Posted on 01/31/2005 8:19:42 AM PST by ladtx
Press Release
| Source: Texas Consumer Association |
Texas Group Takes Aim at Splenda's Campaign of Misinformation
Monday January 31, 11:01 am ET
"With consumers across the country concerned about their health and trying to eat more natural foods, it is alarming that McNeil is engaged in an underhanded campaign to confuse consumers into believing Splenda is natural," commented Sandra Haverlah, president of the Texas Consumer Association.
The Texas Consumer Association asked the FTC to step in and mandate that McNeil provide consumers with accurate and truthful information about Splenda.
McNeil has no foundation for the claims it is making in its deceptive ads, since Splenda is not a natural derivative of sugar. What's more, it is not even necessary to use sugar to manufacture Splenda.
"McNeil's campaign is a sham," Haverlah asserted. "It's time for the FTC to investigate."
McNeil's deception, however, has begun to have a significant impact: Splenda has grabbed almost 40% of the U.S. consumer sweetener market, taking market share not just from artificial sweeteners, but also from natural sugar.
Splenda's success in the marketplace comes as Texas and the rest of the country grapple with a growing obesity crisis. Thirty-five percent of children in Texas are overweight or obese, according to the Texas Agriculture Commission, and childhood obesity in Texas has doubled over the past 20 years.
Haverlah said that many consumers are purchasing Splenda based on a belief that it is in some way "more natural" than -- and therefore preferable to -- other artificial sweeteners or food additives.
"Consumers should be given the truth about the products they buy and eat, and McNeil is trying to pull the wool over consumers' eyes," Haverlah continued. "This campaign of misinformation must be stopped."
Sandra Haverlah, President of Texas Consumer Association, sent the following letter, dated Jan. 31, to the Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, at the Federal Trade Commission:
Consumers in Texas and across the country deserve to be told the truth about the food they eat and the products they buy. That's why it's so alarming that throughout the course of its marketing campaign, Johnson & Johnson company McNeil Nutritionals has been attempting to confuse consumers into believing that its artificial sweetener Splenda is a natural product by linking Splenda to sugar. It's up to the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that the information provided to us through advertising is accurate. The Texas Consumer Association therefore asks the FTC to fully investigate this misleading advertising campaign and stop McNeil from continuing its campaign of misinformation.
By continually using the word "sugar" in its advertisements and in its packaging, McNeil is attempting to link Splenda and sugar in consumers' minds. But McNeil has no foundation for its claims. Splenda isn't natural. On the contrary, it is a man-made artificial sweetener formed by a complex chemical reaction.
With obesity at an all-time high in the U.S. and the low-carbohydrate diet phenomenon remaining strong, Splenda has grabbed almost 40% of the U.S. consumer sweetener market share. An increasing number of consumers are purchasing Splenda based on their belief that it is in some way "more natural" -- and therefore more healthy -- than any other artificial sweetener or food additive.
Consumers need to understand that developing good, healthy eating habits will lead to weight loss. This is especially important for children, who are developing eating habits they will carry with them throughout life. Thirty- five percent of children in Texas are overweight or obese, according to the Texas Agriculture Commission. Childhood obesity in Texas has doubled over the past 20 years. These are startling statistics.
Luckily, Texas schools have started to take constructive steps toward helping students eat better. Like the latest edition of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, the state of Texas is recommending eating natural, whole grain foods, fruits and vegetables.
Given the state and national push for healthy, natural foods, it is greatly disturbing that McNeil would try to confuse and mislead consumers into believing that Splenda is natural. Even more troubling, many of Splenda's new advertisements focus on children and many of the new foods that include Splenda are juices, cereals, and snacks children tend to eat. In its recent letter to the FTC on this topic, Generation Green noted that these ads aim to encourage children to eat low-sugar products suggesting that "low sugar" and "with Splenda" means the product is healthier. The Texas Consumer Association shares Generation Green's concern that this misleading marketing campaign is hindering the ability of parents to make informed, health-guided decisions about the food they buy for their families.
It's time for McNeil to stop misleading the public. The Texas Consumer Association strongly urges the FTC to investigate this advertising campaign and instruct McNeil to tell the truth about Splenda.
There has never been a sugar substitute that tastes like sugar to me. I am an early Type II diabetic but I will not use sugar substitutes. I work off my sugar with medicine and exercise.
BTW - here's a little tip. Cinnamon has no sugar. It's often combined with sugar to sweeten foods but there are also products that are cinnamon with a low or no amount of sugar. Read the labels but don't automatically dismiss cinnamon as something to avoid.
malitol is a sugar alcohol made from malodextrin. It has some calories but no influence on insulin.....all the sugar alcohols do this but can cause stomach distress if too much is taken
I am not diabetic, but I use Splenda to sweeten tea-- no tooth decay issues. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how natural Splenda is said to be. Anyone who can't figure out that it is sugar that has been chemically altered needs to go back to school. Of course it's not natural! By the way-- I notice no aftertaste whatsoever, and I'm persnickety.
There's no mention that many consumers use Splenda, instead of sugar, when cooking -- something that cannot be done with Equal (aspartame). It's a good product. Diet Rite Cola, sweetened with Splenda, tastes better than most diet soft drinks that use aspartame.
I buy it not because it's "like sugar", but because I can cook with it. No other major sweetener can really handle scorching heat without breaking down.
I too an a diabetic. I use Splenda because Nutrasweet gives me an instant migraine.
There are many foods I cannot eat because they are sweetened only with aspartame at the present time, things like gelatins, puddings, and flavored yogurts.
Splenda is selling better than other artificial sweeteners because it tastes better. If Splenda is cutting into sugar sales, that's good for the overall health of the country.
The primary ingredient in splenda is dextrose. Dextrose is a sugar.
Sucralose is the ingredient that makes splenda really sweet. sucralose is a derivative of sucrose (table sugar), and is indigestible (no calories). Safe to say that about as unnatural as aspartame (nutrasweet), which is a far cry more natural than saccharine.
Same here. Splenda is the only sweetener, other than sugar, that I can use in my coffee with no bitter aftertaste.
Then I wonder who paid for this survery??
I totally agree - Splenda is NOT natural..I stay totally away from it. If you want a truly natural sugar substitute, try "Whey Low"...it's made from the natural sugars in dairy whey, does not raise glucose levels and REALLY tastes like sugar...it's fabulous. The website is: www.wheylow.com
Do you like it? I suppose I'll get used to the taste eventually. I better get used to it or my husband's going to stop speaking to me. He strongly suspects that the neurological problems I've been having are due to my aspartame consumption.
It's a lot closer to sugar than any other artificial sweetener that I've tasted but not quite the same. Of course I can also tell the difference between sugar and corn sweetener.
I had never seen cyclamate, so I looked it up. Evidently it's being reconsidered for the market (it's 30 times SWEETER than sugar!) after being yanked in 1970.
FDA's Cancer Assessment Committee (CAC) reviewed the scientific evidence and reached the following conclusion in 1984: "[T]he collective weight of the many experiments... indicates that cyclamate is not carcinogenic." In June 1985, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reaffirmed the CAC's conclusion noting, "the totality of the evidence from studies in animals does not indicate that cyclamate or its major metabolite cyclohexylamine is carcinogenic by itself."
As usual.
I find Splenda to be a very useful product. But then, some of us are very sensitive and should, perhaps, not explore new products in this very imperfect world in which we live.
Cyclamate is still legal and available in Canada, however saccharine (sp?) is illegal here (AFAIK).
Personally Aspartame and Acesulfame-Potassium (as used in Diet Pepsi) work just fine for me, and I've still yet to see any credible and/or repeatable research showing Aspartame to cause any problems, although there are a lot of crazy websites with many fonts and colours (you know the type) and lots of anecdotal evidence against it.
"Aspartame is a toxic substance - many chemists consider it a poison."
Never proven, and most of the websites and other resources that make these sorts of claims look like tinfoilers, or are associated with other quackery like holistic medicine, chiropractic, and so on. Colour me skeptical - I've been consuming it in rather large quantities, starting over 20 years ago, and have never experienced any ill effects from it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.