Maker of Equal Sues Marketer of Splenda
Is the marketer of Splenda lying or not?
I don’t know if it’s really made from sugar or not, but they’re certainly lying about it tasting like sugar. It tastes different from most artificial sweeteners, yes, but it also tastes rather different from sugar. It would seem to be rather inefficient to start with real sucrose and alter it, rather than just synthesizing the chemical.
Biochemically, I’d absolutely call each ingredient listed a definite sugar or sugar derivative (I just deleted about five paragraphs of explanation of sugar structures, on the grounds that no one would care or remember it for long).
“Splenda tastes like sugar because it is made from sugar” would be a false statement. Yes, it’s quite probably that its chemical similarity to sugar helps it exerti its desired physiological effect, but wood pulp (cellulose), starch and liver glycogen are all made essentially 100% from sugar, with far less changes and additions than Splenda, yet they don’t taste like sugar. Splenda was chosen because it has a desired effect on taste receptors.
Is Splenda actually “made from sugar” innthe factory process chosen for mass production? Off hand I don’t know. It might well be made from cellulose wood fiber (which is synthesized essentially 100% from internal sugar by plants) or from chemicals that arrive from other factories (which might help them make a pure consistent product more efficiently. Scientifically, a molecule is identical no matter how it was made.
Finally the word "sugar’ is ambiguous. There are many legitimate sugars, like glucose aka dextrose aka ‘blood sugar’ – or fructose kak "fruit sugar. Tack those two sugars together with a certain bond, and you get sucrose – table sugar – which , if I was filing a lawsuit, I would call “alpha-D-glucosido-beta-D-fructofuranoside” What sugar is Splenda supposedly made from? Which does it taste like? How close does it have to be?
In the end, I’m a amazed this suit was brought. Every day I see drug ads which, IMHO, and the opinion of almost every other physician I know, are ten times as misleading, and present themselves as hard scientific facts, which the Splenda ads don’t. In fact, I’d say around half or more of the ads on TV are more misleading.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know how big a bite Splenda™ brand sucralose is taking out of the market for Equal™ brand aspartame, which many people have had specific [but not proven] concerns about since the day it came out. I don’t happen to take a position on the alleged superiority of one over the other, but I do see this suit as refecting busines realities more than scientific ones
After all the previous great posts this is going to sound SO tacky, but the truth of the matter is not science as much as it is commerce: Equal is getting its ass kicked by Splenda.
For many foods, for many people, Splenda just plain tastes better.
It also is much more versatile, as it can be used in food items that take some cooking and does sweeten like sugar (albeit the sweetest sugar you ever tasted); Equal is not so accommodating and often has an offputting aftertaste, or at least it seems that way to me. (Your taste may vary.)
your humble TubaDiva
who just finished off the last of this summer’s strawberry jam . . . made with Splenda. It was GOOD.
Vodka is made with sugar, so it tastes like sugar.
And so Equal is trying to take potshots at them. Because Splenda is better. This is what I immediately thought when I read the OP.
My sister is diabetic, and has drunk a lot of diet soft drinks in her day—Diet Pepsi and Diet Mountain Dew being two favorites. Then she had some symptoms that she didn’t like (some loss of taste), and wondered if Equal was contributing to the problem. So she switched to all Splenda. (Diet Rite is the only diet cola so far that uses Splenda, plus some other fruit-flavored soft drinks.) Since she got off Equal, she noticed that her chronically stiff neck (which she’d never associated with Equal) got all better. She doesn’t know for sure if her sense of taste is better (a little, maybe), but for sure the stiffness in her neck is gone.
She’s off Equal for good. Never again. It’s Spenda for her from now on.
Dammit. Someone beat me to it.
Oh well, I’ll just say again that there are few requirements to be a sugar. I don’t know if Splenda starts with any real sugar and transforms it into sucralose (which I doubt) or synthesize it from something else.
But their slogan would be less catchy if it read “Splenda’s chemical structure resembles that of sugar, so it tastes similar to sugar.”
This reminds me of something that has puzzled me about the Splenda that I put on my daughter’s peanut butter toast in the mornings. The box of Splenda that I bought says “MEASURES CUP FOR CUP LIKE SUGAR” on the front, and on the side it says “SPLENDA No Calorie Sweetener measures and sweetens cup for cup and spoon for spoon like sugar, and can be used to replace sugar in most of your favorite recipes.” Then it shows diagrams of teaspoons and cups and says “1 level teaspoon Splenda = 1 level teaspoon sugar” and “1 level cup Splenda = 1 level cup sugar.”
So, it would seem that this formulation of Splenda is supposed to be exactly like sugar. But then, in small letters on the lower right corner of the front of the box, it says “GRANULAR: EQUIVALENT SWEETNESS TO 2 LBS. OF SUGAR,” even though this package weighs only 3.8 ounces (110 grams). So what’s the deal there? When you use 1 tsp of Splenda to substitute for 1 tsp of sugar, is your recipe going to be a lot sweeter than it should be? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
The deal is that Splenda weighs less than the same volume of sugar. It’s like saying “1 cup of feathers = 1 cup of sugar”. The feathers take up the same space, but weigh a lot less. The important thing about teaspoons and cups is that you don’t weigh them. If you used some of the older recipes that asked you to weigh things (people used to have kitchen scales for just that purpose), Splenda wouldn’t substitute ounce-for-ounce for sugar. Fortunately for Splenda, hardly anyone weighs things in the course of typical cooking these days.
Splenda is less dense than sugar. The two pounds reference refers to the volume that two pounds of sugar would take up. So if you measured out the whole box, it would take up the same amount of space as 2 pounds of sugar.
Kinda like if you had… a cup of… umm flour? and a cup of sugar. They’ll (hopefully) weigh different amounts, but you can see that they have the same amount of volume.
waits for someone to state it more eloquently
Let us not forget that Splenda now has a low cal sweetener.
Splenda mixed with real sugar.
4 calories per spoonful.
Didn’t have to wait… someone did it right before me. 
According to my dad, who was a reasearch scientist with the company that makes Splenda until his retirement, Splenda is indeed made from sugar - from sucrose - that has been chlorinated. This does something I don’t quite understand involving switching molecular groups so somethings (alcohols?) are switched to something elses (chloride groups?). The net result is that your body doesn’t recognize it as “food,” and so it passes undigested.
All I know is when I eat the crap I feel like I’ve swallowed a swimming pool, and I belch chlorine for hours.
(I wasn’t a fan of his company’s maxi-pads, either, but we got shit-loads of them for free, so what are you going to do?)
WhyNot: Yes, that’s right. Splenda is made from sugar (sucrose) that has been chlorinated. (This wouldn’t be as simple as mixing sugar with chlorine, but we’d say ‘chlorinated’ to refer to the fact that the product contains chlorine that’s not found in the starting material.) You can see the structure of Splenda here. Apparently sucralose is synthesized from sugar in a five-step process that replaces three of the hydroxyl (OH) groups with chloro groups (Cl). Sucrose is a very cheap, widely available starting material, so it’s much more cost-effective to make sucralose from sucrose than to synthesize the chemical ‘from scratch’.
Uh, I think you’re thinking of rum there, not vodka.
Vodka is made with potatoes, so it tastes like potatoes.
I don’t have any specific figures on market share, but when Tate & Lyle Plc, the maker of Splenda, reported first-half results last month, the company said Splenda’s growth has been “exceptional” and announced that it would spend 97 million pounds to build a plant in Singapore to make the stuff. This will be the second Splenda factory, and the company has expanded the original one in Alabama twice. Draw your own conclusions.
Disclosure: I own Tate & Lyle shares.
I personally find that Splenda tastes EXACTLY like refined sugar.
I think the jury might still be out on Splenda’s side effects, but aspartame (aka Nutra-Sweet aka Equal) has had more complaints about bad reactions to the FDA than all other sweeteners. So if you get more natural flavor and not so much brain cancer, it’s not hard to see why the folks at Equal have their panties in a bunch.
Forget the “it’s made from sugar” part, the lie is “it tastes like sugar”. It definitely doesn’t taste like sugar. It’s horrid. I accidentally bought a couple drinks with Splenda in it and I ended up diluting it with water so I could drink it, no matter how much I diluted it, it was still too sweet and it has an aftertaste.
Potatoes are made of starch, which is a sugar.
Vodka, Rum, and potatoes are all made from sugar, yet taste nothing like sugar. There’s little logic connecting the first half of Splenda’s slogan with the second. Perhaps the phrase is poetic.
I haven’t searched, but having worked in Quality Contorl before, I’d bet they have statistics available to help the “words” lie. People become real suckers when you start to cite numbers. 