That Splenda Lawsuit

Bob in CT said:

"Splenda uses sugar in the manufacturing process, though it is burned off
and is not part of the final product."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18598430/

All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few atoms
added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms no part of
the final product.

In the previous discussion, I think this point was discussed at
length. It CAN start as sugar (or another number of things) and it
finishes as sucralose with some fillers. Sugar can be an input, but
based on ingredient laws (a little bizarre, but I'm a business person,
not a chemist), it's not technically in it, even though it starts
(sometimes) as sugar. Go figure.

On a related note: New Pizza Hut ad claims they are better than Papa
Johns and Dominoes. Isn't that what Pizza Hut is suing Papa John's
about, essentially?

Bob in CT wrote:
:: "Splenda uses sugar in the manufacturing process, though it is
:: burned off and is not part of the final product."
::
:: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18598430/
::
:: All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few
:: atoms added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms
:: no part of the final product.

How could you think splenda was sugar? If it were sugar, then it would act
just like sugar in the body and have calories like sugar. You can't have it
both ways; it can't be sugar and then not be sugar. That makes no sense.

I would not put too much emphasis on the "burned off" part of that sentence
you quote above, either.

Chemical alteration could definitely mean that no part of the final product
is sugar.

Bob in CT said:

"Splenda uses sugar in the manufacturing process, though it is burned off
and is not part of the final product."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18598430/

Some selections from the article that struck me.

"...The company says consumers prefer the taste of Splenda, leading to
its huge market gains since its 2000 debut."

I concur. Though Equal doesn't taste bad either. Funny thing about
Equal/Nutrasweet. Once upon a time, it was some small company that had
to fend off a Japanese company that made the same thing but with a
better process, but no right to market it. Then, they got bought by
Monsanto. Then, Monsanto sold it off when having the swirl on your
product was no longer a plus. I don't remember if they spun it off
into Merisent or if they sold it to Merisent. Either way. The key
thing was this: it was a product in decline and Monsanto had bigger
fish to splice genes on.

"Splenda, introduced in 2000, is used in more than 4,000 food and
drink products, from Diet Coke to Juicy Fruit gum. Separately, it had
60 percent of the consumer artificial sweetener market last year,
according to the research firm Information Resources Inc.

Equal and Sweet'N Low each held about 14 percent of the consumer
market, and appear to be on a downward slide."

I'm gonna guess, just intuitively (actually, in B-school we did a case
about Nutrasweet, in the time before Splenda was approved in the US),
that the consumer packaged goods market is a much bigger buyer of
Splenda than the home consumer market. So, coke, pepsi, unilever etc
probably buy more than 65% of the total market. That said, very
interesting that Splenda has gone from 0-60% market share in under 8
years. That's a pretty strong argument for sour grapes, because that
60% had to come from somewhere, and I'm betting a large part of that
was Equal. Sugar probably a smaller loser (alternatively, sugar was
going to decline to artificial sweetener, so Splenda's gains there can
be viewed as Equal's losses as well). S&L just rolls on. Funny thing:
We still go places and they don't have yellow packets, only white,
pink, blue. Last thing: They give the market share for Equal, but not
for generic blue packets. The blue is off patent (debatable that it
ever was on patent), so one wonders what Equal + Blue Generic market
share is.

"Chicago-based Merisant charges that McNeil made at least $183 million
in unfair profits since 2003 and that Merisant lost at least $25
million in sales because of Splenda's "sugar" claim."

Hrm. The math doesn't work here. $183 in unfair profits, but we lost
only $25 in sales? Are the other 158 Million from their product
superiority? From sugars profits? I'm unclear on how this adds up.

"McNeil says it simply has a better product with better marketing. It
told jurors it has spent $234 million promoting Splenda, more than
twice the $108 million spent on Equal in the same period."

That's a big marketing dollar edge. Of course, they were the entrant,
so you'd expect them to have to work harder, unless people think the
other product causes brain cancer or something.

Bob in CT said:

All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few
atoms added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms
no part of the final product.

If you compare the chemical structure of sucralose to sucrose, you'll
note that three of the loosely bound hydroxyl groups have been
replaced with tightly bound chlorine atoms. I'm guessing this (1)
causes more reactions in the mouth (chlorine is highly reactive) and
(2) prevents enzymes from breaking down the molecule, so it acts on
more taste buds.

Chemically, no sucrose is part of the final product, because it's a
different molecule. But that's like saying there's no sucrose in our
blood stream either. In both cases, the original atoms are converted
into a different molecule (sucrose to sucralose, or sucrose to
glucose+fructose). But, this is no different (conceptually) than the
chemical changes that happen when you grill onions (browning them),
either.

Of course, this is all irrelevent to the case - it's up to the jury to
decide not if the ads are technically true, but if they're misleading.

DJ Delorie wrote:
:: "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> writes:
::: All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few
::: atoms added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms
::: no part of the final product.
::
:: Of course, this is all irrelevent to the case - it's up to the jury
:: to decide not if the ads are technically true, but if they're
:: misleading.

Correct. Of course, IMO, what the jury will likely decide could very well be
a matter of their own collective ignorance.

But it IS "made from sugar" by altering the sugar molecule. The only thing
unclear is whether that is why it tastes like sugar. I doubt whether
consumers really care why, they only know they like the taste.

DJ Delorie wrote:
| "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> writes:
|| All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few
|| atoms added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms
|| no part of the final product.
|
| If you compare the chemical structure of sucralose to sucrose, you'll
| note that three of the loosely bound hydroxyl groups have been
| replaced with tightly bound chlorine atoms. I'm guessing this (1)
| causes more reactions in the mouth (chlorine is highly reactive) and
| (2) prevents enzymes from breaking down the molecule, so it acts on
| more taste buds.
|
| Chemically, no sucrose is part of the final product, because it's a
| different molecule. But that's like saying there's no sucrose in our
| blood stream either. In both cases, the original atoms are converted
| into a different molecule (sucrose to sucralose, or sucrose to
| glucose+fructose). But, this is no different (conceptually) than the
| chemical changes that happen when you grill onions (browning them),
| either.
|
| Of course, this is all irrelevent to the case - it's up to the jury to
| decide not if the ads are technically true, but if they're misleading.

FOB said:

But it IS "made from sugar" by altering the sugar molecule. The only thing
unclear is whether that is why it tastes like sugar.

In my view, that is the core of the case. It would be interesting to
see what McNeil presented in it's defense. If I were McNeil, and I
could, I would bring in expert testimony to try to show that the
reason it tastes like sugar is that the final molecule is so very
similar to the actual sugar molecule. And that the reason other
sweeteners don't taste as good is that they are radically different.
I think if you do that, then the claim is proven true. Then it
becomes a case of consumers possibly misunderstanding that to mean
more than it does. But, I think at that point, while it might still
be somewhat questionable, I don't think they have nearly as strong a
case as if it looks like the fact that they use sugar has nothing to
do with how it tastes and is essentially false.

I doubt whether

Quoted message said:

consumers really care why, they only know they like the taste.

I think there are actually a lot of consumers that do care why. They
want a product that not only tastes good but is safe. And consumers
always prefer something that is natural. So, I don't think it
unreasonable that some of Splenda's success is due to the fact that
consumers believe that because it's "made from sugar", that it's
preferable to something made from chemicals they are unfamiliar
with. It would be very easy to show that with some polling data.
But again, I'm not sure consumers misconstruing a true marketing claim
rises to the level of misconduct by McNeil.

Quoted message said:

DJ Delorie wrote:

| "Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> writes:
|| All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few
|| atoms added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms
|| no part of the final product.
|
| If you compare the chemical structure of sucralose to sucrose, you'll
| note that three of the loosely bound hydroxyl groups have been
| replaced with tightly bound chlorine atoms. I'm guessing this (1)
| causes more reactions in the mouth (chlorine is highly reactive) and
| (2) prevents enzymes from breaking down the molecule, so it acts on
| more taste buds.
|
| Chemically, no sucrose is part of the final product, because it's a
| different molecule. But that's like saying there's no sucrose in our
| blood stream either. In both cases, the original atoms are converted
| into a different molecule (sucrose to sucralose, or sucrose to
| glucose+fructose). But, this is no different (conceptually) than the
| chemical changes that happen when you grill onions (browning them),
| either.
|
| Of course, this is all irrelevent to the case - it's up to the jury to
| decide not if the ads are technically true, but if they're misleading.

FOB said:

But it IS "made from sugar" by altering the sugar molecule. The only thing
unclear is whether that is why it tastes like sugar. I doubt whether
consumers really care why, they only know they like the taste.

Yeah, but so is ethanol.

Once you've chemically altered something, it's just not the same thing
anymore.

I've always thought the ads were misleading, but whether they're more
misleading than most ads is a more difficult question.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: On May 11, 8:35 am, "FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: But it IS "made from sugar" by altering the sugar molecule. The
::: only thing unclear is whether that is why it tastes like sugar. I
::: doubt whether consumers really care why, they only know they like
::: the taste.
::
:: Yeah, but so is ethanol.
::
:: Once you've chemically altered something, it's just not the same
:: thing anymore.
::
:: I've always thought the ads were misleading, but whether they're more
:: misleading than most ads is a more difficult question.

Marketing ads are always misleading to some degree.

On Fri, 11 May 2007 08:48:02 -0400, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob in CT wrote:
:: "Splenda uses sugar in the manufacturing process, though it is
:: burned off and is not part of the final product."
::
:: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18598430/
::
:: All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few
:: atoms added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms
:: no part of the final product.

How could you think splenda was sugar? If it were sugar, then it would
act
just like sugar in the body and have calories like sugar. You can't have
it
both ways; it can't be sugar and then not be sugar. That makes no sense.

I would not put too much emphasis on the "burned off" part of that
sentence
you quote above, either.

Chemical alteration could definitely mean that no part of the final
product
is sugar.

Well, it says "made from sugar" and doesn't say "made using sugar". Also,
I kept reading info from the Splenda website detailing how sucralose was
simply sugar plus chlorine. So, I thought they took sugar and somehow
attached chlorine molecules. (Not being the chemist, that is, and having
apparently an over-simplified idea of what happens.)

See here, for instance:

"SPLENDA® is the brand name for the ingredient sucralose. It is made
through a patented, multi-step process that starts with sugar and converts
it to a no calorie, non-carbohydrate sweetener. The process selectively
replaces three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule with three
chlorine atoms."

http://www.splenda.com/page.jhtml?id=splenda/faqs/nocalorie.inc#q2

That sounds a lot like the final product is sugar + chlorine. It doesn't
sound like a process that uses sugar in some unrelated way and the sugar
is not part of the final product.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT said:

"Splenda uses sugar in the manufacturing process, though it is burned
off and is not part of the final product."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18598430/

Thanks for the reminder on this... I've been meaning to check in
on what was happening with the case.

--
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

My impression from things said about sucralose is that the sucralose
molecule might look like sugar to more than just the taste buds. Is this
plausible? Could there be insulin or appetite changes in response to
sucralose?

"DJ Delorie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob in CT said:

All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few
atoms added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms
no part of the final product.

If you compare the chemical structure of sucralose to sucrose, you'll
note that three of the loosely bound hydroxyl groups have been
replaced with tightly bound chlorine atoms. I'm guessing this (1)
causes more reactions in the mouth (chlorine is highly reactive) and
(2) prevents enzymes from breaking down the molecule, so it acts on
more taste buds.

Chemically, no sucrose is part of the final product, because it's a
different molecule. But that's like saying there's no sucrose in our
blood stream either. In both cases, the original atoms are converted
into a different molecule (sucrose to sucralose, or sucrose to
glucose+fructose). But, this is no different (conceptually) than the
chemical changes that happen when you grill onions (browning them),
either.

Of course, this is all irrelevent to the case - it's up to the jury to
decide not if the ads are technically true, but if they're misleading.

Bob in CT said:

On Fri, 11 May 2007 08:48:02 -0400, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob in CT wrote:
:: "Splenda uses sugar in the manufacturing process, though it is
:: burned off and is not part of the final product."
::
::http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18598430/
::
:: All this time, I thought Splenda really was sugar, just with a few
:: atoms added to the sugar molecule. I had no idea that sugar forms
:: no part of the final product.

Quoted message said:

How could you think splenda was sugar? If it were sugar, then it would
act
just like sugar in the body and have calories like sugar. You can't have
it
both ways; it can't be sugar and then not be sugar. That makes no sense.

Quoted message said:

I would not put too much emphasis on the "burned off" part of that
sentence
you quote above, either.

Quoted message said:

Chemical alteration could definitely mean that no part of the final
product
is sugar.

Well, it says "made from sugar" and doesn't say "made using sugar". Also,
I kept reading info from the Splenda website detailing how sucralose was
simply sugar plus chlorine. So, I thought they took sugar and somehow
attached chlorine molecules. (Not being the chemist, that is, and having
apparently an over-simplified idea of what happens.)

Made From does not imply Made Of.

Quoted message said:

That sounds a lot like the final product is sugar + chlorine. It doesn't
sound like a process that uses sugar in some unrelated way and the sugar
is not part of the final product.

I think it's basically sugar minus some hydrogen or carbon or
something + chlorine. It takes sugar to make it, but, under our laws
(which are a little goofy on this) it isn't made of sugar. Even though
the main building block is sugar, minus some atoms, plus some atoms
through some process.

Bob in CT said:

Well, it says "made from sugar" and doesn't say "made using sugar". Also,
I kept reading info from the Splenda website detailing how sucralose was
simply sugar plus chlorine. So, I thought they took sugar and somehow
attached chlorine molecules. (Not being the chemist, that is, and having
apparently an over-simplified idea of what happens.)

Yes, they are adding chlorine atoms to the sugar molecule to make
sucralose.

However, adding atoms to a molecule *changes* what the molecule is.

It's *not* sugar after it's been chemically altered. Just as fiber
isn't sugar (though it's just a complex molecule made up of a bunch of
sugar molecules strung together in chains).

So... far as I can see, they're not flat-out lying, but they sure are
being misleading as heck.

Quoted message said:

That sounds a lot like the final product is sugar + chlorine. It doesn't
sound like a process that uses sugar in some unrelated way and the sugar
is not part of the final product.

The bit you pointed out where they said it's non-carbohydrate, that's
accurate. It's accurate because the final product is NOT sugar.

Changing just *one* atom makes an entirely different molecule. A
water molecule is two hydrogens and an oxygen whereas a peroxide
molecule is two hydrogens and two peroxides. You wouldn't bleach your
hair with water and you wouldn't drink 8 glasses of peroxide a day.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The ads are not misleading. The slogan is
tastes like because its made from sugar. Keyword is from. From is
defined as follows, "To indicate a source." The ads in no way
implied that the end product is sugar!

Well you should have been in pre-trial arguments as a Judge did find that
the other sides case had enough merit to warrant a full on court trial.

But I do agree with you. I never once thought it was sugar just derived
from sugar at some point in it's life.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The lawsuit is frivolous. The ads are not misleading. The slogan is
tastes like because its made from sugar. Keyword is from. From is
defined as follows, "To indicate a source." The ads in no way
implied that the end product is sugar!

Quoted message said:

FOB said:

But it IS "made from sugar" by altering the sugar molecule. The only thing
unclear is whether that is why it tastes like sugar. I doubt whether
consumers really care why, they only know they like the taste.

Yeah, but so is ethanol.

Once you've chemically altered something, it's just not the same thing
anymore.

I've always thought the ads were misleading, but whether they're more
misleading than most ads is a more difficult question.

I like Splenda, use Splenda, and understand that Splenda is not
sugar that has been ~tweaked~.

Many of the ads for Splenda make me uneasy. In the past the
other sugar substitutes ads seemed to have been targeted only to
adults. Some of Splenda's televised ads have children in them
and seem to convey the message of: if you care, you'll give those
you love Splenda. I feel that implies that the product has a
high level of safety and that its a healthy product for children.

While Splenda is probably 'safe', we can't be 100% sure that any
chem-lab created substance is healthy or good for anyone,
especially children. I would put high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
into the same category. Here on ASDLC we agree that loading a
child's diet with any form of sugar is not a good idea. But if I
had to chose a safe sweetener to put into a childs food it would
be cane sugar over Splenda, HFCS or any other substitute sweetener.

--
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

RRzVRR wrote:
:: [email hidden] wrote:
::
::: On May 11, 8:35 am, "FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::
:::: But it IS "made from sugar" by altering the sugar molecule. The
:::: only thing unclear is whether that is why it tastes like sugar. I
:::: doubt whether consumers really care why, they only know they like
:::: the taste.
:::
:::
::: Yeah, but so is ethanol.
:::
::: Once you've chemically altered something, it's just not the same
::: thing anymore.
:::
::: I've always thought the ads were misleading, but whether they're
::: more misleading than most ads is a more difficult question.
::
:: I like Splenda, use Splenda, and understand that Splenda is not
:: sugar that has been ~tweaked~.
::
:: Many of the ads for Splenda make me uneasy. In the past the
:: other sugar substitutes ads seemed to have been targeted only to
:: adults. Some of Splenda's televised ads have children in them
:: and seem to convey the message of: if you care, you'll give those
:: you love Splenda. I feel that implies that the product has a
:: high level of safety and that its a healthy product for children.
::
:: While Splenda is probably 'safe', we can't be 100% sure that any
:: chem-lab created substance is healthy or good for anyone,
:: especially children. I would put high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
:: into the same category. Here on ASDLC we agree that loading a
:: child's diet with any form of sugar is not a good idea. But if I
:: had to chose a safe sweetener to put into a childs food it would
:: be cane sugar over Splenda, HFCS or any other substitute sweetener.
::

And even a supposedly natural substance (sugar) is not healthy if used in
excess. Frankly, I don't see any difference between sugar (which, IMO, is
not natural) and those chemicals except that sugar tastes better.

2Phat said:

Well you should have been in pre-trial arguments as a Judge did find that
the other sides case had enough merit to warrant a full on court trial.

But I do agree with you. I never once thought it was sugar just derived
from sugar at some point in it's life.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The lawsuit is frivolous. The ads are not misleading. The slogan is
tastes like because its made from sugar. Keyword is from. From is
defined as follows, "To indicate a source." The ads in no way
implied that the end product is sugar!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about if McNeil can't show that the way Splenda tastes has
anything to do with the fact that it is made from sugar? Would that
not be misleading? For example, suppose I started with some raw
substance, but completely decomposed it into it's component atoms,
then used those atoms to build some new compound. Would it be OK to
attribute the final compounds characteristics to the fact that the raw
substance was used, when the exact same final product can also be made
from other chemicals that perhaps are tasteless or toxic?

For the product at hand, suppose another sweetener company took sugar
and broke it down into C, H, O. Then added some other elements, like
CL, and reassembled it into some other artificial sweetner that bore
little or no resemblance at all to a sugar molecule. Would it be OK
to market that as "Tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar?"