Splenda Manufacturer Sued
“Think sugar, say Splenda.” That’s Splenda’s advertising slogan. Apparently it’s quite catchy, as Splenda has captured a full 50 percent of the $1 billion artificial sweetener market in the U.S. And that has other market leaders NutraSweet and Equal steaming mad.
Merisant, the manufacturer of NutraSweet and Equal, along with the Sugar Association and three private individuals, have filed separate lawsuits disputing how Splenda is marketed. They question whether Splenda can honestly claim that it’s made from sugar since the final product is far removed from its natural form. They argue that Splenda is a highly processed chemical sweetener engineered with chlorine and other compounds. Jeff Leshay, spokesperson for Merisant, says “Splenda misleads consumers into believing that it’s made from natural sugar when it’s not.”
The lawsuit targets McNeil Nutritionals, a division of Johnson & Johnson that distritubtes Splenda in the U.S. Plaintiffs argue that McNeil’s advertising campaign confuses the public.
But the Splenda manufacturer, Britain’s Tate & Lyle, claims that Splenda is indeed made from sugar. Splenda is the brand name for sucralose. Ferne Hudson, spokesperson for Tate & Lyle, says “Sucralose is a sugar molecule with three of the hydroxyl groups replaced with chlorine atoms.” Splenda is found in low-calorie soft drinks such as Coca Cola’s C2 and Pepsi’s Edge. It’s also found in more than 3,500 packaged foods. Splenda differs from aspartame, the key ingredient in Equal and NutraSweet, in that it retains flavor when it’s heated.
The lawsuits don’t question Splenda’s safety, but consumer advocacy groups do. Betty Martini is the founder of Mission Possible International, a group that educates consumers about the health risks of aspartame. Martini says that NutraSweet suing Splenda is “like the pot calling the kettle black.” She points to studies conducted in the 1970’s wherein aspartame caused brain tumors in laboratory animals. Such groups question whether chemical sweeteners are safe for long-term regular use.
The FDA did organize a public board of inquiry to review scientific data concerning aspartame. The board was concerned about the brain tumor evidence and recommended further study. But regardless, the FDA approved aspartame in 1981.
In 1996, the Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology further publicized the link between ingesting aspartame and developing brain tumors. The article detailed an increase in brain tumors in the general population soon after the FDA approved aspartame. The FDA then issued a statement that it still stood behind its decision to approve aspartame.
And Splenda doesn’t fare all that well, either. Russell L. Blaylock, a neurosurgeon from Mississippi, authored the book Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills. He warns consumers not to use Splenda heavily. The FDA approved sucralose in 1998.
So what does all this mean? Well, it means that if all the lawsuits against Splenda wind up in open court, more in-depth information about artificial sweeteners could become available to the general public as a result of legal scrutiny. Maybe that’s not such a bad thing after all!
Comments
Leave a Reply