Splenda's Detractors

One of the most egregious instances of the abuse of state power comes in the form of corporations or industries that try to rectify their failures in the marketplace with litigation. A recent example is the recent rash of lawsuits against Splenda from competitors, including the Sugar Association. Splenda's detractors argue that its sales pitch, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar," is misleading, giving consumers the impression that it's a natural product (when in fact, it is just another artificial sweetener — a better one, in my view).

The complaint is absurd for two reasons. First, Splenda doesn't claim that it is sugar — only that it tastes like sugar. Anybody who ever studied similes in sixth-grade English should understand that. Second, even if close to half of those in the Center for Science in the Public Interest's survey thought that Splenda was natural, that phenomenon is hardly the manufacturer's fault. Splenda never claimed to be a natural product, and it should not be held at-fault for any misperceptions stemming from the consumer. (Besides, what about the other half of the survey respondents who knew that Splenda was artificial? They clearly were not misled.)

This is just another example of corporations trying to achieve in the courtroom what they could not in the marketplace — namely, competing against their rivals. Perhaps it's time for some angry e-mails to the Sugar Association!