The marketers of Splenda have confused consumers and food makers by unfairly distancing the sugar substitute from other artificial sweeteners, its chief rival told a jury Tuesday.

The jury will decide whether McNeil Nutritionals has misled consumers by suggesting in its ads and packaging that Splenda is a natural product and contains sugar.

'McNeil documents show that they knew consumers were confused and they didn't do anything to stop it.'—Gregory LoCascio, Merisant lawyer

Merisant Co., which makes Equal and NutraSweet, says Splenda contains no sugar and is instead sweetened with a synthetic compound through a complex chemical process.

Merisant lawyers told jurors in their opening statement Tuesday that McNeil, through its advertising and packaging, misled consumers into thinking that Splenda is safer and more healthful than other artificial sweeteners.

"McNeil documents show that they knew consumers were confused and they didn't do anything to stop it," Merisant lawyer Gregory LoCascio said.

McNeil initially marketed Splenda with the tagline, "Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar. But it's not sugar." After disappointing sales, the company dropped the last sentence and sales skyrocketed, LoCascio said.

Splenda sales rise, competitors' profits dip

McNeil officials fought to keep Splenda from being positioned as an artificial sweetener in the marketplace, a label they felt would be deadly to sales, Merisant attorneys said.

Consumers and companies such as Pepsico Inc. flocked to the new product, perceiving it to be healthier, the lawyers said. McNeil made at least $183 million US in unfair profits since 2003, while Chicago-based Merisant lost $25 million US in sales of its products, which are made with aspartame.

McNeil's lawyers were to give their opening statements later Tuesday. The company says Splenda is made from pure cane sugar that is chemically altered to create a compound that doesn't contain any calories. Its website touts its "important health and lifestyle benefits" and discusses health issues such as child obesity and diabetes.

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter's courtroom on Tuesday was packed with dozens of law clerks and other young lawyers who turned out to see the two sides fight over the billion-dollar industry.

Sugar manufacturers launch lawsuit against McNeil

McNeil, which is based in Fort Washington, Pa., and is a unit of Johnson & Johnson, markets Splenda in the United States for its manufacturer, London-based Tate & Lyle PLC. The company is also defending its Splenda advertising claims in a lawsuit filed by the Sugar Association, a group of U.S. sugar manufacturers.

The lawsuit is pending in federal court in Los Angeles and trial is set for November. A federal judge in Delaware last year threw out McNeil's countersuit against the association, saying the California court should have jurisdiction because the two complaints shared the same fundamental question: whether Splenda is safe and healthful.