Sweetner Court Battle

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/bu...a/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

On Apr 9, 7:26 am, RRzVRR wrote:
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/bu...a/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

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:13:54 -0400, Hollywood wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:26 am, RRzVRR wrote:
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/bu...a/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...ts/packets.inc

--
Bob in CT

RRzVRR wrote:
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/bu...a/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/food.../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.

RRzVRR wrote:
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/bu...a/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/food.../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.

"Bob in CT" 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.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:08:30 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


"Bob in CT" 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

RRzVRR wrote:
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/bu...a/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

So far, I like it in iced tea...
~Melodie~ Aka AnonomissX

"jmk" wrote in message
...
RRzVRR wrote:
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/bu...a/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

On Apr 9, 1:45 pm, "Bob in CT" wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:08:30 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:

"Bob in CT" 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 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 :-).