Splenda Too Sweet? Battling with the Competition

In April of 2007 the world learned that maybe there isn’t enough room in the artificial sweetener world for Splenda as the makers of the popular sweetener learned that they would be going to court. Who on earth would be suing Splenda? None other than the former #1 artificial sweetener, Equal.

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.

Comments

Leave a Reply