Back to DCFUD

February 9, 2005


American Splenda

legal.jpgFollowing the continuing saga of our favorite least-awful sugar substitute, we have the obligatory legal action:

The marketers of the hot-selling sugar substitute filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Delaware yesterday alleging that the Sugar Association and other groups are waging a "malicious smear campaign" against their product in an attempt to boost sugar sales.

[...]

Yesterday's suit is in response to a false-advertising lawsuit the Sugar Association filed against McNeil [the Splenda people] in California in December, Watts said. That lawsuit, which does not target Tate & Lyle P.L.C., the manufacturer of Splenda, seeks to prevent the marketers of Splenda from continuing what it called a "misleading" advertising campaign.

Nuisance lawsuits rot your teeth, you know.

Posted by rj3 at February 9, 2005 10:29 AM

 

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smorgasblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/smtb.cgi/1214

 

 

Comments

Someone needs to put the sweetener industry in check. Who knew people selling sugar could be so ...nasty. I was reading about the stevia leaf and it's extract stevioside, which is supposedly 300x sweeter than sugar. Interestingly, some use stevia to sweeten DCFud's aforementioned yerba mate. The health supplement industry claims that equal, sweet 'n' low, etc. are effectively lobbying to keep stevia/stevioside out of the US. The health supplement industry does tend to ignore the tests that show it may cause lowered fertility and cancer, but that's kinda the same deal we get with aspartame, right? Point being, we shouldn't let the sweetener industry decide what we do or don't get to put in our mouths. Americans should be able to choose their carcinogenic agent of choice to sweeten their coffee every morning. Right?

Posted by: ljk at February 9, 2005 2:05 PM

I luv me some carcincogenic sweetness. (I will note, however, that none of the sweeteners on the market have ever been seriously shown to cause cancer. Liver and kidney problems yes, but not cancer)

Posted by: Michael at February 9, 2005 2:22 PM

I'm personally just for using sugar- if i reemmber right, an average teaspoon really has negligent calories.

If its the atkins effect people are worried about, remember, aspertame (at least in the form of diet soda) is off limits for you too. I'm not sure if splenda is or not.

Posted by: zaf at February 9, 2005 3:17 PM

When I lived in Brazil we used Stevia all the time. It's fine unless you use too much, and then it begins to taste like buttocks. It's got quite a bitter end to it. All this being said, my point is that the US Stevia industry is now marketing it as a dietary supplement by adding fiber to it. Clever, no?

Posted by: b. at February 9, 2005 6:19 PM

Splenda kind of freaks me out because it's so light. Like if you pick up a full box of Splenda, it feels empty. I think they make it by combining helium with sugar.

Posted by: chrisafer at February 12, 2005 9:28 AM

When billions are at stake, it's hard to resist corruption...
Why did Congress stop FDA from banning Saccharin?
Why do they rename splenda to sucralose, other than to mislead the public?

People should have the right to choose it, but people should have the right to avoid it without spending 10 minutes reading the ingredients of every product they buy. Products containing it should be properly labeled with a warning so people who want to avoid it, can do so easily. Too many people have misread sucralose to be sucrose.

Posted by: chuck at July 12, 2005 2:22 PM

 

Post a comment




Remember Me?


All information copyright DCFUD
Site Design by
BinarySpark Graphics
February 9, 2005