Equal vs. Splenda: The Lawsuit
I love fights over words. They remind me of the Clinton era and the battle over the meaning of the word "is."
Trial starts next week in a lawsuit by the makers of Equal against the makers of Splenda. For the record, I switched to Splenda years ago, when I got the impression, however founded or unfounded, that Splenda was the more healthy of the two.
The issue: What does the phrase "made from sugar" mean?
To me, "made from sugar" means the product began with sugar and got converted to something else in the manufacturing process. Equal, which has seen a huge dip in sales since Splenda began marketing its product, says Splenda is making a false assertion because there's no sugar in the product.
More...
The maker of Equal contends that Splenda has been misleading millions of consumers by fostering the notion, through television and print advertising, that Splenda is made from sugar and is natural. Splenda’s maker counters that the process to make the sweetener does indeed start with sugar.
Apparently, Splenda zaps the sugar out of the sugar. It claims Splenda
...is made from pure cane sugar by a patented process that makes three atomic changes to the sugar (sucrose) molecule. The resulting sweetener, called sucralose, retains the sweet taste of sugar.
Linguistically (if that's a word) speaking, I'm for Splenda. But, Equal is the underdog here.
In less than a decade, Splenda has come to dominate the American artificial sweetener market. Last year, it had sales of $212 million, dwarfing Equal’s sales of $49 million.
Who to root for? I'm conflicted. I want to root for the underdog, but I don't have a problem with Splenda's description.
Maybe we should just go back to Sweet 'n Low.
| < In other news . . . Saddam Was Not Cooperating With Al Qaida | The Mystery of Faith > |





