Artificially Sugarcoated Sweetener

An article in The New York Times today discusses a lawsuit brought against the makers of Splenda, the artificial sweetener that commands 62% market share, by the makers of Equal, which once dominated the category.

The lawsuit concerns one carefully crafted phrase: "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." So boasts Splenda's tagline, though Equal insists that the claim is misleading and untrue. Merisant is the maker of Equal, while McNeil Nutritionals is the company behind Splenda. The article asserts:

It is unusual for a dispute over advertising claims to go to a jury trial. The case centers on Splenda’s tagline “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” — a claim that Equal mocks as an “urban myth” on its Web site.

While both sides are expected to present phalanxes of neurobiologists and chemists as expert witnesses, the dispute hinges on the role of language in creating and defining the product.

“The phrase ‘made from sugar’ may seem simple enough, but it has spawned an epic battle among the parties over proper diction and syntax,” the judge overseeing the case, Gene E. K. Pratter, wrote in an opinion last month.

“For example, McNeil claims that ‘made from sugar’ clearly excludes the interpretation that Splenda is sugar, or that Splenda is made with sugar,” she continued. “Made with sugar would mean that sugar is an ingredient listed on the package. Drawing upon an often effective rhetorical device, McNeil asks the question, how could a consumer interpret a product that is ‘made from sugar’ and ‘tastes like sugar’ as actually being sugar?”

I come from an advertising background, and I worked in marketing before I enrolled in graduate school. My instincts tell me that in general, one should be cautious of claims made by advertisers because though they are often technically true, it is often the case that they are misleading. Advertising is a mecca for hyperbole and superfluous fluff, and consumers are bombarded with more claims than even the most astute subconscious has time to register. That said, it is important for the public to understand how language can be used strategically to convey a problematic message. The article continues:

In papers that were filed with the court and sealed — but were then cited by the judge in her opinion last month — McNeil acknowledged that “unaltered sugar/sucrose is not an ingredient in Splenda.” Rebecca Tushnet, a professor of advertising law at Georgetown University who has followed the case, said: “The key issue is, what can you say about your product that’s made in a lab and its relationship to nature? How much can you suggest that it’s natural, whether because the components were found in nature, or your body processes it as natural?”

Merisant argues that it is chemistry, not sugar, that generates Splenda’s sweetness. “At the end of the day, they say Splenda is ‘made from sugar,’ ” said Merisant’s lead outside lawyer, Gregory LoCascio of Kirkland & Ellis. “People think it’s sugar without the calories, or skim sugar, or magic sugar, and it’s not. It’s artificial sweetener.”

McNeil’s outside lawyers referred all calls to a McNeil spokeswoman, Julie Keenan, who provided a statement saying that Splenda “is made from pure cane sugar by a patented process that makes three atomic changes to the sugar (sucrose) molecule.”

“The resulting sweetener, called sucralose, retains the sweet taste of sugar,” she said.

Equal, also known as aspartame, also does not have an iota of sugar in it. It is composed of two amino acids and a methyl ester group. But Equal promotes itself as an artificial sweetener and tones down the references to sugar in its marketing, saying only that it “has sweet, clean taste, like sugar.”

If anything can be gleaned from this story, it is that consumers should be cautious of claims made by advertisers. After all, advertisers are attempting to generate sales, bottom line. But this is not new. What is unique about this case is that brings to light how language can be used to create ambiguous messages. Be wary, therefore, of the claims advertisers make. They don't call it "sweet-talk" for nothin'.