NutraSweet is engaging in exploratory talks with potential partners in China and India regarding the possibility of manufacturing sucralose, the artificial sweetener better known as Splenda.
Tate & Lyle, the manufacturers of Splenda, have so far maintained a monopoly over sucralose with strict patents on the production process, resulting in a supply currently less than the demand. NutraSweet, however, is investigating ways to produce sucralose without infringing on the patents.
Tate & Lyle have stated that they believe they have patented every viable way of producing sucralose through 2020.
Tate & Lyle plans to triple sucralose output by 2007, by expanding their Alabama plant and constructing a new facility in Singapore.
It's no wonder NutraSweet wants to get in on the action. Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of U.S. households using Splenda products jumped from 3 percent to 20 percent. In a one-year period, Splenda sales topped $177 million, compared with $62 million spent on NutraSweet's aspartame-based Equal over the same amount of time.
Of course, that's in part because of Splenda's brilliant marketing scheme, which has convinced millions that the chemical 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside -- the real name of sucralose -- is a natural product much like the sugar from which it is originally, distantly, derived. This deceptive advertising campaign has sparked lawsuits.
The fact is, both NutraSweet and Splenda are terrible for your health, and both should be avoided at all costs. If you have any doubt sucralose isn't good for you at all, despite all the marketing ploys to the contrary, please take a minute to review my comprehensive testimonials page.