@Jimmy Joy: Is there a possibility to replace that sweetener with something else? I don’t know which replacement is the best because they all have major drawbacks.
The reason I’m posting this is because I’m a big Jimmy Joy eater. I eat about 13 bags a month so that’s quite a bit of sucralose I’m getting. If I was consuming about 4 bags a month then I wouldn’t worry because the amount of sucralose I get is negligible because you guys use very little sucralose per meal.
hey hey, thanks for sharing. I saw this study too and I immediately asked our team what they think of it . This is what our R&D team had to say:
"While this study suggests that sucralose may damage DNA and enteric tissue, it’s important to note that this study does not provide absolute proof and only shows a potential correlation. There is currently no conclusive evidence to support the claim that sucralose causes cancer in humans even though the study shows the byproduct sucralose-6-acetate as clastogenic (breaks DNA). For perspective, UV light is also clastogenic, just like the research suggests sucralose-6-acetate might be. It’s crucial to understand the limitations of this study, as it primarily focused on in vitro findings, which alone are not enough to establish genotoxicity.
Various guidelines, including those from the FDA, recommend testing compounds in bacteria or in vitro first. If positive results are obtained, further in vivo testing is required before any conclusions can be drawn.
The potential adverse health effects specifically related to sucralose-6-acetate traces have not been individually tested using a comprehensive battery of toxicology tests to assess human risks.
It’s worth noting that sucralose is not listed as a carcinogen (nor sucralose-6-acetate) by organizations such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). According to their classification, if a substance is not in Group 1, Group 2A, or Group 2B, it means there isn’t sufficient evidence to classify it as a potential carcinogen.
It’s important to approach these findings with caution and continue conducting further studies. Genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer were found to be affected, but more research is needed to understand the specific mechanisms and potential health risks associated with sucralose consumption.
In conclusion, while the study raises concerns, it does not provide conclusive evidence of sucralose intake carcinogenic effects. Ongoing research and adherence to comprehensive testing protocols are necessary to establish a clearer understanding of the potential risks and impact of sucralose on human health.
While sucralose has been deemed safe for decades, we recognize that customer preferences can change, and we want to provide options that align with new preferences and concerns. We continue to explore alternative sweeteners."
Thanks for the very detailed response.
I expect JimmyJoy R&D to take this very seriously, and to take precautions when necessary.
Does the sucralose-free version of Plennyshake still exist?
This revelation is worrying enough that I won’t be purchasing any more Jimmy Joy products as long as they contain sucralose. The use of sucralose in Jimmy Joy products has worried me from the start (as did the presence of fluoride), but I was willing to overlook it since there wasn’t any evidence that sucralose is dangerous. Now there is.
I don’t understand why Jimmy Joy uses sucralose in the first place. I assume it’s to avoid distorting the macronutrient profile, but does Plenny Shake even need to be sweetened? I find most beverages too sweet, and Plenny Shake is no exception.
Can we please just have an unsweetened, unflavored Plenny Shake? I always prepare Plenny Shake in my blender with a banana for texture anyway, so throwing in my own fresh berries would not be a major hurdle.
Sucralose is in many different products that can be found in the supermarket. Jimmy Joy’s competition also uses sucralose. Some competitors of Jimmy Joy use stevia instead of sucralose, but stevia also has disadvantages
We want to assure you that we take this matter very seriously. We have
reviewed the study and its methodology (again, experiments using way higher concentrations than regular human intake). Additionally, we reached out to the author to obtain access to the report containing the evaluation of the concentration of S6A, which is mentioned to be 0.67%. Unfortunately, this report is not accessible as it was a requested analysis without a formal publication. This kind of data must be assessed several times before confirming it. Nevertheless, we are in the process of expressing our position on this study and similar ones in general.
When making strong statements, such as those regarding carcinogenic properties, it is crucial to undergo careful evaluation, repetition, and a detailed experimental process. A robust conclusion regarding correlation requires meta-analysis and systematic reviews, which minimize the likelihood of biased correlations. For instance, the correlation should be something like “people that consume sucralose have a higher rate of cancer”, but that has not been the case. There is absolutely no strong evidence showing any correlation between sucralose and cancer. For a particular molecule and its toxicological properties the research follows other steps, which haven’t been followed until now.
We utilize sucralose in our products because it has undergone extensive testing and has been approved as safe by global food safety and regulatory bodies, including the EFSA and FDA. The rigorous testing program conducted on sucralose is one of the most comprehensive, establishing a consensus on its safety among the scientific and regulatory community.
While science encourages experimentation and the acquisition of new knowledge, it is unfair for the media to present this study as conclusive data, causing confusion and fear among consumers. This study raises some concerns that warrant further investigation, but it is premature to draw any conclusions based solely on this paper.
It’s really important to be cautious when comparing information shared by the regular media with the original research publications. For instance, in the article from MedicalNewsToday that was shared, they claim that the chemical is found in Splenda. However, it’s worth noting that the research paper itself never mentions the name “Splenda” and fails to clarify the specific samples that were analyzed. Splenda has already responded to these publications, stating that they conduct thorough purity analysis and ensure that their product does not contain S6A. The main point here is not to defend Splenda, but rather to emphasize that drawing conclusions solely from one research publication is not advisable. It’s essential to consider a broader range of studies and evidence before jumping to definitive conclusions.
Right now, the EFSA is taking a fresh look at the list of allowed food additives, including sweeteners like sucralose. They want to reevaluate these ingredients in a systematic way and provide scientific opinions based on the latest research. To make sure they have all the relevant information, they made an open invitation to interested parties and stakeholders to share any documented data they have on sucralose. This way, everyone gets a chance to contribute their insights and perspectives to the evaluation process. It’s an inclusive approach that aims to make well-informed decisions about the safety of sucralose. We are on top of it to have the latest scientific opinions and guidelines to guarantee the safety of our meals.
As we mentioned before, we’re aware that our customers’ tastes and preferences can change over time, and we want to keep up with that. While sucralose has been considered safe for a long time, we’re currently looking into other alternatives to make sure our meals remain healthy, affordable, and tasty. It’s important for us to continuously improve and cater to the evolving needs and desires of our customers.
@mwhitlock unfortunately, we do not offer the neutral Plenny Shake Active anymore.
It’s always worth being a bit sceptical whenever you see the words “may cause”. It means they don’t know for certain.
Right, I understand it’s not a certainty. I just don’t understand why Jimmy Joy uses sucralose at all. Why even take a chance? Would plain old sucrose really screw up their formula that much?
On the other hand, one of the primary reasons I switched to Jimmy Joy over its competitors is that it doesn’t give me sugar highs and subsequent crashes, whereas the others do. Maybe I would have that problem with it if they used sucrose instead of sucralose. Of course, my preference is just to eliminate the sweetener altogether, as I see it as a needless additive. However, I do understand that Jimmy Joy has to meet the expectations of a population that is addicted to sweet drinks and that their sales would suffer if they didn’t sweeten Plenny Shake. Most unfortunate.
Sucrose is far less sweet, so much more of it would be needed. I’m certainly no expert, but it seems that there are more solid links between high sugar consumption and various health problems.
However, I do think it is a shame that Jimmy Joy no longer does the unsweetened version. But JJ only keep producing products that are popular, so obviously not enough people were buying that. It does seem strange to me, though, as there are many flavourings you can buy, which take a few seconds to put into the bottle. If anything, it would make more sense for JJ to just make an unsweetened version but then sell a variety of flavourings for people to add.
To be fair, Jimmy Joy flavor their shakes with real ingredients, which carry real nutrients, so they might need to adjust other components to maintain exact nutrient ratios. They couldn’t do that if they sold mix-in flavorings separately.