Equal And Splenda Settle Lawsuit
Artificial Sweetener Had Accused Yellow Rival Of Suggesting It Is Healthier Than Other Sweeteners
-
Photo
(AP)
The settlement came after the jury announced that it had reached a verdict.
Chicago-based Merisant Co., which makes Equal, accused Splenda of confusing consumers into thinking its product was healthier and more natural than other artificial sweeteners. Splenda's marketer, McNeil Nutritionals, countered that it simply has a better product backed by superior advertising.
A McNeil spokeswoman in the courtroom said the amount of the settlement wouldn't be announced. The two sides planned to issue a joint statement later Friday.
Merisant was seeking more than $200 million from McNeil — at least $183 million for unfair profits since 2003 and compensation for at least $25 million in lost sales.
The active ingredient in Splenda starts as pure cane sugar but is chemically altered to create a compound that contains no calories, according to McNeil. The final product contains no sugar.
The one-month trial focused mostly on Splenda's advertising slogan, but it ended in a settlement after the jury said it had reached a verdict Friday afternoon.
Settlement talks began after jurors asked the judge for a calculator and a white board, an indication that they were computing damages to be awarded to Merisant. Lawyers rushed to the courtroom to try to delay the jury's announcement and then huddled in a courthouse meeting room.
McNeil's own consultants said its slogan confused potential customers, some of whom thought that Splenda was sugar without the calories, Merisant's attorneys said. McNeil rejected a plan to add the phrase “does not contain sugar” to the front of Splenda's yellow box, which might have cleared up the confusion, Merisant said.
Because the manufacturing of Splenda begins with sugar, McNeil can accurately claim that Splenda is “made from” sugar, according to its attorneys.
Splenda is used in more than 4,000 food and drink products and is included in recipes at numerous chain restaurants.
It had 60 percent of the consumer artificial sweetener market last year, according to the research firm Information Resources Inc. Equal, which comes in blue packets and is made with aspartame, and Sweet'N Low, in pink packets and made with saccharin, each held about 14 percent of the consumer market.
McNeil is a unit of Johnson & Johnson based in suburban Philadelphia and markets Splenda for its manufacturer, London-based Tate & Lyle PLC. It is also defending its Splenda advertising claims in a separate lawsuit in California filed by a group of U.S. sugar manufacturers.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



I am a diabetic, and like many diabetics know that aspertame has been known to raise sugar levels, where Splenda does not. Aspertame has been known to harm people in tests - Splenda has not. They say it tastes like sugar because IT DOES taste like sugar. There is no aftertaste like the others- all products sweetened with Splenda taste the same as sugared products. For Splenda, this is just another case. They're used to the other guys coming after them.
"Donald Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and the day after he took office he appointed an FDA Commissioner who would approve aspartame."
www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/05/07/aspartame_gate_when_donald_rumsfeld_was_ceo_of_searle.htm
That said, aspartame is NOT particularly dangerous. With the exception of some people who get headaches, most of the "facts" out there are bogus, the result of a long-ago internet hoax. Most of the symptoms (like the sore throat thing) people experience have been tested, and in blind tests, people who THOUGHT they were getting aspartame got the symptoms whether they actually got aspartame or not. Power of suggestion is a strong thing.
See the Hoaxbusters site, or the Urban Legends site, or the Junk Science site, or the American Diabetes Association site for more info on this pervasive myth.
I hate the taste of aspartame and find their efforts to drive down Splenda silly, but I am SO tired of reading this hoax everytime someone mentions aspartame. Check the facts, folks. Otherwise you're just another sucker waiting for Bill Gates to send you 100 dollars for forwarding an e-mail.
There has been very meaningful and genuine research into the side effects, they are most certainly detremental. www.sweetpoison.com will give you that facts, including INDEPENDENT Italian studies which state that this product can cause tumours. Over ninety other conditions are also mentioned which leaves very serious question marks hanging over the FDA approval.
Moderate use of natural sugars are obviously less harmful than these chemicals and as Cancer is most certainly on the increase it must be logical that we look at all the chemicals we ingest.
Those wishing to learn about ASPARTAME and it's effects should check out www.sweetpoison.com
Those wishing to learn about ASPARTAME and it's effects should check out www.sweetpoison.com
-
by sy2502
May 14, 2007 12:58 PM PDT
- They start with pure cane sugar, chemically alter it to a final product that contains no sugar!! Hummm, So we are just putting a chemical in our food and drinks.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 20 CommentsPosted by angelwhalo at 04:33 AM : May 13, 2007
Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but sugar is a chemical, the coffee in which you stir it is a chemical, everything is a chemical. Claiming a distinction between "natural" and "chemical" is ignorant. Everything in nature is chemical compounds. Peanuts according to your definition, are "natural" but to one who's allergic they are more deadly than your "chemical" Splenda.