SubscribeSplenda Buys Hundreds of Anti-Splenda Domains
The makers of Splenda have been busy. Busy enough to purchase over 211 domain names - such as SplendaKills.com, SplendaPoison.com, SplendaVictims.com.
It is an elaborate and insidious ploy to prevent any negative information being written on-line.
Splenda is the brand name for Sucralose - an artificial sweetener created by UK food processing company Tate & Lyle. The product was co-developed in the US by Johnson & Johnson - and is now sold under the umbrella company McNeil Nutritionals.
According the Sustainable is Good blog, Johnson & Johnson, and Tate & Lyle embarked on a two-pronged campaign to stifle any negative press.
- Find any negative websites about Splenda, and buy up all similar names. (I checked one site I know of - SplendaSucks.com. This is owned by blogger Joey Goldman. I then checked the site SpendaSucks.net -- and found it was owned by Johnson & Johnson).
- Register any domain name they can think of that might be used to write negative information. (see the Sustainable blog for a bigger list).
I'm not one that likes to fall prey to conspiracy theories about big corporations. However such heavy-handed and controlling tactics make me extremely wary.
While on the subject of Splenda - did you know that it is not zero calorie? Splenda actually contains 2 Calories per teaspoon. Due to FDA labeling madness idiosyncrasies - it is allowed to be called "zero calories" (reference).
(Thanks Patricia)
Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- Movie Review: Bigger, Stronger, Faster
- 13 Big Fat Dieting Myths
- It's the "Exercise Freaks" Causing Healthcare Strain!
- Salad vs. Big Mac: Which Has More Calories?
- Boil Carrots Whole for More Nutrients
- FORUM
- What Keeps You Motivated to Lose Weight?
- Starting My Weight Loss Journey
- Weight Loss Plateau Following Gastric Bypass
- Self Hypnosis for Dieting
- I'm Sick of Not Being "tinytasha"
ADVERTISING
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
;>)
------
I was absolutey facinated when I first ran across this info. It is really jaw dropping the lengths they will go through to prevent truthful info spreading through various domain names.
On further reflection, it just may backfire on them, if enough blogs pick up on this and spread the word...and the media picks up on this. People can draw their own conslusions as to why a company would want to 'cover all tracks'.
I can only hope that through this they may just have put a noose around their own necks.
Let's spread the word!!
ReplySo a company is registering domains related to their trademark?
So what? They don't want people to have a website called SplendaPoison.com?
So what?
It's not like they're sending you a cease and desist letter telling you not to post a study that is critical of Splenda.
In fact, you're posting this in order to cast aspersions on the product by attacking its actions, and logically, that doesn't stand.
If you have some medically validated, scientifically accurate studies to post about the product, please, post them.
The domain name you post them under won't matter one iota. What matters is the content.
But if you're suspicious of Splenda simply because it's "a chemical made by man, and everything man made is bad, and everything natural is good", then go ahead and make that a separate post (and I will gladly refute and ridicule that line of thinking).
Like I said, a company buying up domains related to it's trademark (even if they're bad or critical of it) is not infringement of anyones free speech, nor is it unethical, immoral, or illegal.
ReplyCorrection:
In fact, you're posting this in order to cast aspersions on the product by attacking its *parent company's* actions, and logically, that doesn't stand.
That would be equivalent to saying Hondas are bad cars because Honda Inc. fired 200 employees.
Logically, one doesn't have anything to do with the other.
ReplyThis is a fairly typical business practice and smart from a purely entrepreneurial perspective. For instance, I know Lane Bryant owns the domain name LameBryant.com
ReplyThe point is not so much that they are exercising their right, or is a clever entrepenural move at all.
Have either of you done the research on Splenda/sucralose?
This is trying to trivialize the subject, IMO. Again, do the research. It is most definately not 'simply because it is man-made'.
ReplyIn the interest of fair play, I think I should mention that lots of nutritional information is rounded down in terms of calories, and most Splenda packages due say that in large quantity Splenda contributes minimal (which it is) calories.
The only people worrying about 2-5 extra are the ED'd.
I'm not saying that -any- business is the height of purity and righteousness, but Splenda isn't devil incarnate either.
Reply"I'm not one that likes to fall prey to conspiracy theories." So why did you post this?
They've bought similar domains for their other products. Anyway, since when do you need a particular domain to write about Splenda? It isn't stopping you, is it?
Spenda is the new MSG: people need something to be paranoid about, and since research into the nefarious effects of MSG fizzled out, Splenda is it.
ReplyA _great_ many major companies do this. You should be neither surprised nor shocked to learn that this is happening. I used to work for a company that did domain name registration, and believe me, this tactic is not new.
ReplyBecause avoiding MSG is a no-brainer.
ReplyNot getting into the whole good for you bad for you thing this is just a really really stupid thing to do from a business perspective.
All it does it heighten the issue and make them look like they've got something to hide.
After all, if I were that way inclined I could just as easily go for 'why-splenda-kills.com' or some other just slightly more hyphened url. There are millions of possible urls. Someone with very little marketing nous has done this.
If they've nothing to hide why do this?
Personally a much better practice would be to just embrace the blogosphere and other webmasters if they attack the product and try to answer their concerns through conversations, honesty and autheticity.
That'd go a lot further than simply acting like a big company and trying to silence people (albeit by buying up just 211 of x million potential domains.)
Ta
ReplyRoss
@Patricia:
I'm not required to "do the research". The FDA has already done an (IMHO) acceptable amount of research into it, and I am fine with that.
Since you are the person making the assertions, you must prove your assertions.
Where is your proof that sucralose is harmful, and does this evidence follow the accepted guidelines (multiple peer-reviewed double-blind studies over an extensive amount of time)?
ReplyAnother sugar-related evil plot!
:-)
Brian
ReplyYes, I also read that the White House bought a bunch of domain names like GWBsucks.com, etc.
Jesus, that must mean it's a conspiracy.
Get a grip.
ReplyWell it's caused a splash anyway
http://www.technorati.com/search/splenda+domains
ReplyI don't find their actions suspicious. I think it is a fairly common business practise.
ReplyPerhaps if one can go beyond the marketing tactics (yes, yes common business practice) and move on to the actual reason behind all this - the health aspect - one can appreciate drawing attention here on this blog about this product sucralose=Splenda.
Well, Nate...if you are content with putting faith into the FDA and refuse to do simple online research yourself - it is your health. LOL
IMHO, the FDA & Co. must not be taken as the (safe) last word, as their past track record has proven. An example: Vioxx was approved by the FDA. Vioxx has killed more than 55,000 people. Splenda had even less 'research' done on it than Vioxx.
By the way, Nate - the FDA based its 'findings' about Splenda on a mere 2 out of 6 'tested on human' trials on 36 people who were testing it for less than 6 days (can't recall exact length) and were testing it mostly for tooth decay. There have never been any long term testing done by Splenda or any other 'official' body. But there has been by independant groups.
Ok...for those who ARE interested here are but a few links to start with. Type 'dangers of splenda' or dangers of sucralose' in any search engine and you will find plenty of material to make your own decision.
http://blog.worldvillage.com/health/sucralose_dangers.html
http://www.rense.com/general63/SPLENte.htm
http://vitalvotes.com/blogs/public_blog/Do-the-Makers-of-Splenda-Know-Something-They-Aren-t-Telling-You--7900.aspx
http://www.mercola.com/2003/aug/23/splenda.htm
http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-sweeteners.html
By the way, Splenda was discovered as scientists were looking for a new pesticide.
ReplyWho cares if it has 2 big calories!!! If I sold a product and there were people out there that had nothing better to do than destroy a perfectly safe product...(If you feel otherwise I'd love to see your hard evidence!), I would buy up the domains also.
This product helps those with diabetes. I do not have any stake in this product. I think the conspiracy theorists who think all big companies are out to get us need to eat a big bowl of oatmeal and and meditate.
Have a great day.: )
Reply'Perfectly safe????'
Amazing.
ReplyPatricia - Are you just mad that they registered SplendaKills.com before you did? :) I'm sure there are still lots of anti-Splenda domains available.
I also discovered that companies can subscribe to services that monitor all new domain registrations and will alert them if someone registers a domain with their trademark. Kind of creepy.
ReplyThis sounds like such a corporate thing to do. Whether you believe in the product or not, the Splenda people are being a bit paranoid.
It does bring to mind a great strategy for us diet site bloggers, though. Start posting negatively about Splenda (only if it's true, of course) and see if they'll make us an offer.
Reply@Patricia: I have done the research - so I would love to know what research (peer reviewed - not internet hype) you're referring to.
I think a lot of businesses employ this practice of buying up both good and bad domain names - if they don't then they should!
ReplyHey - Splenda sucks! Oh, and by they way, did I mention that I sell my own -natural- low-calorie sweetener on my website? :)
ReplyAnd Microsoft owns BillGatesistheDevil.com...
Patricia, we don't need to research a product to comment on a business practice. We are not talking the merits of the product. Jim didn't post about whether Splenda kills, he posted about the domain purchases. As an owner of an internet company, I think I'm more than qualified to comment on internet business practices.
ReplyStandard operating procedure; every major company does this and has been doing it for years. Nothing new here, nor will this impact Splenda's bottom line, at all. Add me to the "so what" column.
I'm sure those who insist on wigging out all crazy-eyed on any synthetic product can find some combination of OMGSPLENDAISADEADLYKILLER.COM to register so they can put up a web page and BRING THE TRUTH TO THE SHEEPLE.
Note to those who do: Make sure to capitalize everything and use lots of exclamation points. Then, center everything on the page, so it's nothing but centered, capitalized exclamations. Then, link to Mercola's website at the end.
ReplyI mean how could they possibly think up every name? There must be thousands of combinations and permutations.
ReplyI USE ABOUT ONE ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL SIZE BAG OF SPLENDA EVERY WEEK SO THE FACT THAT IT HAS 2 CALORIES PER TEASPOON WOULD EXPLAIN WHY I'M DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT ON MY DIET AND EXERCISE PLAN AND STILL NOT LOSING WEIGHT. THAT'S OVER 1000 CALORIES A WEEK OF SOMETHING I THOUGHT WAS CALORIE FREE! I LOVE THE PRODUCT AS A SUGER REPLACEMENT BUT WILL DEFINETELY BE USING MUCH LESS OF IT.
ReplyIt is really not a big deal that Splenda is doing this. It's pro-active for them and the intelligent marketing thing to do. The internet can be a very destructive place where libel laws seem to not exist and smear campaigns are pretty easy to pull off (look at that anti-Hillary video on YouTube that was supposedly done by Obama ... which it wasn't; that ultimately smeared both of them). Splenda is smart to do this and it has nothing whatsoever to do with their faith in their product or their supposedly secret knowledge that it might be poison.
ReplyStephanie, how do you manage to go through one of those that fast? Are you eating it plain? Seriously, I use Splenda a lot, and whenever I buy 2 of those, it last me between 12 and 14 months. You use that in 2 weeks? Wow.
ReplyIggy - its not standard operating procedure for companies to buy 211 confirmed domain names related to one product - if you have examples to back up your point on this being SOP please let me know. Furthermore its not SOP for companies to show such widespread fear of negativity towards one of their products. If you look at the domain names I was able verify J&J and Tate own they clearly came up with a plan and brainstormed on possible future negative names based on their concerns past, present or future related to the climate of negative publicity on their product. I don't think this story is a "so-what" otherwise I wouldn't have written it, I think its an interesting look into marketing and brand protection. -rider
ReplySustainable;
Maybe that's because certain people are as vehement towards, say, Tyson's frozen bagged chicken as they are to Splenda? The company doesn't really have to worry about people making negative domain-names to spread fear-mongering anecdotes that simply establish the fact that some people are allergic to things.
Widespread negativity means more people doubting the product. I'm not saying it's squeaky clean, but from a business standpoint it just makes sense.
But obviously, if a company makes a product that is considered a staple of anyones diet, it's unlikely that they or the product will be heavily criticized. They don't have to worry about it.
ReplyMeant to say "aren't as vehement towards", apologies.
ReplySure it is. Here's an example, Verizon. I don't recall how many domains they bought, but they did buy many that were critical of their brand.
Here's an article about what happened when a hacker magazine registered one they hadn't thought of:
http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/322
I notice walmartsucks.com is owned by:
Registrant:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
702 SW 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716-0520
US
I don't have a list of others, but on Slashdot and other computer geek sites from time to time there is a story about companies doing this, to the point where these aren't even published anymore because this practice is, as I said:
Standard Operating Procedure. And a non-event. I'm saying, "So what."
Anyone who wants to find anti-sucralose material isn't going to randomly plug in domain names to find critics; they're going to Google anyway, and it's not going to matter what domain name the material is on.
Alternately people can simply do nothing except check their e-mail until some hysterical raving "Splenda causes bubonic plague" spam comes in, which it will (along with canola oil, aspartame, and so on).
ReplyI am diabetic looking for a safe alternative to sugar. This not a game for me, but a quality of life issue.I read every comment listed and found it to be a waste of time. It's like children with a lot of extra time on their hands,trying to one-up the previous writer (over things that have little significance to the primary issue). Where is the truth about the safety of Splenda? If Splenda is so strong that you have to add bulk to use it (as Dr. Mercola suggests), why would they use various forms of sugar in a diet product? Surely, there must be some definitive truth out there somewhere. I assure you, for those of us who must monitor our blood sugar on an hourly basis, this researh is not a game, but a deadly struggle!
ReplyArrow
Stevia is an alternative to artificial sweeteners. It can be purchased in any health food store.
ReplyArrow, if you want discussion about Splenda itself, just search here in Diet Blog "Splenda". This particular post is about a business practice, not the safety of Splenda, so no, you are not going to find info related to that.
ReplyNate, it is unfortunate that your attitude towards this information is as it is. If you are willing to put substances such as Sucralose in your body, more power to you. However, as a doctor, I tell everyone of my patients, especially the diabetics, to not use artificial sweeteners. And if you'd like, I will send you references to many studies showing the dangers of using products such as this. You need to get educated on the facts. The idea that this website is discussing the domain name issue is merely to attempt to show people the motives behind what a company does. While I personally think the true health concerns are more compelling, I believe looking at a company's motives speaks loud about the efficacy of their products.
ReplyDo you really understand why Lane Bryant owns the domain name "LameBryant.com"? It's not because they are concerned about the products they sell. It's for a very simple reason: if you look on your computer keyboard, you will see the letter N right next to the letter M. They want to be sure that if someone is doing a search for their company, if that person makes the very common typing error of interchanging N's and M's OR if they heard the name Lane Bryant and weren't sure if it was Lane or Lame, the company wants to make sure the potential customer can locate them. This practice is commonly used for that reason. The reasons behind the Sucralose story has nothing to do with that concept. They are just trying to make sure that no one disseminates negative information about their product. If they weren't concerned about the quality of safety of their products, they wouldn't need to buy all those domain names. This is just plain common sense and if someone can't grasp that, well, I have some land in Florida I would love to tell you about.
ReplyIf any of you need any hard data on why Splenda is bad for you please read "Sweet Deception" by Joseph Mercola MD. It will shock you that. Splenda is actually in the same chemical classification as Organochlorides, otherwise known as PESTICIDES
ReplyAs for the negative press on MSG, you are quite off base, unless MAD magazine might be discussing it. I guess it depends on what you read for your health concerns. If that happens to be Reader's Digest, you might want to count the advertisements in their magazine that are drug-related. Then explain why it is that they suggest that the downside of prescription drugs is easily offset by their benefits. Follow that with a little research from the most prestigious medical publication, The Journal of American Medical Association and explain why they state that prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death in the U.S.
ReplyWhat's this all have to do with MSG and Sucralose? Simply, be careful of where you get your information.