If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sweetner Court Battle
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sweetner Court Battle
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sweetner Court Battle
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pizza Hut vs Poppa John's Court Battle too - Sweetner Court Battle
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sweetner Court Battle
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sweetner Court Battle
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stevia (was Sweetner Court Battle )
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stevia (was Sweetner Court Battle )
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sweetner Court Battle
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 :-). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heard on People's Court | Cheri | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | November 29th, 2004 04:26 AM |
Heard on People's Court | Cheri | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | November 29th, 2004 04:07 AM |
sweetner | Tom Folta | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | April 15th, 2004 01:49 AM |
Atkins and no aspartame sweetner | Jetwyo | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 28 | January 20th, 2004 04:26 PM |
Artificial Sweetner | Live2Ride | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 4 | December 3rd, 2003 05:17 PM |