311–320 of 341 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do stop going to a restaurant once I or someone I know has gotten sick there. Look at Chipotle for instance, they are dealing with similar contamination related problems.
Soylent is marketed as an innovative beta-style product. Users should expect hiccups. This is not the same for a bulk of consumer restaurants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That still sounds criminal to me.
I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted. People shouldn't even be giving away food that was mixed in a facility that has rats running around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gotten away with it? Have they been lying about something? If people don't buy their products, they'll leave the market. If people continue to buy them, they'll stay. I really hope the FDA doesn't get involved. As it is a low cost source of nutrition, more regulation will raise the price with no corresponding added benefit to the consumer; affecting the people who may be the most vulnerable to price increases.
There are people who believe that market forces are the only product safety regulation we need. If that's your philosophy, we're clearly never going to agree. But if you DO believe that some level of consumer protection beyond honest labelling is appropriate, then I think I can make a case that a product like Soylent should be regulated a little more than other foodstuffs. Please see the other threads of this discuss…
The mainstream US diet and lifestyle causes unbelievable health problems: obesity, heart disease, liver damage, dental caries, gastrointestinal conditions, some chronic anxiety, skin conditions, possibly some kinds of dementia, osteoporosis, seasonal affective disorder, and on and on..
Modern governments come absolutely nowhere close to teaching people to eat a balanced diet of healthy foods or setting policy to discourage unhealthy foods. Indeed, often official policy does just the opposite.
Compared to soda, fruit juice, beer, cookies, donuts, chips, breakfast cereal, instant noodles, packaged dinners, etc. etc., a few people having temporary digestive problems for a few days before discontinuing their liquid meal-replacement diet because they turned out to have an algae allergy is really the least of our problems.
The main thing our food safety institutions do is prevent disease outbreaks and dangerous food contamination. They aren’t set up to have a meaningful effect on people’s overall diet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong subculture. Health foods are marketed for hippies and athletes and dieters. Soylent is for nerds! /s
So it's strictly a Marketing game? There's nothing behind the product? I would have thought nerds would be smarter. Or is it something like a hipster beard and hats when it's warm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>. So if a product is intended to be consumed as 100% of your diet Soylent isn't marketed as being intended to replace every meal anymore. I know some of their earlier press focused on the founder replacing all of his food with Soylent, but they've transitioned from that approach more recently.
>I know some of their earlier press focused on the founder replacing all of his food with Soylent I'm pretty sure it was marketed as a 100% meal replacement. It's nice to see they came to their senses.
The whole concept is experimental and everyone knows that. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to sell a product known to make people ill, but if you replace 100% of your food you shouldn't be surprised if it turns out they forgot an ingredient or put a little too much in for your specific lifestyle.
Oh boy, another Soylent discussion. Here is what all the off topic discussion will be: Person1) "What is so hard to understand sheeple?! Soylent isn't for all your meals, just ones that you are too busy to eat. Also, it has all the vitamins you need not like all those thousand other bars/drinks!?" Person2) "I'd rather move to the bottom of the ocean than buy Soylent. Why would you ever skip a meal?! Capitalism is the…
Nice strawman in response to no-one's comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are people who believe that market forces are the only product safety regulation we need. If that's your philosophy, we're clearly never going to agree. But if you DO believe that some level of consumer protection beyond honest labelling is appropriate, then I think I can make a case that a product like Soylent should be regulated a little more than other foodstuffs. Please see the other threads of this discuss…
I’m no Soylent advocate (I’m a fan of home-cooked fresh food). But... The mainstream US diet and lifestyle causes unbelievable health problems: obesity, heart disease, liver damage, dental caries, gastrointestinal conditions, some chronic anxiety, skin conditions, possibly some kinds of dementia, osteoporosis, seasonal affective disorder, and on and on.. Modern governments come absolutely nowhere close to teaching pe…
The people you are talking about never heard about Soylent, and probably won't ever buy an expensive (?), bland tasting product that sounds like something from Star-Trek.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good lord. The percentage of people who 'got sick' by Soylent was less 0.1% of all consumers. If we went into panic-mode for that kind of result for every product, we wouldn't have any products. The variation in humans is too great to test for everything. "The Lawyers" aren't going to shut anyone down because no one is suing, and if they tried I doubt any judge would allow a class-action lawsuit for a few tummyaches.…
I take your point about the class-action. I also take your point about human choice, as far as it goes, but I still think Soylent is a special case. If I eat ridiculous amounts of pesto and rupture my duodenum, nobody would hold the pesto producer responsible, because that's not the way people eat pesto. But if eating lots of Soylent made me ill, Soylent's makers should, in principle, bear some responsibility, becaus…
This is a fairly ridiculous argument. People's lack of knowledge about their own food sensitivities is not Soylent's fault, nor should it be expected to be.
Soylent's problem is not a seemingly overlooked ingredient. Their biggest problem is inability to run the continuous food processing loop. What's the point of tweaking the recipe if you can't guarantee the execution and your customers get, basically, randomness for lunch? We had a corporate subscription for Soylent 2.0 drink. The taste varied from batch to batch on the scale from "milk in a cereal bowl" to "sewage wa…
To be fair, this statement is something that needs to be followed up with hard evidence. Inconsistent flavour between batches does not necessarily mean you're getting different percentages of ingredients. You can't simply blame them for variation in taste; just look at orange juice companies for the amount of chemical manipulation that goes into making a single brand of orange juice taste exactly the same in every ba…
Honest question, why would anyone bother? Who would actually benefit from being able to release a statement about how variable it is?
I'm drinking it for two months now and I'm happy with it. Very convenient, fair price, available in a vegan & gluten-free version and it tastes okay-ish (like oatmeal).
P.S.: I'm not affiliated with this company in any way, just a happy customer.