Sugar is Just Bitter
Yesterday, the National Sugar Association held a joint press conference with the National Grange and their nemesis, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a left-wing advocacy group, to call attention to their complaints to the FTC over Splenda’s advertising slogan, “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.”
Despite the fact that the phrase is literally true, as even the CSPI acknowledges, the danger to consumers is that they might be misled into thinking that Splenda (chemical name: sucralose) is somehow natural and not synthetic. Oh dear! Those poor consumers.
As a consumer of Splenda myself, I don’t give two figs that the production process involves chlorinating sugar molecules (though that does interest me in a casual, scholarly way). And I doubt that such information will be of much use to the public in general, who probably choose Splenda because it is a no-calorie sweetener that doesn’t have the ill-effects of aspartame or saccharin (Note: Equal is also joining the complaints against Splenda).
It’s not surprising that the professional busybodies at the CSPI would get involved here, as it’s their job to complain and call for the state to get involved in every aspect of our lives. The interest of the sugar, agriculture, and sweetener industries is more telling. Afterall, Splenda “accounts for 51 percent of the market share for artificial sweeteners,” and, “sales of sugar fell 5 percent,” in 2004.
Of course, bickering about a marketing slogan is relatively mild compared to how big businesses have used the government to squelch competition in the past. Take margarine, for example. But you know the allied industries wouldn’t be happy unless ‘anal leakage’ appeared somewhere on the package.
I hope Splenda has much success in fending off these gripers, but I do like this pithy response from a spokesman for the manufacturers of sucralose, “From our perspective, whatever the outcome of the litigation, sucralose will still be made from sugar, and still taste like sugar.”
26 Responses to “Sugar is Just Bitter”
“Equal is also joining the complaints against Splenda.”
It’s hard to think of a better example of rent seeking.
Big business is trying to protect itself from other big business … gosh, how does a big-business-lover choose sides here?
Ah, I know — look for the consumer protection groups. Whatever side they’re on, we’re against!
Jebus, Aaron–do you really think that Zach, a libertarian, or for that matter any of us, really are “supporters of big business?” If we did, we’d probably support a system in which Big Corporations joined together with Big Unions and Big Government in order to protect internal markets, reduce competition, and subsidize products for export. Why, such a policy would look a lot like…Germany, circa 1985.
And then we wouldn’t be right-wingers at all, would we?
I didn’t call him a big-business-supporter, I called him a big-business-lover. I think there’s a difference.
I didn’t call him a big-business-supporter, I called him a big-business-lover. I think there’s a difference.
I must’ve missed it.
“I must’ve missed it.”
… blinded by love.
For the record, I support capitalism and the free-market, and to the extent that successful businesses that play by just rules may grow to be big, I celebrate their success.
As for the power of these large industries, I would abhor their use of the government for unjust activities. In this sense, I’m not a lover of big-business — except for Eli Lilly & Co., in which I own stock.
And also for the record, Aaron is a troll. Let’s ignore him.
“I’m not a lover of big-business — except for Eli Lilly & Co., in which I own stock.”
I am invested in index funds, so I only love business-friendly regulatory regimes.
As an aside, has there ever been a more unsuccessful organization than the CSPI? Is there any other organization in history whose advocacy can be so negatively correlated to people’s actual behavior?
I’ve never tasted Splenda, but my father regularly uses it, so I know what the product looks like. (Come to think of it, I might have tasted something once my mother baked with Splenda, but it was clearly nothing memorable.) Splenda does not resemble sugar. It is much lighter in weight than sugar and appears as a fine, flaky powder rather than in granules. Splenda is also a preternaturally bright shade of white. No one would ever confuse it for sugar.
IMHO, the real reason for Splenda’s sales growth the past two years is that it is the preferred sweetener for Atkins. That’s certainly the reason why my dad uses it.I may be a troll, but Zach IS a big-business-lover. Here’s why:
This is actually a story about the sweetner industry using misplaced concern for consumer safety to stifle competition. But Zach doesn’t get to that element of the story until one little sentence near the end — most of what we’re concerned with is reaming the CSPI for trying to overprotect consumers. As an afterthought, the “stifle competition” thing is mentioned.
The crazy thing is, this is a perfect example of why we need consumer protection — the sweetner companies are perfectly willing to LIE about whether or not a product is safe/harmless or not to make a buck. Who cares? Not big-business-lovers.
The big business interests in this story aren’t doing anything different from what the consumer protection organization is — except they’re dong it for a profit. That makes them better, I guess — because who gets 90 percent of Zach’s wrath? The consumer protection organization, of course.
That’s true love — willingness to forgive the person you love for doing something you’d never forgive someone else for.
I think the CSPI’s intellectual seriuosness is summed up here:
“Shopping was easy when most food came from farms. Now, factory-made foods have made chemical additives a significant part of our diet. ”
When most food came from farms, of course, most people didn’t “shop,” and in any event food consumption was much simpler because people had a choice of eating their pig, their cow, their lamb or their produce (if, that is, they were exceptionally wealthy). Damn modern society for making it so complicated to get our food!
Splenda … is much lighter in weight than sugar and appears as a fine, flaky powder rather than in granules. Splenda is also a preternaturally bright shade of white. No one would ever confuse it for sugar.
Hmm… I got a few free sample packets once, and although it may have been a little different physically from sugar, the taste was remarkably similar. I’d certainly choose it over Equal, but since I’m blessed with a high metabolism, I’m not really interested in no-calorie sweeteners.
“[B]ecause who gets 90 percent of Zach’s wrath? The consumer protection organization, of course.”
They both got about a third.
Zacc calls the CPSI a “left-wing advocacy group.” He calls them “professional busybodies.” He says “it’s their job to complain and call for the state to get involved in every aspect of our lives.”
As for the sugar industry, he says they’re “bickering about a marketing slogan” (awww … how cute. Look at ‘em, they’re just “bickering” — not “lying to the public about whether a food product is safe”).
Doesn’t look like equal to me … one group gets treated lovingly — “oh they’re just bickering” — the other doesn’t.
Maya Keyes was made from Alan Keyes, but one seems slightly sweeter than the other.
I am surprised that no one mentioned the subsidies that the taxpayer suffers in the sugar markets. This is a level up from rent seeking.
From now on, I’ll do an internal poll on how much wrath I’ll need to heap upon various parties, do a word count, then adjust diction for dosage strength. And then remove any kind of rhetorical flair.
I didn’t mean for my post to come across as if I was coddling business and scorning CSPI, but now that you mention it, yeah, I think CSPI is a worthless organization, whereas the businesses actually produce things people want and need.
Lying to consumers is OK, as long as you’re pursuing a profit (at worst, you’ll get accused of “bickering.”) Just don’t try to actually PROTECT consumers — then you’re “worthless,” a “busybody.”
That’s the jist of what you’ve said so far. Sometimes what lurks underneath your posts scares the hell out of me, Zach. Seeing what you value is a frightening thing. But it’s better to know how you feel, I guess.
You keep saying someone’s lying, Aaron, but it doesn’t sound like it to me. Sucralose is made from sugar; it does take pretty much like sugar; and its branding and marketing campaign also makes clear that it is not sugar. CSPI is a bunch of busybodies; they don’t produce anything; and they are possibly harmful to the social welfare, should anyone in Washington take them seriously (and this Congress and administration, thankfully, probably won’t).
Indeed, the only people who are lying in this are the sugar industry representatives, and Zach’s clever headline and the content of both his post and the linked articles make this clear.
Doesn’t look like equal to me … one group gets treated lovingly — “oh they’re just bickering” — the other doesn’t.
The CSPI does not appear to be the target of the “anal leakage” line, which has to count for something (even if you do believe it is worse to be called “left-wing” than to be accused of advocating this extreme standard).
Paul, the sugar industry executives were who I was referring to as lying, because Zach assumes they are.
My point was how he treated the sugar industry for an act I find despicable (lying about the health consequences of a product in order to make a profit), compared to how he treated the CSPI for, at worst, overzealously … trying to HELP people! The horror!
As for being worthless unless you are “producing anything” … well, if that’s the standard by which we measure value than you are worthless and so is Zach. All both of you do all day is exactly what the CPSI does — think about policy and make suggestions for improvement.
“CSPI is a bunch of busybodies; … they are possibly harmful to the social welfare, should anyone in Washington take them seriously”
Harmful as opposed to what — as opposed to letting the big corporations decide for *themselves* what’s “healthy,” unhindered by “worthless” public interest groups?
This on the same site where Josh’s dad is asking for money for cancer research — if it weren’t so sad it’d be funny. Your economic/political policies will keep those cancer researchers busy for years to come.
who probably choose Splenda because it is a no-calorie sweetener that doesn’t have the ill-effects of aspartame or saccharin
Saccharine??? What ill effects???
Here’s an excerpt Wall Street Journal column available at JunkScience.com (emphasis mine):
‘The Report on Carcinogens, created by an act of Congress in 1978, has always been vulnerable to political uses. Environmental groups have used the list to stir up public fright over pesticides, using dubious methods to get them classified as “probable human carcinogens,” then leaving them on the list for years without further efforts to validate their concerns. Substances such as saccharine have languished there despite weak evidence. In many cases, a chemical’s supposed carcinogenicity in humans was extrapolated from feeding staggering doses to animals. The fact is that virtually anything can become toxic in sufficiently large amounts.’
JunkScience.com also has an item from Lancet that challenges anti-aspartame concerns. All I need to know about aspartame is that it tastes vile.
As for sucralose, I’d have a better opinion on its taste if the few sodas that have it weren’t oversweetened.
Saccharine??? What ill effects???
The aftertaste.
I’ve never had an aftertaste problem with saccharine. Then again, I have it only in restaurant-quality iced tea, hot coffee (w/cream), and hot tea (usually Earl Grey).
For the record, I support capitalism and the free-market, and to the extent that successful businesses that play by just rules may grow to be big, I celebrate their success.
Just rules? There is nothing a corporation won’t do in pursuit of a profit as long as it can skirt government regulation and nominally keep public opinion on its side. If you Libertarians had your way we’d all be painting our houses with lead paint, insulating it with abestos and killing household pests with DDT. And as the birth defects and dead bodies piled up you’d all be celebrating it as a victory for personal freedom and liberty as long as we didn’t levy any taxes on such items, that is. Then you’d scream “Thief! Thief!” until you were hoarse.
P.S. I’m not Aaron but you can go ahead and label me as a troll if you like. Anybody who doesn’t think like you automatically gets the troll label don’t they?