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.