I wonder if the other side may argue that using the product as a substitute to table sugar is itself what fits the "amount customarily consumed" regardless of what uses exist for the level of sweetness provided by that amount.
But again the most important thing is for the FDA and other agencies not to override or disable the common law and language people use, in the information presented from the maker to the consumer, without requiring the signaling there for dependency on their rules.
Related to the preceding post, even if that rule was made for amounts customarily used in life and were applied correctly, still, why would we need such a rule? How can the customer be better protected here? How good is it to read nutrition information thinking that the maker is responsible for its claims, but then it turns out that the FDA allows different thing without the knowledge of the consumer? I have always wondered about food labeling rules like this one where the common law and language render them completely unnecessary. Regardless, that could still be done with much less harm and betrayal to the consumer if the FDA were to require the maker of the product to mention that such information (like, for example, here, calling the calorie amount, zero calorie, if it is less than 5 calories) is according to an FDA rule if that maker is depending on that rule, instead of communicating to the consumer through a new language known only to the FDA itself and the maker of the product. Otherwise, how can what is going on in such cases be seen but fraud supported by the government?
Apparently that is what the math of Splenda sucralose packet sweeteners and/or the math of the FDA says. Take a look at the "Energy (caloric) content" section of this Wikipedia Page on Splenda. What does "amount customarily used" mean? If it is something the maker of the product sets on its own, then one can also take table sugar itself and market it in packets as zero calorie sweetener. Otherwise, in what customarily uses one packet of Splenda gives the needed sweetness? So what is going on here? How can a product be marketed as having zero calorie content when it in facts has close to one third the calories? Is this corruption at the rule making or at the lack of enforcing that rule level? Or both?
