France Also Bans Splenda's False Advertising

    WASHINGTON, May 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Johnson & Johnson
 extended their deceptive marketing practices by buying the silence of the
 jury and settling in Merisant Co. v. McNeil Nutritionals. The case called
 into question Johnson & Johnson's motives behind the marketing slogan "Made
 from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" and whether they were aware it was
 leading consumers to believe that Splenda is somehow natural, or more
 natural than other artificial sweeteners.
     According to the Associated Press, just minutes into the deliberations
 last Friday, the jury requested a calculator and a white board, thus
 signaling they would side with Merisant and impose damages on Johnson &
 Johnson for misleading consumers.
     The Sugar Association has a similar lawsuit pending against Johnson &
 Johnson, scheduled to go to trial in California this November. With the
 settlement of the Merisant case, the American consumer continues to be
 shortchanged by the ongoing cover-up of the truth. For that reason, the
 lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson on behalf of thousands of sugar farmers
 will go forward with an even greater sense of urgency.
     "The Merisant case clearly shows that the makers of Splenda have
 knowingly misled consumers," said Andy Briscoe, President and CEO of the
 Washington- based Sugar Association, which represents thousands of sugar
 farmers from across the nation. "We look forward to raising the same
 concerns in our trial this fall."
     Dan Callister, with Squire Sanders & Dempsey, attorneys for the Sugar
 Association said, "We know because of evidence presented at trial that it
 was greatly to Johnson & Johnson's advantage to mislead American consumers.
 We know that Johnson & Johnson knew they were misleading consumers and did
 nothing. It is clear the jury was outraged and wanted to punish Johnson &
 Johnson and immediately asked for a calculator. We know Johnson & Johnson
 then rushed to court and paid millions to persuade Merisant to agree to a
 secret settlement. We know all of this was done for money and with no
 concern for the American consumer. We relish the chance to let a California
 jury get the opportunity to finally do what a Philadelphia jury desperately
 wanted to do. They wanted to teach Johnson & Johnson that it is wrong to
 mislead consumers about what they are eating. It is wrong to tell them they
 are eating sugar when they are eating a chlorinated chemical."
     The case against Splenda was brought by Merisant, manufacturer of the
 artificial sweetener Equal(R), and comes after three other verdicts have
 found the slogan to be misleading. Governing bodies in New Zealand,
 Australia, and, most recently, France have ruled the slogan confuses
 consumers and have ordered McNeil Nutritionals and Johnson & Johnson to ban
 using it in future marketing.
     The Sugar Association demands that Johnson & Johnson do the right thing
 for consumers and take appropriate steps to correct their ads so that they
 are completely truthful. If you would like to be involved or for more
 information on the Sugar Association's effort to educate consumers and
 encourage regulatory agencies to take action to stop consumers from being
 misled by Splenda's false advertising, access
 http://www.TruthAboutSplenda.com.
 
 

SOURCE Sugar Association