General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Sweetner Court Battle

RRzVRR · 2007-04-09T11:26:33+00:00

In the coming weeks the makers of Equal and Splenda will be in court over the issue of, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” claim. There was an interesting article in the business section of the NYT 4-6-07: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html A couple of interesting points... Kevin L. Keller, a marketing professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, said that the language at issue had “a legal perspective, a marketing perspective and a health perspective.” --- Splenda’s core ingredient is a nonnutritive sweetener that does not grow in sugar fields or appear elsewhere naturally. Rather, the core ingredient, sucralose, is manufactured in laboratories as a synthetic compound. Despite its similar-sounding name, sucralose is not the same thing as sucrose, the technical name for pure table sugar. Splenda’s maker McNeil, a unit of the Johnson & Johnson drug and consumer goods giant, has patented dozens of ways to manufacture sucralose. Some of them are based on sucrose. One is even based on raffinose, a sugar-relative found in beans, onions and broccoli. But others are based on nonsugars — a point that Equal’s maker, prowling through filed patents, has seized upon. McNeil says that the process it uses to manufacture Splenda starts with sugar, pure and simple. To make sucralose, McNeil adds three chlorine atoms that are naturally found in foods like salt and lettuce to a molecule of sucrose. The sucrose disappears in the manufacturing process, but the result — sucralose — is 600 times as sweet as ordinary table sugar. Splenda then mixes two bulking agents, dextrose and maltodextrin, into the sucralose. The chemistry is complex, and it may be baffling for a jury to hear about a process that starts out involving sugar but ends up lacking it. Despite its use of sugar as the starting point for making sucralose, nowhere do the words “sugar” or “sucrose” appear on Splenda’s ingredient list. That is because under Food and Drug Administration regulations, it cannot list a substance that has vaporized during the manufacturing process. -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

Started by RRzVRR · 9 April 2007 · Last activity 15 April 2007 · 64 posts · 503 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postSweetner Court BattleRRzVRR · 9 Apr 2007 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 4 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #64Big Bill · 15 Apr 2007

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 9 April 2007
Last activity: 15 April 2007
Original author: RRzVRR
Posts: 64
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 503
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
RRzVRR
Archived post

9 April 2007, 11:26 UTC #1

In the coming weeks the makers of Equal and Splenda will be in
court over the issue of, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like
sugar” claim.
There was an interesting article in the business section of the
NYT 4-6-07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html
A couple of interesting points...
Kevin L. Keller, a marketing professor at the Tuck School of
Business at Dartmouth, said that the language at issue had “a
legal perspective, a marketing perspective and a health perspective.”
---
Splenda’s core ingredient is a nonnutritive sweetener that does
not grow in sugar fields or appear elsewhere naturally. Rather,
the core ingredient, sucralose, is manufactured in laboratories
as a synthetic compound. Despite its similar-sounding name,
sucralose is not the same thing as sucrose, the technical name
for pure table sugar.
Splenda’s maker McNeil, a unit of the Johnson & Johnson drug and
consumer goods giant, has patented dozens of ways to manufacture
sucralose. Some of them are based on sucrose. One is even based
on raffinose, a sugar-relative found in beans, onions and
broccoli. But others are based on nonsugars — a point that
Equal’s maker, prowling through filed patents, has seized upon.
McNeil says that the process it uses to manufacture Splenda
starts with sugar, pure and simple. To make sucralose, McNeil
adds three chlorine atoms that are naturally found in foods like
salt and lettuce to a molecule of sucrose. The sucrose disappears
in the manufacturing process, but the result — sucralose — is 600
times as sweet as ordinary table sugar. Splenda then mixes two
bulking agents, dextrose and maltodextrin, into the sucralose.
The chemistry is complex, and it may be baffling for a jury to
hear about a process that starts out involving sugar but ends up
lacking it.
Despite its use of sugar as the starting point for making
sucralose, nowhere do the words “sugar” or “sucrose” appear on
Splenda’s ingredient list. That is because under Food and Drug
Administration regulations, it cannot list a substance that has
vaporized during the manufacturing process.
--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata
Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

Report
Hollywood
Archived post

9 April 2007, 15:13 UTC #2

RRzVRR said:
In the coming weeks the makers of Equal and Splenda will be in
court over the issue of, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like
sugar" claim.
There was an interesting article in the business section of the
NYT 4-6-07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html
A couple of interesting points...
Kevin L. Keller, a marketing professor at the Tuck School of
Business at Dartmouth, said that the language at issue had "a
legal perspective, a marketing perspective and a health perspective."
---
Splenda's core ingredient is a nonnutritive sweetener that does
not grow in sugar fields or appear elsewhere naturally. Rather,
the core ingredient, sucralose, is manufactured in laboratories
as a synthetic compound. Despite its similar-sounding name,
sucralose is not the same thing as sucrose, the technical name
for pure table sugar.
Splenda's maker McNeil, a unit of the Johnson & Johnson drug and
consumer goods giant, has patented dozens of ways to manufacture
sucralose. Some of them are based on sucrose. One is even based
on raffinose, a sugar-relative found in beans, onions and
broccoli. But others are based on nonsugars - a point that
Equal's maker, prowling through filed patents, has seized upon.
McNeil says that the process it uses to manufacture Splenda
starts with sugar, pure and simple. To make sucralose, McNeil
adds three chlorine atoms that are naturally found in foods like
salt and lettuce to a molecule of sucrose. The sucrose disappears
in the manufacturing process, but the result - sucralose - is 600
times as sweet as ordinary table sugar. Splenda then mixes two
bulking agents, dextrose and maltodextrin, into the sucralose.
The chemistry is complex, and it may be baffling for a jury to
hear about a process that starts out involving sugar but ends up
lacking it.
Despite its use of sugar as the starting point for making
sucralose, nowhere do the words "sugar" or "sucrose" appear on
Splenda's ingredient list. That is because under Food and Drug
Administration regulations, it cannot list a substance that has
vaporized during the manufacturing process.
My two cents:
If you can take sugar and make sucralose or Splenda out of it, you can
say: Made from Sugar, even if you can't list it as an ingredient. This
suit seems like sour grapes from the NutraSweet people, who are losing
market share. Could it be the specter of health concerns about their
product? Could it be that the leading LC diet doctors all seem to
advocate the other product? Probably a result of diminished market
share more than any actual claim of false advertising or bad ethics.
Note: At no point does McNeil say that the product contains sugar and
at no point do they suggest table sugar as a starting point.
-Hollywood

Report
Bob in CT
Archived post

9 April 2007, 16:28 UTC #3

Hollywood said:
RRzVRR said:
In the coming weeks the makers of Equal and Splenda will be in
court over the issue of, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like
sugar" claim.
There was an interesting article in the business section of the
NYT 4-6-07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html
A couple of interesting points...
Kevin L. Keller, a marketing professor at the Tuck School of
Business at Dartmouth, said that the language at issue had "a
legal perspective, a marketing perspective and a health perspective."
---
Splenda's core ingredient is a nonnutritive sweetener that does
not grow in sugar fields or appear elsewhere naturally. Rather,
the core ingredient, sucralose, is manufactured in laboratories
as a synthetic compound. Despite its similar-sounding name,
sucralose is not the same thing as sucrose, the technical name
for pure table sugar.
Splenda's maker McNeil, a unit of the Johnson & Johnson drug and
consumer goods giant, has patented dozens of ways to manufacture
sucralose. Some of them are based on sucrose. One is even based
on raffinose, a sugar-relative found in beans, onions and
broccoli. But others are based on nonsugars - a point that
Equal's maker, prowling through filed patents, has seized upon.
McNeil says that the process it uses to manufacture Splenda
starts with sugar, pure and simple. To make sucralose, McNeil
adds three chlorine atoms that are naturally found in foods like
salt and lettuce to a molecule of sucrose. The sucrose disappears
in the manufacturing process, but the result - sucralose - is 600
times as sweet as ordinary table sugar. Splenda then mixes two
bulking agents, dextrose and maltodextrin, into the sucralose.
The chemistry is complex, and it may be baffling for a jury to
hear about a process that starts out involving sugar but ends up
lacking it.
Despite its use of sugar as the starting point for making
sucralose, nowhere do the words "sugar" or "sucrose" appear on
Splenda's ingredient list. That is because under Food and Drug
Administration regulations, it cannot list a substance that has
vaporized during the manufacturing process.
My two cents:
If you can take sugar and make sucralose or Splenda out of it, you can
say: Made from Sugar, even if you can't list it as an ingredient. This
suit seems like sour grapes from the NutraSweet people, who are losing
market share. Could it be the specter of health concerns about their
product? Could it be that the leading LC diet doctors all seem to
advocate the other product? Probably a result of diminished market
share more than any actual claim of false advertising or bad ethics.
Note: At no point does McNeil say that the product contains sugar and
at no point do they suggest table sugar as a starting point.
-Hollywood
Don't the packages say "made with sugar; tastes like sugar"? It's hard to
see here, but I think this is what the graphic on the lower left side of
the box says:
http://www.splenda.com/page.jhtml?id=splenda/products/packets.inc
--
Bob in CT

Report
jim buch
Archived post

9 April 2007, 16:56 UTC #4

RRzVRR said:
In the coming weeks the makers of Equal and Splenda will be in court
over the issue of, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” claim.
There was an interesting article in the business section of the NYT 4-6-07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html
Perhaps you remember the PIZZA lawsuit.
Poppa John's said :
"Better Ingredients, Better Pizza"
Subsequently Pizza Hut and another large pizza chain filed suit to
prevent them from using this advertising slogan.
Poppa John's either won, or the other pizza guys dropped the lawsuit.
But it made for great publicity (free) for everyone.
It turns out it took a US Supreme Colurt Decision and Pizza Hut lost.
=======================================================================
http://advertising.about.com/od/foodrelatedadnews/a/papajohns.htm
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
"Better ingredients. Better pizza."
Papa John's claims its pizza is "better" than Pizza Hut's. It's a claim
Pizza Hut didn't take lightly. In fact, the company's lawyers filed a
federal false advertising lawsuit against Papa John's.
This on-going battle actually began in 1998. But the U.S. Supreme Court
recently put this case to rest, turning down Pizza Hut's appeal.
The problem stemmed from Papa John's famous slogan, coupled with a
national advertising campaign. One of the ads stated Papa John's "won
big time" in taste tests over Pizza Hut. Other ads in the campaign
alleged Papa John's sauce and dough were better than Pizza Hut's because
they were made with fresh tomatoes and filtered water.
That ad campaign prompted Pizza Hut to file the false advertising
lawsuit. The company's lawyers said they had scientific evidence proving
Papa John's ingredients didn't affect the pizza's taste.
Initially, a jury sided with Pizza Hut agreeing that Papa John's claims
of better sauce and dough were false or misleading. The judge ordered
Papa John's to stop using the "Better ingredients. Better pizza" slogan
and awarded Pizza Hut $467,619 in damages.
Jurors in that trial were asked if the ads were likely to deceive the
consumer. But a federal appeals court later said the jurors were never
asked if consumers relied on Papa John's "better" claims when deciding
what pizza to buy. So last September, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals overturned the verdict and ruled in favor of Papa John's.
There's heavy competition in the pizza world, especially between Pizza
Hut and Papa John's. Pizza Hut maintains the number one position,
followed by Domino's and then Papa John's.
But the heated competition is between Pizza Hut and Papa John's.
Apparently, their rivalry is so fierce, Pizza Hut reserves any phone
numbers that spell out the letters P-A-P-A...just so Papa John's can't
get them.
The better-best argument also affects the results of this case. You've
seen commercials where a company claims to have the "best" thingamajig.
"Best" can be used without having to backup your statement. When you use
"better," you "better" have proof to substantiate your claim.
Papa John's adamantly denies Pizza Hut's false advertising charges. The
company's lawyers maintain the statements made in the ad campaign aren't
false, but are merely statements of personal taste.
Lawyers for Pizza Hut said Papa John's ads violate federal law. They
claim even without evidence that customers relied on the "Better
ingredients. Better pizza" slogan to base their pizza-buying decision,
Papa John's ad campaign is deceptive. Pizza Hut execs say the decision
is unfair to both consumers and responsible advertisers.

Report
jim buch
Archived post

9 April 2007, 17:00 UTC #5

RRzVRR said:
In the coming weeks the makers of Equal and Splenda will be in court
over the issue of, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” claim.
There was an interesting article in the business section of the NYT 4-6-07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html
A couple of interesting points...
Kevin L. Keller, a marketing professor at the Tuck School of Business at
Dartmouth, said that the language at issue had “a legal perspective, a
marketing perspective and a health perspective.”
This is pretty much what was said in another post, but with a catchy
headline.
http://advertising.about.com/od/foodrelatedadnews/a/papajohns.htm
Better Pizza? Bigger Lawsuit.
From Apryl Duncan,
Your Guide to Advertising.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
"Better ingredients. Better pizza."
Papa John's claims its pizza is "better" than Pizza Hut's. It's a claim
Pizza Hut didn't take lightly. In fact, the company's lawyers filed a
federal false advertising lawsuit against Papa John's.
This on-going battle actually began in 1998. But the U.S. Supreme Court
recently put this case to rest, turning down Pizza Hut's appeal.

Report
DJ Delorie
Archived post

9 April 2007, 17:08 UTC #6

Bob in CT said:
Don't the packages say "made with sugar; tastes like sugar"?
The text says:
Made from
S U G A R
Tastes like
You have to imagine that in a cutesy marketing logo.

Report
Bob in CT
Archived post

9 April 2007, 17:45 UTC #7

DJ Delorie said:

Bob in CT said:
Don't the packages say "made with sugar; tastes like sugar"?
The text says:
Made from
S U G A R
Tastes like
You have to imagine that in a cutesy marketing logo.
If it's not "made from sugar", then I think they have an argument that
it's misleading. ("Tastes like sugar" -- who knows?)
--
Bob in CT

Report
jmk
Archived post

9 April 2007, 18:14 UTC #8

RRzVRR said:
In the coming weeks the makers of Equal and Splenda will be in court
over the issue of, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” claim.
There was an interesting article in the business section of the NYT 4-6-07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html

Speaking of sweetenerrs, are there any stevia users in this group? I
have started to play with it a bit -- stevia packet and a truelemon
packet in water, etc. and I'm interesting in your experiences with this
herb.
--
jmk in NC

Report
AnonomissX aka ~Melodie~
Archived post

9 April 2007, 21:09 UTC #9

So far, I like it in iced tea...
~Melodie~ Aka AnonomissX
"jmk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
RRzVRR said:
In the coming weeks the makers of Equal and Splenda will be in court over
the issue of, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” claim.
There was an interesting article in the business section of the NYT
4-6-07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html

Speaking of sweetenerrs, are there any stevia users in this group? I
have started to play with it a bit -- stevia packet and a truelemon
packet in water, etc. and I'm interesting in your experiences with this
herb.
--
jmk in NC

Report
Hollywood
Archived post

10 April 2007, 13:46 UTC #10

Bob in CT said:
DJ Delorie said:
Bob in CT said:
Don't the packages say "made with sugar; tastes like sugar"?
Quoted message said:
The text says:
Quoted message said:
Made from
Quoted message said:
S U G A R
Quoted message said:
Tastes like
Quoted message said:
You have to imagine that in a cutesy marketing logo.
If it's not "made from sugar", then I think they have an argument that
it's misleading. ("Tastes like sugar" -- who knows?)
--
Bob in CT
So, they have patents for processes to make it from several sugars.
Sucrose can be used. Raffinose can be used. I'm sure they can probably
use fructose as well. And they have several patents for processes to
make it from non-sugars.
Who knows which process they are actually using (I suspect they use
several different ones to play the commodity market and control cost),
but, the product was originally made from sugars and they do not say
"Made from Sucrose". Like I said, my guess is that it's made from
sugar sometimes and made from who knows what, used car bumpers at
others.
It still strikes me as sour grapes over lost market share and an
unwillingness to accept that some folks have health concerns about
their product that might be the root cause.
Hut vs. Papa is not the same thing. Papa made a very specific claim
about Hut (better implies that the other is worse, and naming the
other makes it a claim about the other). Granted, Papa is better than
Hut (I'm with em on that, and I've eaten enough to be well
qualified :-).

Report
Roger Zoul
Archived post

10 April 2007, 14:00 UTC #11

Hollywood wrote:
:: On Apr 9, 1:45 pm, "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:08:30 -0400, DJ Delorie <[email hidden]>
::: wrote:
:::
:::: "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> writes:
::::: Don't the packages say "made with sugar; tastes like sugar"?
:::
:::: The text says:
:::
:::: Made from
:::
:::: S U G A R
:::
:::: Tastes like
:::
:::: You have to imagine that in a cutesy marketing logo.
:::
::: If it's not "made from sugar", then I think they have an argument
::: that it's misleading. ("Tastes like sugar" -- who knows?)
:::
::: --
::: Bob in CT
::
:: So, they have patents for processes to make it from several sugars.
:: Sucrose can be used. Raffinose can be used. I'm sure they can
:: probably use fructose as well. And they have several patents for
:: processes to make it from non-sugars.
::
:: Who knows which process they are actually using (I suspect they use
:: several different ones to play the commodity market and control
:: cost), but, the product was originally made from sugars and they do
:: not say "Made from Sucrose". Like I said, my guess is that it's made
:: from sugar sometimes and made from who knows what, used car bumpers
:: at others.
It was smart of them to get the patents on all methods of arriving at the
same product. To attack them because there are other ways (that don't
involve table sugar) of producing sucralose is, as you say, sour grapes.
::
:: It still strikes me as sour grapes over lost market share and an
:: unwillingness to accept that some folks have health concerns about
:: their product that might be the root cause.
::
:: Hut vs. Papa is not the same thing. Papa made a very specific claim
:: about Hut (better implies that the other is worse, and naming the
:: other makes it a claim about the other). Granted, Papa is better than
:: Hut (I'm with em on that, and I've eaten enough to be well
:: qualified :-).
Papa is better than Hut, but it is also deadlier if consumed too frequently,
IMO.

Report
Bob in CT
Archived post

10 April 2007, 14:11 UTC #12

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:00:23 -0400, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Hollywood wrote:
:: On Apr 9, 1:45 pm, "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:08:30 -0400, DJ Delorie <[email hidden]>
::: wrote:
:::
:::: "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> writes:
::::: Don't the packages say "made with sugar; tastes like sugar"?
:::
:::: The text says:
:::
:::: Made from
:::
:::: S U G A R
:::
:::: Tastes like
:::
:::: You have to imagine that in a cutesy marketing logo.
:::
::: If it's not "made from sugar", then I think they have an argument
::: that it's misleading. ("Tastes like sugar" -- who knows?)
:::
::: --
::: Bob in CT
::
:: So, they have patents for processes to make it from several sugars.
:: Sucrose can be used. Raffinose can be used. I'm sure they can
:: probably use fructose as well. And they have several patents for
:: processes to make it from non-sugars.
::
:: Who knows which process they are actually using (I suspect they use
:: several different ones to play the commodity market and control
:: cost), but, the product was originally made from sugars and they do
:: not say "Made from Sucrose". Like I said, my guess is that it's made
:: from sugar sometimes and made from who knows what, used car bumpers
:: at others.
It was smart of them to get the patents on all methods of arriving at the
same product. To attack them because there are other ways (that don't
involve table sugar) of producing sucralose is, as you say, sour grapes.
What do you think of when you see "made from sugar"? Raffinose? I don't;
I think only of sucrose. While I agree that it's sour grapes, if they're
not using "sugar", ie, sucrose, then it's misleading.
Quoted message said:
::
:: It still strikes me as sour grapes over lost market share and an
:: unwillingness to accept that some folks have health concerns about
:: their product that might be the root cause.
::
:: Hut vs. Papa is not the same thing. Papa made a very specific claim
:: about Hut (better implies that the other is worse, and naming the
:: other makes it a claim about the other). Granted, Papa is better than
:: Hut (I'm with em on that, and I've eaten enough to be well
:: qualified :-).
Papa is better than Hut, but it is also deadlier if consumed too
frequently,
IMO.
--
Bob in CT

Report
Bob in CT
Archived post

10 April 2007, 14:19 UTC #13

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:11:03 -0400, Bob in CT <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:00:23 -0400, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Hollywood wrote:
:: On Apr 9, 1:45 pm, "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:08:30 -0400, DJ Delorie <[email hidden]>
::: wrote:
:::
:::: "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> writes:
::::: Don't the packages say "made with sugar; tastes like sugar"?
:::
:::: The text says:
:::
:::: Made from
:::
:::: S U G A R
:::
:::: Tastes like
:::
:::: You have to imagine that in a cutesy marketing logo.
:::
::: If it's not "made from sugar", then I think they have an argument
::: that it's misleading. ("Tastes like sugar" -- who knows?)
:::
::: --
::: Bob in CT
::
:: So, they have patents for processes to make it from several sugars.
:: Sucrose can be used. Raffinose can be used. I'm sure they can
:: probably use fructose as well. And they have several patents for
:: processes to make it from non-sugars.
::
:: Who knows which process they are actually using (I suspect they use
:: several different ones to play the commodity market and control
:: cost), but, the product was originally made from sugars and they do
:: not say "Made from Sucrose". Like I said, my guess is that it's made
:: from sugar sometimes and made from who knows what, used car bumpers
:: at others.
It was smart of them to get the patents on all methods of arriving at
the
same product. To attack them because there are other ways (that don't
involve table sugar) of producing sucralose is, as you say, sour grapes.
What do you think of when you see "made from sugar"? Raffinose? I
don't; I think only of sucrose. While I agree that it's sour grapes, if
they're not using "sugar", ie, sucrose, then it's misleading.

I should note that this fight is under the arcane rubric of trademark
law. That's why they use the terms "consumer confusion" and
"misleading". See:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001125----000-.html
--
Bob in CT

Report
Roger Zoul
Archived post

10 April 2007, 15:23 UTC #14

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:00:23 -0400, Roger Zoul
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Hollywood wrote:
::::: On Apr 9, 1:45 pm, "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::::: On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:08:30 -0400, DJ Delorie <[email hidden]>
:::::: wrote:
::::::
::::::: "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> writes:
:::::::: Don't the packages say "made with sugar; tastes like sugar"?
::::::
::::::: The text says:
::::::
::::::: Made from
::::::
::::::: S U G A R
::::::
::::::: Tastes like
::::::
::::::: You have to imagine that in a cutesy marketing logo.
::::::
:::::: If it's not "made from sugar", then I think they have an argument
:::::: that it's misleading. ("Tastes like sugar" -- who knows?)
::::::
:::::: --
:::::: Bob in CT
:::::
::::: So, they have patents for processes to make it from several
::::: sugars. Sucrose can be used. Raffinose can be used. I'm sure they
::::: can probably use fructose as well. And they have several patents
::::: for processes to make it from non-sugars.
:::::
::::: Who knows which process they are actually using (I suspect they
::::: use several different ones to play the commodity market and
::::: control cost), but, the product was originally made from sugars
::::: and they do not say "Made from Sucrose". Like I said, my guess is
::::: that it's made from sugar sometimes and made from who knows what,
::::: used car bumpers at others.
:::
::: It was smart of them to get the patents on all methods of arriving
::: at the same product. To attack them because there are other ways
::: (that don't involve table sugar) of producing sucralose is, as you
::: say, sour grapes.
::
:: What do you think of when you see "made from sugar"? Raffinose? I
:: don't; I think only of sucrose. While I agree that it's sour
:: grapes, if they're not using "sugar", ie, sucrose, then it's
:: misleading.
How many people associate sugar with sucrose? About 0.01%. In fact, most
people associate sweet tasting things with sugar, even though glucose is a
sugar too. Moreover, by locking in on the word "sugar", vendors can say
that product X has "no sugar" even though it's full of carbs. Who really
cares if it has no sugar if it still full of carbs? I can't think of one
good reason to avoid sugar when you're still eating carbs. And what's the
difference if a product s made from glucose instead of sucrose, as both
produce sweet taste (those glucose is not nearly as sweet). IMO, if they
don't say "table sugar" then they don't really need to be more specific.
Finally, obtaining patents on alternative ways to make splenda has nothing
to do with whether they use table sugar to make sucralose or not. That was
my point. They were just covering their bases by filing those patents, not
saying that they don't use table sugar to make sucralose. They are being
taken to court because they are making sure no one else tries to steal their
product and use some other form of advertizement. That sounds like sour
grapes, big time!
::
:::::
::::: It still strikes me as sour grapes over lost market share and an
::::: unwillingness to accept that some folks have health concerns about
::::: their product that might be the root cause.
:::::
::::: Hut vs. Papa is not the same thing. Papa made a very specific
::::: claim about Hut (better implies that the other is worse, and
::::: naming the other makes it a claim about the other). Granted, Papa
::::: is better than Hut (I'm with em on that, and I've eaten enough to
::::: be well
::::: qualified :-).
:::
::: Papa is better than Hut, but it is also deadlier if consumed too
::: frequently,
::: IMO.
:::
:::
::
::
::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

Report
Email address hidden
Archived post

10 April 2007, 16:02 UTC #15

As I understand it, the issue in this case is the marketing claim that
"Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" Whether that
claim is true or not is the central argument. When you take sugar and
chemically alter it's molecular structure, adding 3 chlorine atoms, is
the taste of the resulting chemical, which is 600 times sweeter,
actually still attributable to the sugar? Or is the sweetness and
taste just as artificial as aspartame?

Report
Roger Zoul
Archived post

10 April 2007, 16:14 UTC #16

[email hidden] wrote:
:: As I understand it, the issue in this case is the marketing claim
:: that "Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" Whether
:: that claim is true or not is the central argument. When you take
:: sugar and chemically alter it's molecular structure, adding 3
:: chlorine atoms, is the taste of the resulting chemical, which is 600
:: times sweeter, actually still attributable to the sugar? Or is
:: the sweetness and taste just as artificial as aspartame?
Who cares if it's attributable to sugar if it is made from sugar and it
tastes like sugar?
To me it does (more so than aspartame) even when mixed with water (liquid)
or in a packet with other stuff. Aspartame and the "pink stuff" produce a
very different taste (compared to sugar and sucralose) to me.
The sweetness may indeed by just as artificial as aspartame, but does the
marketing claim lie?
Well, perhaps so if you didn't start with sugar it would. That one is easy.
Whether it taste like sugar is subjective, as some find it doesn't. But I
think a lot of people think it does, so public opinion rules here. Whether
is proper to "infer" taste from what goes in doesn't seem so unreasonable,
since you're putting in something sweet (with caloric content) and getting
something out that is sweet but without caloric content.
Sour grapes, IMO. However, no one cares what I think! 🙂

Report
Bob in CT
Archived post

10 April 2007, 16:40 UTC #17

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:14:49 -0400, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] wrote:
:: As I understand it, the issue in this case is the marketing claim
:: that "Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" Whether
:: that claim is true or not is the central argument. When you take
:: sugar and chemically alter it's molecular structure, adding 3
:: chlorine atoms, is the taste of the resulting chemical, which is 600
:: times sweeter, actually still attributable to the sugar? Or is
:: the sweetness and taste just as artificial as aspartame?
Who cares if it's attributable to sugar if it is made from sugar and it
tastes like sugar?
To me it does (more so than aspartame) even when mixed with water
(liquid)
or in a packet with other stuff. Aspartame and the "pink stuff" produce
a
very different taste (compared to sugar and sucralose) to me.
The sweetness may indeed by just as artificial as aspartame, but does the
marketing claim lie?
Well, perhaps so if you didn't start with sugar it would. That one is
easy.
Whether it taste like sugar is subjective, as some find it doesn't. But
I
think a lot of people think it does, so public opinion rules here.
Whether
is proper to "infer" taste from what goes in doesn't seem so
unreasonable,
since you're putting in something sweet (with caloric content) and
getting
something out that is sweet but without caloric content.
Sour grapes, IMO. However, no one cares what I think! 🙂
I don't deny it's sour grapes -- it is. It's also misleading in my
opinion, if they don't use sugar (i.e., table sugar) to make sucralose.
It's going to come down to a jury of so many people who will decide this
issue. If they think "made from sugar" means "made from table sugar" and
the company does not use table sugar when manufacturing sucralose, then
it's a violation of the statute I cited.
Even I have to admit that "made from sugar" to me means "made from table
sugar" and not "made from fructose" or "made from lactose" or whatever the
heck sugars they might be using. They also say "tastes like sugar". How
many times do you go, "darn that sucralose tastes just like fructose"?
Really, what other sugar -- other than table sugar, aka sucrose -- would
they be implying by saying "made from sugar; tastes like sugar"? I can't
imagine anyone equating "sugar" in that statement with anything other than
table sugar.
--
Bob in CT

Report
Sam Wells
Archived post

10 April 2007, 17:27 UTC #18

Junk, I've been using stevia for several years with no problems other than
that several brands taste very bitter. The two acceptable brands for me are
SteviaClear by Sweet Leaf and several varieties of packaged stevia by Now.
You can really be put off by some of the bitter tasting brands. I suggest
you experiment a bit
Sam
< Speaking of sweetenerrs, are there any stevia users in this group? I
< have started to play with it a bit -- stevia packet and a truelemon
< packet in water, etc. and I'm interesting in your experiences with this
< herb.
--
< jmk in NC

Report
Email address hidden
Archived post

10 April 2007, 17:31 UTC #19

Roger Zoul said:
[email hidden] wrote:
:: As I understand it, the issue in this case is the marketing claim
:: that "Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" Whether
:: that claim is true or not is the central argument. When you take
:: sugar and chemically alter it's molecular structure, adding 3
:: chlorine atoms, is the taste of the resulting chemical, which is 600
:: times sweeter, actually still attributable to the sugar? Or is
:: the sweetness and taste just as artificial as aspartame?
Who cares if it's attributable to sugar if it is made from sugar and it
tastes like sugar?
Apparently their competitor cares and would seem to me to have a
legitimate point. McNeil is making the very specific claim that
Splenda tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar.
Quoted message said:

To me it does (more so than aspartame) even when mixed with water (liquid)
or in a packet with other stuff. Aspartame and the "pink stuff" produce a
very different taste (compared to sugar and sucralose) to me.
Yes, but that's not the issue.
Quoted message said:

The sweetness may indeed by just as artificial as aspartame, but does the
marketing claim lie?
Yes, I would say it does, if the taste is not actually attributable to
the sugar.
Quoted message said:

Well, perhaps so if you didn't start with sugar it would. That one is easy.
Whether it taste like sugar is subjective, as some find it doesn't. But I
think a lot of people think it does, so public opinion rules here. Whether
is proper to "infer" taste from what goes in doesn't seem so unreasonable,
since you're putting in something sweet (with caloric content) and getting
something out that is sweet but without caloric content.
I think McNeil has to do more than infer. They are going to have to
show that their statement is
true. They are stating that Splenda tastes like sugar because it's
made from sugar. And maybe they
can prove it. What they are hoping the naive consumers will infer,
is that the sugar in Splenda is just like the sugar ingredient in a
cookie, pie or ice cream, which it isn't, because it has been
substantially chemically altered.
Quoted message said:

Sour grapes, IMO. However, no one cares what I think! 🙂

Report
Roger Zoul
Archived post

10 April 2007, 17:45 UTC #20

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:14:49 -0400, Roger Zoul
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: As I understand it, the issue in this case is the marketing claim
::::: that "Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar"
::::: Whether that claim is true or not is the central argument. When
::::: you take sugar and chemically alter it's molecular structure,
::::: adding 3 chlorine atoms, is the taste of the resulting chemical,
::::: which is 600 times sweeter, actually still attributable to the
::::: sugar? Or is the sweetness and taste just as artificial as
::::: aspartame?
:::
::: Who cares if it's attributable to sugar if it is made from sugar
::: and it tastes like sugar?
:::
::: To me it does (more so than aspartame) even when mixed with water
::: (liquid)
::: or in a packet with other stuff. Aspartame and the "pink stuff"
::: produce a
::: very different taste (compared to sugar and sucralose) to me.
:::
::: The sweetness may indeed by just as artificial as aspartame, but
::: does the marketing claim lie?
:::
::: Well, perhaps so if you didn't start with sugar it would. That one
::: is easy.
::: Whether it taste like sugar is subjective, as some find it doesn't.
::: But I
::: think a lot of people think it does, so public opinion rules here.
::: Whether
::: is proper to "infer" taste from what goes in doesn't seem so
::: unreasonable,
::: since you're putting in something sweet (with caloric content) and
::: getting
::: something out that is sweet but without caloric content.
:::
::: Sour grapes, IMO. However, no one cares what I think! 🙂
:::
:::
::
:: I don't deny it's sour grapes -- it is. It's also misleading in my
:: opinion, if they don't use sugar (i.e., table sugar) to make
:: sucralose.
I agree that if they don't start with sugar, then it's a lie, because people
do have a common notion of what sugar is. However, most can't tell you that
one sugar doesn't taste like another.
It's going to come down to a jury of so many people who
:: will decide this issue. If they think "made from sugar" means "made
:: from table sugar" and the company does not use table sugar when
:: manufacturing sucralose, then it's a violation of the statute I
:: cited.
I guess that's what it comes down too. However, why is there any reason to
believe they don't? Because they have patents on other ways to make it?
That sounds like a witch hunt to me. "Unless you can prove you really use
sugar, you're guilty?"
::
:: Even I have to admit that "made from sugar" to me means "made from
:: table sugar" and not "made from fructose" or "made from lactose" or
:: whatever the heck sugars they might be using. They also say "tastes
:: like sugar". How many times do you go, "darn that sucralose tastes
:: just like fructose"?
But that's my point....I don't believe it is easy to tell the difference
other than by sweetness, and that can be adjusted by how you cut the
product.
Really, what other sugar -- other than table
:: sugar, aka sucrose -- would they be implying by saying "made from
:: sugar; tastes like sugar"? I can't imagine anyone equating "sugar"
:: in that statement with anything other than table sugar.
I have several bags of glucose in my house! 🙂

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread