/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>17184369
>>17184412
>>17184910
Soylent isn't legal for sale in most countries outside the US due to false nutritional claims and inability to meet the requirements to be considered a nutritional supplement or meal replacement. It's only considered "safe" in the US because it's not actively marketed as being a complete replacement for all nutrition, as that would cause nutrient deficiencies.

>The product does not meet the requirements to be called "Meal Replacement", due to the level of fortification and lack of Phosphorus.
>Sucralose, a non-permitted sweetener in meal replacements of this kind is in every formulation.
>Only "Cafe Chai" contained a second non-permitted food additive (caffeine).

>Calculations showed 13 vitamins or minerals were below the minimum required amount, and 1 mineral was above the maximum allowable amount.
>Required phosphorous was not declared in any of the products.

The guy who made it was a complete dudebro retard with no knowledge of nutrition. There's a reason why it's made fun of and it's not just a meme.

>>16607693
Except it's not legal for sale outside of the US for failing to meet the definitions of a meal replacement.

>>15267051
>Does it do the job?
Also no.

>Calculations showed 13 vitamins or minerals were below the minimum required amount, and 1 mineral was above the maximum allowable amount.
>Required phosphorous was not declared in any of the products.

It can't be sold in most countries outside of the US for failing to meet the definition of a "meal replacement".

>>15090149
>>15090176
I wouldn't really even compare Soylent to other supplement drinks. It's not legal for sale in most countries outside of the US due to its false nutritional claims and failure to meet nutritional standards.

>The product does not meet the requirements to be called "Meal Replacement", due to the level of fortification and lack of Phosphorus.
>Sucralose, a non-permitted sweetener in meal replacements of this kind is in every formulation.
>Only "Cafe Chai" contained a second non-permitted food additive (caffeine).

>Calculations showed 13 vitamins or minerals were below the minimum required amount, and 1 mineral was above the maximum allowable amount.
>Required phosphorous was not declared in any of the products.

The guy who made it was a complete retard with no knowledge of nutrition.

>>14992254
Enjoy you're malnutrition.

>>14912024
>>14912027
It's not recommended as a replacement for every meal and fails to meat the nutritional requirements to be labelled and sold as a meal replacement outside of the US. The guy who made it was a computer autist who thought "hurr, 20 times 5 equals 100, therefore all vitamins are absorbed the same".

>The product does not meet the requirements to be called "Meal Replacement", due to the level of fortification and lack of Phosphorus.
>Sucralose, a non-permitted sweetener in meal replacements of this kind is in every formulation.
>Only "Cafe Chai" contained a second non-permitted food additive (caffeine).

>Calculations showed 13 vitamins or minerals were below the minimum required amount, and 1 mineral was above the maximum allowable amount.
>Required phosphorous was not declared in any of the products.

Still not legal for sale in most countries outside of the US.

>The product does not meet the requirements to be called "Meal Replacement", due to the level of fortification and lack of Phosphorus.
>Sucralose, a non-permitted sweetener in meal replacements of this kind is in every formulation.
>Only "Cafe Chai" contained a second non-permitted food additive (caffeine).

>Calculations showed 13 vitamins or minerals were below the minimum required amount, and 1 mineral was above the maximum allowable amount.
>Required phosphorous was not declared in any of the products.

>>14608460
Not legal for sale in most countries outside of the US due to insufficient or false nutritional claims, and other technical issues regarding the ingredients and level of fortification.

>The product does not meet the requirements to be called "Meal Replacement", due to the level of fortification and lack of Phosphorus.
>Sucralose, a non-permitted sweetener in meal replacements of this kind is in every formulation.
>Only "Cafe Chai" contained a second non-permitted food additive (caffeine).

>Calculations showed 13 vitamins or minerals were below the minimum required amount, and 1 mineral was above the maximum allowable amount.
>Required phosphorous was not declared in any of the products.

But probably worth noting that these are technical and labelling issues, and that it was determined that the product is not targeted at consumers who would likely depend on it as their sole source of nutrition, thus:
>No referral to OFSR required at this time, as the issue represents a technical violation and does not pose an acute food safety risk. The target population does not appear to be susceptible to nutritional deficiencies and this would be long-term exposure.

tl;dr - Soylent isn't bad, per se, but the company that makes and markets it is incompetent and fuck and refuses to back down from their inaccurate claims. It won't be leaving the US market any time soon.

This is some really low-tier bait. I think OP's phoning this one in.

>nutritionally deficient drink being sold as a "meal replacement" despite not meeting the definition
Cyberpunk is all about dystopian corporate hegemonies, right?

>>14562925
Like Ensure or Boost, meant for people with nutritional deficiencies and limited dietary intake. Not like Soylent which is liable to cause nutritional deficiencies with prolonged use and fails to meat the definition of "meal replacement" outside of the US.

>>14522826
>illegal for import in a number of countries around the world for failing to be the nutritional requirements of a "meal replacement"

>>14389803
>implying

>>14125172

>>14050581
It's a lot of legal stuff, but basically it doesn't meet the nutritional requirements of a "meal replacement". Its calorie balance is skewed towards bad fats (most of its calories coming from fats), most of its vitamins and minerals are below the required amount and some are outright missing, among other issues.
>"...the issue represents a technical violation and does not pose an acute food safety risk. The target population does not appear to be susceptible to nutritional deficiencies and this would be long time exposure."
Basically, if they fixed their packaging to have accurate labelling, it'd be legal to sell because it's seen as a product aimed at a group of people who aren't likely to suffer malnutrition from consuming it regularly.