Soylent Vegan Sucralose


I understand that Soylent uses Sucralose. Sucralose is, effectively, modified version of sucrose. Sucrose, or sugar, is derived from either cane sugar or beets. Some companies use bone char to filter their cane sugar (but not beet) to give it its white appearance. My question is if the sucralose that is used in Soylent is using sugar from a sugar producer that using bone char as a purifier?



I think the sugar is from beets, so if you say char is only used with sugar cane then they probably don’t use char


Just out of curiosity, what is your concern with the bone char?


Not, OP but it’s a concern for many vegans as it’s made from chicken bones and therefor is at a cost of animal suffering.


Sugar can be readily sourced from companies that don’t use bone char in their manufacturing process. As a vegetarian I try to minimize (it’s impossible to avoid altogether) the use of goods that are processed with animal byproducts. If a company chooses to source bone char processed sugar for their products, I choose not to use that product if possible.



The FAQ says every version of Soylent is vegan. I assume that means no bone char could be used?


Labels like vegan are not regulated and can be used any way the company wants. In the case of sugar, you can argue that no bone char is present after processing, so it is vegan. This is where a third party certification can be helpful.

That said, I contacted Soylent directly and the confirmed that bone char is not used in the production of the sucralose in Soylent, which is what I was looking for.



Consider the Vegan Society’s take on this issue:

Refined sugars do not contain any animal products, and so by an ingredients-based definition of vegan, refined sugar is vegan. However, some refined sugar is processed with animal bone char. The charcoal is used to remove color, impurities, and minerals from sugar. The charcoal is not in the sugar, but is used in the process as a filter. Thus by a process-based definition of vegan, refined sugar may not be considered vegan. For those who would prefer not to use refined sugar, there are several alternatives: raw, turbinado, beet sugar, succanat, date sugar, fructose, barley malt, rice syrup, corn syrup, molasses, and maple syrup. However, if one accepts a process-based definition of vegan, then many other familiar products would also not be considered vegan. For instance, steel and vulcanized rubber are produced using animal fats and, in many areas, groundwater and surface water is filtered through bone charcoal filters. So, is a box of pasta that contains no animal products, but has transported to the store in a steel truck on rubber wheels and then cooked in boiling water at your home, vegan? Under a process-based definition, possibly not. But according to such a definition, it would be difficult to find any products in this country that are vegan. There is another point about definitions that comes to mind. Perhaps, in the above example, the pasta maker also makes an egg pasta. The same machinery is used, and traces of egg are in the vegan pasta; would the pasta not be vegan? Again, we recommend that vegans concentrate their attention on the most obvious animal ingredients.


As I mentioned before, it’s impossible to eliminate animal products being used, but sugar has a readily available option without bone char whereas tires do not. If you could contribute just a bit less cruelty in the world by switching to an alternative product that works and costs the same, wouldn’t you?


Yup, agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I’m also a vegan-leaning vegetarian. I just think The Vegan Society’s stance is worth sharing because it’s easy for some people (including myself) to fall into this overwhelming rabbit hole of thought where everything is hopelessly connected to someone or something suffering along the way - and that can be detrimental to mental health. At least it is for me. So I find their philosophy towards practicality reassuring.