chlorine is nature’s Doberman attack dog, a highly excitable, ferocious atomic element employed as a biocide in bleach, disinfectants, insecticide, WWI poison gas and hydrochloric acid.” This seems a bit extreme, but when you step back and think about it, you do have to wonder what this product does when we ingest it continually. In fact, many of us are ingesting several items every day that have Splenda in it.

Dr. Bowen has made a lot of people scratch their head and think about exactly why they are ingesting Splenda and exactly what it is doing to our bodies. The doctor points out that chlorocarbons, which is what Splenda is, is not nutritionally compatible with the metabolic processes that are ongoing in our bodies. Using very scientific means of researching, the doctor has come to find and believes wholeheartedly that the arrangements of the atoms in Splenda adversely affects human metabolism.

Dr. James Bowen believes that the chlorocarbons cannot be excreted from our bodies and that will continue to cause damage to our metabolism and eventually if we keep ingesting it, to our internal organs. Bowen believes that the liver is not able to detoxify our body of Splenda because the chlorocarbons in Splenda damage the hepatocytes, which are the liver’s metabolic cells.

Dr. Bowen hasn’t come with up with these beliefs without data to back it up. In fact, there have been test animals that have ingested Splenda and all of them had swollen livers and calcified kidneys. As if these findings weren’t overwhelming enough, it is known that the brain and nervous system are susceptible to metabolic toxicities and can be damaged by the chemicals that are Splenda. It is thought that something as seemingly simple and harmless and Splenda could cause a breakdown in the nervous system, affecting genetics and even immune function. It is also thought that because of the breakdown that chlorocarbon poisoning can cause cancer, birth defects, and total immune system destruction.

Dr. James Bowen says, “We should not be fooled again into accepting the safety of a toxic chemical on the blessing of the FDA and saturation advertising. In terms of potential long term human toxicity we should regard sucralose with its chemical cousin DDT, the insecticide now outlawed because of its horrendous long term toxicities at even minute trace levels in human, avian, and mammalian tissues.”

In short, Splenda is something that we all need to think about before we ingest it. It’s regarded as an artificial sweetener. In most instances, artificial is not a term that has a positive connotation. Why should it be any different with the things that we ingest? We don’t want to think that there are things out there that are FDA approved that aren’t safe, but when you think about aspartame you have to know that there are things out there that just aren’t good for us. We have to be discerning consumers and think about our health long term.

The Details

This lawsuit is a long standing one between Johnson & Johnson and the Sugar Association because it is being said that the Splenda slogan, ‘Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,” is deliberately misleading customers. The thought is that the slogan leads consumers to believe that the product actually contains sugar, but just doesn’t have the calories associated with sugar, when this is not the case. It was Johnson & Johnson that was requesting the summary judgment stating that the plaintiffs have delayed bringing suit.

It was the United States District Dale Fischer that would ultimately reject the request for a summary judgment. Fischer denied the summary judgment stating that he thought that claims against Johnson & Johnson should be heart by a jury at a trial. The Sugar Association will count this ruling as a win. In fact, Andy Briscoe who is the president and CEO of the Sugar Association said, “this ruling will give consumers a chance to hear the facts in this case. Consumers have a right to know what they really are buying and an equal right not to have a big corporation try to tell them something else.”

McNeil Nutritionals, who is the company that actually makes Splenda, has been faced with similar accusations in the past. The company, of whom Johnson & Johnson is the parent company says that its marketing slogans “are true and in no way state or imply that Splenda contains actual sugar or is natural” but apparently many don’t believe this is the case and a judge has decided that the claims have enough merit for the face to go forward and to be decided on its merits.

A Troubled History

This is not the first time that the two companies have butted heads in the recent past. In November of 2006, the Sugar Association filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, requesting that there be an investigation into the marketing of Splenda. But even that was not the first time that the two companies came together at opposite ends of an argument as McNeil Nutritionals filed a lawsuit against the Sugar Association stating that the association was employing false advertising on a website that it had established. This case was shut out quickly as a federal court judge dismissed the case stating that McNeil didn’t have a right to maintain an independent action.

The Sugar Association isn’t the only entity giving McNeil a hard time. In fact, McNeil has struggled with Merisant, who is the provider of Equal and NutraSweet, the other two big artificial sweeteners on the market. The two companies were involved in a legal battle in 2007 and they finally came to some sort of settlement, though no information was shared with the public about this settlement.

The battle between Johnson & Johnson (and by extension McNeil Nutritionals) and the Sugar Association is one that is still ongoing and may be for some time. One thing is for certain, there are a lot of people ready to weigh in on this case or at least watch it progress to see if any changes will be made to the way that Splenda can be marketed in the future.

Makes 24 cookies.

• 3/4 cup unsalted butter
• 1/4 cup butter
• 1 cup Splenda, Granular
• 1 tbsp extract of vanilla
• 1/4 cup egg substitute
• 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
• 1 1/2 cups cake flour
• 1/4 cup water
• 1/4 tsp salt
• 1 tsp baking powder
• 3/4 tsp vinegar (cider/white)

1. Preheat oven to 350° F.
2. Lightly oil one cookie sheet and set aside.
3. Blend together butter, vanilla, and Splenda in a medium bowl with an electric mixer, or by hand. Blend until butter is softened. Add egg substitute, water and vinegar. Mix briefly. Add flours, salt and baking powder. Mix on low speed, until dough is formed. Do not overmix.
4. Remove dough from bowl and place on a floured work surface. Divide dough in half. Pat each half into a circle and cover with plastic wrap. Refrigerate approx. 1 hour, allowing dough to chill.
5. Remove dough from refrigerator and roll out on a floured work surface to desired thickness, approx. 1/4 inch. Cut with cookie cutters. Place cookies on prepared sheet.
6. Bake for 10-12 minutes or until lightly browned on the back. Cool on a wire rack.

Sunshine Splenda Smoothie

• 1/4 cup non-fat, plain yogurt
• 1/2 cup orange juice
• 1 tbsp. Splenda
• 1/2 cup crushed ice

Blend all ingredients on high for 30-45 seconds, until smooth. Yields one serving.

As more and more people are becoming obese there are more people looking to substitute their favorite foods with those that are not as calorie packed but taste just as good. Many have found that artificial sweeteners are the way to go, with Splenda being the latest and supposedly greatest in a long line of products. It’s true; this artificial sweetener does taste better than those of the past, but is it worth it? Splenda is packaged well and has been marketed beautifully, but there is some scientific data that suggests that Splenda is not nearly as kind to your body as real, calorie packed sugar is.

Artificial Food Products

It seemed as though Splenda was the dieter’s dream and so many of us are reluctant to admit that artificial sweeteners and other man made products simply are not good for us. The problem is that the only safe foods are those that actually come from the earth, not those that have to be chemically produced or changed to create the product. In fact it appears as though chemically altered substances may take a toll on our health and the health of our children. For this reason, you should not consider Splenda, which is basically a sugar free chemical substance, a product that you want to buy.

Is Splenda Better than Aspartame?

The availability of Splenda came on the heels of disappointment of many as we found out the dangers associated with aspartame. Aspartame penetrates the blood brain barrier, meaning it can enter the brain and create toxins that can literally damage the brain. Many diet conscience people turned to Splenda because they didn’t want to experience neurological side effects that aspartame can and does cause. We don’t yet know what the long term affects of Splenda usage will be, but we do know that it is not a naturally occurring sugar product, in fact it is a chemical substance, and that fact speaks volumes. The fact is we aren’t sure yet if Splenda is any better for your body than aspartame. The question is are you willing to take the chance?

Splenda: To Buy or Not to Buy?

For the longest time NutraSweet was the biggest seller of all of the artificial sweeteners, but when research uncovered the data about what aspartame does to the brain and the body on a whole many people were disgusted and worried about their health. Splenda seems like a great option because it is manufactured by a well known brand, Johnson & Johnson, and it also tastes much more like sugar than anything else that has been on the market in the past. Splenda is also marketed as being made from real sugar, making it an obvious choice for those that are looking for a sugar substitute. Splenda has another attractive feature, which is that it is heat stable, meaning people who are trying to cut calories from their diet or individuals, such as diabetics, can enjoy more of their favorite foods without the calories and carbohydrates associated with real sugar.

What Do We Already Know About Splenda?

While we do not yet have long term studies on the side effects of Splenda, we do know that Splenda and other blends of chemical sweeteners appear to be causing problems. Those that use the substances gain weight, experience sleep disturbances, have problems with sexual functions, as well as an increased risk of cancer! In addition it appears as though Splenda and other artificial sweeteners are causing an increase in Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus, diabetes, and many different degenerative diseases. In short, Splenda and similar sweeteners are hurting the very people that the product is marketed toward: those that do not want to gain weight and those that cannot freely consume real sugar!

A lot of researchers are concerned about the chlorine in Splenda. Those that created Splenda have openly stated that there is chlorine in Splenda, which is not a big deal because chlorine is usually used in combination with other elements. Chlorine is not harmful to the body because it is usually absorbed and flushed away like everything else. The problem with Splenda is that those that are in the know have admitted that only about 15% of Splenda is actually absorbed by the body. What this means is that the creators of Splenda cannot actually tell us how much chlorine has been left in the body! The fact is, any element that is being left in the body in undetermined amounts can cause problems, and there is no doubt that the chlorine that you are taking in through Splenda is causing problems for your body.

Don’t Be Fooled by Sweetener Blends

Many artificial sweetener users are turning away from aspartame and sucralose or Splenda and are turning toward the sweetener blends that they are finding in products, assuming that these are somehow safer. These sweetener blends are simply mixtures of the harmful substances. The reason that these substances are often used together is that they can reproduce the real sugar taste better than they can alone.

When consumers ingest these sweetener blends they are not only getting the side effects of one sweeter, they are getting them from all of the sweeteners used. In addition, who knows what sort of toxins could be produced by the mixture of the products? It’s already been stated that you cannot excrete all of these sweeteners or the chemicals in them, imagine how many toxins you have floating around your body right now!

Is Anything Safe Anymore?

Sugar is still safe, and though it does tend to pack the calories into every sugary spoonful it can’t cause any more weight gain than is already being caused by the artificial sweeteners out there. The difference between sugar and the artificial products is that sugar satisfies the body, but the artificial sweeteners actually trick your body and make you hungrier, causing you to consume more calories than you would have otherwise. Seems like a vicious circle, doesn’t it? Be sure when you buy sugar not to buy the altered sugar products as these can be detrimental to your health.

The sweeteners that you probably just want to scratch off of your safe to use list are aspartame, acesulfame-K, neotame, sucralose, and alitame. Sucralose and Alitame both have FDA approval pending. A sweetener known as Cyclamate lost its FDA approval back in 1970, though it is currently up for approval again. There is and probably always will be more sweeteners in various stages of development as well as FDA approval.

In addition to sugar you can also safely consume saccharin and stevia. Saccharin is actually a complex sugar extract that comes from a plant that originated in China. The FDA has reported that neither saccharine or stevia has ever caused cancer! This is more like it!

Weight Gain and Ceasing the Use of Artificial Sweeteners

If you consume artificial sweeteners because you want to lose weight, you might want to know that researches cannot find any evidence that the sugar substitutes actually help consumer’s lose weight. These chemicals, in many circumstances, often stimulate the appetite so it could be working against you. Simply limit the amount of food that you are taking in and making better food choices will be a more straight forward way to lose weight and healthier, too!

When you stop using these sweeteners you will probably notice a huge change. Children are often the most noticeably different when artificial sweeteners are pulled from their diet. Many depressed and aggressive children become more balanced and enjoyable to be around. Many researchers also attribute many mental illnesses or behavioral problems to the over use of chemicals in our diets.

The way to identify what does and does not have Splenda or any other artificial sweeteners is to read labels. When you get in the habit of checking labels you can better your life and the lives of all of your family members. Even diabetics can find better ways to eat and drink rather than take in these harmful chemicals, it’s simply about making better food choices for everyone.

With more than 3,000 products on the market today with just Splenda in them, reading labels will really help you cease using these products. While we don’t know for sure what long term use of Splenda will mean, it’s better to quit while you’re ahead than wait and see based on initial research and the case histories associated with similar products.