Bitter battle over sweet Splenda escalates

The controversy surrounding Splenda, the no-calorie sweetener that many American households and food manufacturers use instead of sugar, shows no signs of melting away, and it is leaving a bitter taste in Catherine Grayson-Roper's mouth.

Grayson-Roper is communications manager for McNeil Nutritionals, the division of Johnson & Johnson that markets and distributes Splenda in the United States. Over the past few months, she has been called upon to respond to questions about the five lawsuits filed against her employer over how Splenda has presented itself to the market. McNeil Nutritionals has filed two countersuits of its own.

The rivals and individuals who are suing say Splenda misrepresents itself in advertising as being made from sugar, and that the claim is misleading to the public and giving it an unfair advantage in the market.

McNeil has never misrepresented itself and has always abided by the highest ethical standards, said Grayson-Roper.

She questioned why the concerns over Splenda's marketing program would come up now-tour years after the launch of the product that, she said, has used essentially the same marketing and advertising approach all along.

Grayson-Roper would not elaborate on the point.

In the four years that it has been on the market, Splenda has captured more than 50 percent of the artificial sweetener market in the United States, overtaking market leaders NutraSweet and Equal. Splenda has the advantage-unlike rival products-of keeping its taste when heated.

Among those filing Splenda suits are three individuals in class-action suits; the Sugar Association; an industry trade group; and Merisant, maker of NutraSweet and Equal.

Others may enter the fray. The Organic Consumers Association, in a letter delivered March 1, urged the Federal Trade Commission to launch a formal investigation of what it calls the deceptive marketing campaign being conducted by Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Nutritionals for Splenda.

"J&J's advertising and marketing represents a step backward for truth-in-labeling and a slap in the face for America's 30 million organic consumers and family farmers," Ronnie Cummins, OCA's national director, said in a statement.

The Sugar Association has devoted a Web site, www.truthaboutsplenda.com, to its stance against Splenda.

"Johnson & Johnson claims that 'Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar,'" the association notes on its Web site. "Johnson & Johnson wants consumers to think that it is natural sugar without calories. The truth is that Splenda is not natural and does not taste like sugar."

Grayson-Roper responds: "Splenda's not natural," she said. "We've never tried to communicate that it is."

Grayson-Roper said McNeil Nutritionals has relied on the great taste of its product to grow its market share. McNeil has filed counter suits against the Sugar Association and Merisant in order "to stop the false, misleading and baseless claims designed to put us out ot business," Grayson-Roper said.

The sweetness of Splenda derives from a chlorocarbon chemical that contains three atoms of chlorine in every one of its molecules.

Splenda's maker Tate & LyIe, based in the UK, says sucralose, as Splenda is called in the industry, is derived from sugar-a sugar molecule with three of the hydroxyl groups replaced with chlorine atoms. The yellow boxes of Splenda sold at the supermarket and the little yellow bags Americans shake into their morning coffee also contain dextrose-a simple form of sugar, and maltodextrin, a digestible carbohydrate made from natural corn starch. It's a description provided by the maker and also one that Merisant uses in its lawsuit.

Copyright United Publications, Inc. Apr 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved