Why it's not offered as a liquid is a real mystery.  Since other low
cal sweetner's are available in that form, it's obvious there is a
demand for it.  I'd certainly prefer it that way, even to put in my
coffee, because it's more convenient.  I guess at the moment a good
reason for not offering it is they can't supply enough to the existing
market.

I'll be glad to help you if you just cover postage. Just contact me off
line.

The next window is Dec 7 at 9 am. That should work well for me unless
something unexpected comes up.

Oh sure there is a market - I buy it myself. But is there "such a demand" as
to make it worth their while, is the question from their POV.

The patent on the FORMULA of chlorinated sucrose has expired. There are
surviving patents on the method of production, however. If you have an
alternative method of production, you can sell the chemical, but you
can't call it Sucralose.... which is trademarked.

------------------------------------------------------------------

       http://www.forbes.com/global/2005/0110/020_print.html

On The Cover/Top Stories , FORBES MAGAZINE
Sweet Stuff
Michael Freedman, 01.10.05

..

In 2004 the company paid $100 million to settle the price-fixing charges
at A.E. Staley. But Ferguson still must contend with structural
troubles, particularly in the commodities side of its business. Charles
Mills, an analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston, notes that the maturing
of the U.S. soft drink industry points to a long-term decline in demand
for high-fructose corn syrup, still 7% of the global sweetener market.
Changes in the EU's sugar regime, including cuts in price supports and
quotas, could cut Tate & Lyle profits by $75 million over the next four
to five years.

Meanwhile, the company's Splenda product patent has already expired,
Mills says, leaving only the production patent in effect. "At some
stage," he observes, "a threat to sucralose's patent is inevitable,"
because generic manufacturers can find alternative production processes.