By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2005

ARTICLES
Publication Date: February 23, 2005

The fight between the Sugar Association and McNeil Nutritionals, the distributors of the very popular sugar substitute Splenda, has also spawned some strange bedfellows.

A leading critic of sugar, Michael Jacobson from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, stepped forward this week at a press conference to hold hands with the Sugar Association to protest what both say are Splenda's misleading ad claims that the sweetener is "made from sugar" and "tastes like sugar."

Last week, the Florida Consumer Action Network (FCAN) added its voice to the chorus calling for the FTC to examine the Splenda ads. "By using the word 'sugar' and the phrase 'made from sugar' over and over again in its advertising, Johnson & Johnson [McNeil's parent company] is trying to confuse consumers into believing that Splenda is a natural product," FCAN complained.

There are all sorts of semantic nuances here — but the reality is that Splenda does have its distant origins in sugar. As to whether it tastes like sugar — that's a value judgment best left up to the individual (I love Splenda's sweetness, but my husband much prefers 15 calories of the real thing in his coffee).

But what's really at the heart of this battle of the sweeteners is chemicalphobia.

From two very different angles, both the Sugar Association and the so-called consumer groups reject Splenda because it is a product of food technology — it is not found in nature. But neither is highly refined "natural" sugar.

The Sugar Association chose chemicalphobia as its weapon to fight declining sugar sales. Indeed, the sugar folks have a long history of trying to scare consumers about "chemicals": They ran a late '80s ad comparing a bowl of sugar and blue Equal (aspartame) packets, asking, "Which would you rather put on your kid's cereal?"

The sugar companies told us that their product was "pure . . . 100 percent natural . . . contains no mystery ingredients . . . no manmade chemicals."

Since most "consumer groups" reject processed, synthetic or otherwise "unnatural" food, they have now been driven into this distinctly unnatural alliance with Big Sugar. A natural product, for these advocates, is by definition "good"; processed, chemical-laden foods are, by contrast, bad. Thus, although it must have been a bitter pill for them to swallow, CSPI was implicitly endorsing sugar over Splenda because sugar is "natural."

Of course, this is all nonsense.

To argue that "natural" is inherently superior to artificial is an emotional ploy, not a scientific statement. Tobacco and poisonous mushrooms and are also "natural" — and come with a side-order of deadly consequences.

The chemicals in sugar substitutes are deemed "harmful" because they have strange, unfamiliar, sometimes unpronounceable names and, says the Sugar Association, should be eschewed because they are "highly processed chemical compounds made in a factory." (Splenda's active ingredient is sucralose, which is made by chlorinating sugar.)

By using chemicalphobia to compete with Splenda and Nutrasweet, the Sugar Association is shooting itself in the foot — distorting science to play on the public's fear of chemicals.

The fact that this nation's harshest food industry critic, Michael Jacobson, is joining with the sugar industry to attack Splenda should give the sugar folks all the evidence they need to conclude they are on the wrong side of the argument.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org).

Source Notes:  
New York Post