We scientists are often taken to task for being too precise—as if being precise is a bad thing. But for better or for worse, I’ve taken that attitude with me from the lab to the communications side of the business and tried to instill it in everyone charged with putting words on these pages. If someone says something, you ought to be able to understand it, and if it’s ambiguous, we better clarify it. Product designers might be mildly interested to hear something is “citius, altius, fortius,” but it’s essential to know how much “faster, higher, stronger” to develop products effectively. Anything less and it’s merely marketing language—and look at what kind of trouble that brings.
Remember when President Clinton argued, “It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”? Well, now the food industry is tussling over the meanings of the words “from” and “so.” In a continuing sweetener- industry battle—more about market share than linguistic purity—Merisant (known for their Nutrasweet brand aspartame) has taken McNeil (known for introducing Splenda brand sucralose) to court over the advertising phrase “made from sugar, (so) it tastes like sugar.” The case, which has begun, but not concluded as of this writing, pits chemistry experts against taste scientists against marketing gurus—though no language authority has joined the fray—to legally determine what the phrase means and whether McNeil “engaged in false and misleading advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and in violation of the Pennsylvania common law of unfair competition.”
According to the opinion of the presiding judge (Gene E. K. Pratter at The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania), posted at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07do256.pdf(John Grisham aficionados may find all 64 pages of interest): “McNeil claims that ‘made from sugar’ clearly excludes the interpretation that Splenda is sugar, or that Splenda is made with sugar. Made with sugar would mean that sugar is an ingredient listed on the package.
Drawing upon an often effective rhetorical device, McNeil asks the question, how could a consumer interpret a product that is ‘made from sugar’ and ‘tastes like sugar’ as actually being sugar?”
Meriant contends that “the Splenda tagline is ‘inherently false’ because there was not a causal relationship between the original sugar molecule and the resulting sugar-like taste of the sucralose molecule,” in using the word “so” (“so it tastes like sugar”). Furthermore, it claims “stating that Splenda is made from sugar implied to consumers that Splenda is more natural and less artificial than competitive sugar substitutes.”
McNeil counters with an affirmative defense of “unclean hands” (which you have to love in the food industry), arguing that they were following McNeil’s lead in positioning their sweetener as “more natural and less artificial.”
Regardless of the outcome of this and a similar war of words between McNeil and the sugar industry, it’s obvious that the words we choose are significant in more ways than one.
