5 ms·

As You Sow Files Notice Of Legal Action Against Soylent Super Food

75 points by pkinsky 11y ago

Namrog84 11y ago
Does anyone know if any other groups have independently verified this? Bad batch? Potential contaminatdd samples?
- fencepost 11y ago
  Depending on where the source crops are grown it could easily be a raw materials problem that nobody ever even considered as a possibility so they didn't test. As a related thing, consider arsenic in rice due to where it's grown. Edit: addressed here, with comparisons to other meals. Brown rice protein is the source. https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-California-Proposition-65 https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-Californ...
  - kenOfYugen 11y ago
    When ordering ingredients in powder form from China in bulk batches, you get MSDS analysis. But in my experience you cannot rely on that info. I have received completely random papers from factories, which made me avoid China entirely when it come to ingredients for human consumption.
    - fencepost 11y ago
      In 2008 Trader Joe's pulled foods sourced from China of their shelves after one too many adulteration stories (not affecting their products AFAIK), I'm not sure if that still holds but clearly you're not the only one who has been concerned.
ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
You've gotta tell 'em! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! We gotta stop them! Somehow!
fencepost 11y ago
Interesting. I don't see any indication in the article that they contacted Soylent first so they could do little things like recall it. I'm sure that a bunch of the Soylent staff are heavy consumers of their product so I suspect they'd take the matter very seriously, and since it's only available from them I'm pretty sure they have contact information for everyone who has it. So I'm going to paraphrase as follows: "As You Sow," a group claiming to be an environmental watchdog, noted a likely safety problem with Soylent and instead of notifying the manufacturer to minimize the harm to consumers chose to file a lawsuit. Edit: less inflammatory paraphrase
- Natsu 11y ago
  Sometimes there's an 'unclean hands' defense if someone didn't take reasonable steps to minimize the harm they suffered. Courts can be suspicious of plaintiffs who allow harm to accrue in order to sue for more damages. That said, I'm only speaking in general. I don't claim to know anything about the factual background of this particular case.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > So I'm going to paraphrase as follows: "As You Sow," a group claiming to be an environmental watchdog, noted a likely safety problem with Soylent and instead of notifying the manufacturer to minimize the harm to consumers chose to file a lawsuit. If it was a safety issue they'd have contacted FDA. It's a regulatory compliance issue.
- fencepost 11y ago
  And I'll note just for future reference this Ars article: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/watchdog-group-says-soylents-cadmium-and-lead-levels-violate-ca-law/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/watchdog-group-says-s... As a quick summary, the levels they violate are calculated by finding the level at which there's reproductive toxicity in rats, then dividing by 10. Then dividing again by 1000. And, the same group "As You Sow" also has a variety of outstanding complaints against chocolate makers for the same thing. The companies there? Ghirardelli, Godiva, Hershey, Lindt & Sprungli, Mondelez, and Earth Cicrle Organics.
sunnid 11y ago
Is there a better source than "Yahoo.com" for this?
- Natsu 11y ago
  Possibly Pacer, if anyone with access can find a copy of the complaint. Otherwise, probably not, given that this is a press release from the plaintiff.
watson 11y ago
This is "just" a press release made by As You Sow in its un-edited form. This doesn't necessarily make it claim invalid, but just remember that no journalist have been involved here. It is also weird that As You Sow hasn't added any mention of whether or not they have tried to contact Soylent for a comment.
- pbreit 11y ago
  I sure hope they contacted soylent prior to publicizing. It casts pretty bad assertions despite little or no apparent corroboration.
jayess 11y ago
One of those press releases that doesn't provide any context. What exactly is a "California Safe Harbor" level? How does that compare to a Clean Water Act level of safe lead. Not trying to defend Soylent here, but these types of press releases don't provide any useful context.
- codingdave 11y ago
  The very first paragraph linked to the act in question - I think it is reasonable to do some research yourself if you want to start getting comparisons to other regulatory limits from that point.
- DanBC 11y ago
  It's a bit confusing. I think this is the current list of maximum allowable levels and safe harbor levels: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf EDIT: someone asked for the safe harbor levels. I provide a link to the current safe harbor levels. I'm not sure why this deserves a downvote?
  - gnoway 11y ago
    I don't either. Upvoted.
DanBC 11y ago
This press release would have been more useful to me if they had given details of the testing. Did independant labs buy the products direct from Soylent, or was the products supplied by a third party to the testing lab? Was a single lab used? Are they an accredited lab? If true (and that's a big if at the moment) this is just another confirmation that Soylent is cavalier around a product that they really should be careful about. Of course, this press release may well be bollocks and Soylent might do rigorous QA testing on every batch, using accredited labs and posting the results to a public webpage.
anonbanker 11y ago
Hold up. They found massive levels of Lead in the product? EDIT: To all those wondering why they were not first contacted before going to a court: this PRNewswire piece is a public notice of them telling Soylent that there is Lead in the product. Personally (and tangentially), I feel this is how software exploits should be treated in open source software; let people know immediately so all the eyeballs focus on a solution, rather than a subset.
- mtmail 11y ago
  Unlike open source software nobody can look how Soylent produced the product, and why would anybody outside Soylent work on a solution? PRNewswire is indeed a public notice. But so is Oracle telling the world that Google is bad for poising Java (can't remember their exact argument).
  - DanBC 11y ago
    You don't really need to see how they made the product. If you have the money you can send it for independent testing; or you can ask regulators to do so for you.
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    As far as I know, Soylent had a DIY variety. They encouraged hacking/reverse-engineering. And you're right about Oracle. Google must respond to it timely, or they have accepted the argument.
- DanBC 11y ago
  They found some lead. There's a bit of Californian law that requires warnings to be put on anything that contains certain chemicals if those chemicals are present in anything more than very small amounts. If there were unsafe levels the product is outright banned. Soylent is not accused of selling a product with dangerous levels of lead, but of selling a product with normal levels of lead but without the warning sticker. At least, that's what I can make out. Maybe I'm wrong. EDIT: this is a proposition 65 lawsuit. The eco group is not trying to get Soylent withdrawn; they're trying to get Soylent to include the legally mandated warning "this product contains chemicals known by the State of california to cause cancer".
hvs 11y ago
Here are the California Safe Harbor levels for [1]: Lead: 15 micrograms/day Cadmium: 4.1 micrograms/day The EPA's safe water regulations for lead are [2]: If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the lead action level of 15 parts per billion Which is 15 micrograms/liter. Cadmium is 5 ppb. [1] http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf [2] http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/lead.cfm http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/lea... [3] http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/ioc/cadmium.pdf http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/ioc/cadmium.pdf
- anonbanker 11y ago
  FTA: Test results commissioned by As You Sow, conducted by an independent laboratory, show that one serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer to a concentration of lead that is 12 to 25 times above California's Safe Harbor level for reproductive health, and a concentration of cadmium that is at least 4 times greater than the Safe Harbor level for cadmium. Two separate samples of Soylent 1.5 were tested.
3327 11y ago
Ouch... Well whatever this is its how a startup goes under- Fast
Erdos6 11y ago
Soylent has responded http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Manufacturers/Soylent-hits-back-at-legal-threat-We-display-Prop-65-warnings http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Manufacturers/Soylent-hits-... and has a prop 65 page up here: https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-California-Proposition-65 https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-Californ... But it doesn't much reassure me. It compares Soylent to a tuna fish sandwich meal, which due to heavy metal concerns you are not supposed to eat multiple times per week, much less 3x per day. The source is likely rice protein. There was a big uproar about arsenic levels in rice a while back, and rice protein in large quantities is much more concentrated than eating plain rice. I typically avoid products that rely on rice and soy protein.
kevinpet 11y ago
The organization opposes GMO foods: http://www.asyousow.org/our-work/environmental-health/gmos/ http://www.asyousow.org/our-work/environmental-health/gmos/ So I value their opinion about as much as I do Dr. Jenny McCarthy's pioneering work on vaccinations.
- eropple 11y ago
  You don't like what they think about GMO foods. OK. And that relates to lab-tested lead and cadmium levels...hhhhhow?
- pbreit 11y ago
  A lot of smart people have legitimate concerns about unnecessary GMOs.
  - robobro 11y ago
    And a lot of smart people don't believe in global warming, and believe in ghosts.
- DonaldFisk 11y ago
  You're entitled to your opinion, and I share your views on Jenny McCarthy, but there are plenty of health, environmental, and economic reasons to oppose GMO food, none of which are the issue here. It's alleged that lead and cadmium levels are too high, which is verifiable and so not a matter of opinion. Even if they were within safe limits, I still wouldn't want to take a food replacement. I like food, and don't think time eating it is time wasted. YMMV.
  - eosrei 11y ago
    I find the argument "I like food" against Soylent confusing. Most people who eat Soylent like food IMO. I eat Soylent and LOVE food. I don't like having to spend so much of every day sourcing, cooking, eating, and cleaning up after food. I've removed all of the rushed, low quality, and/or boring meals from my life while saving money and getting better nutrition(except perhaps my lead intake!) Now I only eat the delicious, interesting, and slow-paced meals. Not attempting to change your mind, just informing it's not just food hating people. Haha!
easong 11y ago
The soylent forums have discussed this quite a lot in the past and people who seem to know what they're talking about have come to the conclusion that the levels are both nothing to worry about and also significantly under a lot of traditional food. http://discourse.soylent.com/t/question-about-proposition-65-warning-in-faq/22132/18 http://discourse.soylent.com/t/question-about-proposition-65... Also, As You Sow appears to be a woo-peddler, so I would be less than inclined to take their word without independent confirmation. Edit: And their CEO doesn't seem to be taking their complaint terribly seriously either - he issued the following statement recently. "Andrew here. Most of what I was trying to do is get a conversation going around food safety, and it worked. I smile at every in depth analysis on lead or cadmium that I triggered. Oh no! You just proved me wrong and educated all the readers of your comment, as well as learned more yourself."
- gnoway 11y ago
  I have never in my life seen the term 'woo-peddler'. For anyone else in a similar situation, it's roughly equivalent to snake-oil salesman.
- easong 11y ago
  Since I can't edit this comment any more, the quote from their CEO is wrong - it's actually based on a quote from the CEO of Soylent somebody from reddit changed. That's what I get for not checking...
gnoway 11y ago
The stated reason for replacing rice protein with soy in their 2.0 formula was texture/mouthfeel, but I bet it has something to do with this as well. Why does rice tend to have such high heavy metal content? Is it simply coincidence w/ where rice tends to be grown?
Animats 11y ago
Here's As You Sow's own site info on this.[1] The info is about the same. They're using the California act because a private party can bring an action under that act. "One serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer to a concentration of lead that is 12 to 25 times above California's Safe Harbor level." That would mean 12 * 15 micrograms per day. Soylent's suggested serving size is 0.5 liter, so that would be a lead level of 90 micrograms / liter. The EPA's action level for lead in water is 15 micrograms / liter. So they're 6x over the allowed maximum level for water. (That's the maximum level allowed for water; the desired level, according to the EPA, is zero.) On the other hand, heavy metal levels are routinely higher in foodstuffs than in water, because plants and animals concentrate them. It gets worse as you go up the food chain; mercury in shark and swordfish is a real issue. The EU and WHO allow a level of provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 25μg/kg body weight. US male mean body weight is about 85kg, so that would be 2125μg/kg/week, or 101μg/kg/serving, or about 200 micrograms/liter (1 liter water masses 1kg, so assume that density). So Soylent, at 90 micrograms/liter, is about half the usual limit. That's pushing it, though; a small person drinking four servings a day of the stuff could go over the limit. Because Soylent wants to be the only dietary component, they need pharmaceutical grade quality control. They should be running a sample of every batch through a mass spectrometer, and testing their raw materials. Given their emphasis on how "online" and "digital" they are, you ought to be able to view the analysis for your batch on line. [1] http://www.asyousow.org//?s=soylent http://www.asyousow.org//?s=soylent [2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02006R1881-20100701&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...
sajal83 11y ago
Is this comparing allowed levels in drinking water to whats allowed in food? if so then its apples and oranges. I would like to see if it compared to whats allowed in food.
11thEarlOfMar 11y ago
If they haven't already, Soylent will do their own testing and release the results. If it turns out to be true, they will fix it and take their lumps. If it is false, they can counter-sue, should they choose.

75 points by pkinsky 11y ago

Namrog84 11y ago

Does anyone know if any other groups have independently verified this? Bad batch? Potential contaminatdd samples?

fencepost 11y ago
Depending on where the source crops are grown it could easily be a raw materials problem that nobody ever even considered as a possibility so they didn't test. As a related thing, consider arsenic in rice due to where it's grown. Edit: addressed here, with comparisons to other meals. Brown rice protein is the source. https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-California-Proposition-65 https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-Californ...
- kenOfYugen 11y ago
  When ordering ingredients in powder form from China in bulk batches, you get MSDS analysis. But in my experience you cannot rely on that info. I have received completely random papers from factories, which made me avoid China entirely when it come to ingredients for human consumption.
  - fencepost 11y ago
    In 2008 Trader Joe's pulled foods sourced from China of their shelves after one too many adulteration stories (not affecting their products AFAIK), I'm not sure if that still holds but clearly you're not the only one who has been concerned.

ZoeZoeBee 11y ago

You've gotta tell 'em! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! We gotta stop them! Somehow!

fencepost 11y ago

Interesting. I don't see any indication in the article that they contacted Soylent first so they could do little things like recall it. I'm sure that a bunch of the Soylent staff are heavy consumers of their product so I suspect they'd take the matter very seriously, and since it's only available from them I'm pretty sure they have contact information for everyone who has it. So I'm going to paraphrase as follows: "As You Sow," a group claiming to be an environmental watchdog, noted a likely safety problem with Soylent and instead of notifying the manufacturer to minimize the harm to consumers chose to file a lawsuit. Edit: less inflammatory paraphrase

Natsu 11y ago
Sometimes there's an 'unclean hands' defense if someone didn't take reasonable steps to minimize the harm they suffered. Courts can be suspicious of plaintiffs who allow harm to accrue in order to sue for more damages. That said, I'm only speaking in general. I don't claim to know anything about the factual background of this particular case.
DanBC 11y ago
> So I'm going to paraphrase as follows: "As You Sow," a group claiming to be an environmental watchdog, noted a likely safety problem with Soylent and instead of notifying the manufacturer to minimize the harm to consumers chose to file a lawsuit. If it was a safety issue they'd have contacted FDA. It's a regulatory compliance issue.
fencepost 11y ago
And I'll note just for future reference this Ars article: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/watchdog-group-says-soylents-cadmium-and-lead-levels-violate-ca-law/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/watchdog-group-says-s... As a quick summary, the levels they violate are calculated by finding the level at which there's reproductive toxicity in rats, then dividing by 10. Then dividing again by 1000. And, the same group "As You Sow" also has a variety of outstanding complaints against chocolate makers for the same thing. The companies there? Ghirardelli, Godiva, Hershey, Lindt & Sprungli, Mondelez, and Earth Cicrle Organics.

sunnid 11y ago

Is there a better source than "Yahoo.com" for this?

Natsu 11y ago
Possibly Pacer, if anyone with access can find a copy of the complaint. Otherwise, probably not, given that this is a press release from the plaintiff.

watson 11y ago

This is "just" a press release made by As You Sow in its un-edited form. This doesn't necessarily make it claim invalid, but just remember that no journalist have been involved here. It is also weird that As You Sow hasn't added any mention of whether or not they have tried to contact Soylent for a comment.

pbreit 11y ago
I sure hope they contacted soylent prior to publicizing. It casts pretty bad assertions despite little or no apparent corroboration.

jayess 11y ago

One of those press releases that doesn't provide any context. What exactly is a "California Safe Harbor" level? How does that compare to a Clean Water Act level of safe lead. Not trying to defend Soylent here, but these types of press releases don't provide any useful context.

codingdave 11y ago
The very first paragraph linked to the act in question - I think it is reasonable to do some research yourself if you want to start getting comparisons to other regulatory limits from that point.
DanBC 11y ago
It's a bit confusing. I think this is the current list of maximum allowable levels and safe harbor levels: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf EDIT: someone asked for the safe harbor levels. I provide a link to the current safe harbor levels. I'm not sure why this deserves a downvote?
- gnoway 11y ago
  I don't either. Upvoted.

DanBC 11y ago

This press release would have been more useful to me if they had given details of the testing. Did independant labs buy the products direct from Soylent, or was the products supplied by a third party to the testing lab? Was a single lab used? Are they an accredited lab? If true (and that's a big if at the moment) this is just another confirmation that Soylent is cavalier around a product that they really should be careful about. Of course, this press release may well be bollocks and Soylent might do rigorous QA testing on every batch, using accredited labs and posting the results to a public webpage.

anonbanker 11y ago

Hold up. They found massive levels of Lead in the product? EDIT: To all those wondering why they were not first contacted before going to a court: this PRNewswire piece is a public notice of them telling Soylent that there is Lead in the product. Personally (and tangentially), I feel this is how software exploits should be treated in open source software; let people know immediately so all the eyeballs focus on a solution, rather than a subset.

mtmail 11y ago
Unlike open source software nobody can look how Soylent produced the product, and why would anybody outside Soylent work on a solution? PRNewswire is indeed a public notice. But so is Oracle telling the world that Google is bad for poising Java (can't remember their exact argument).
- DanBC 11y ago
  You don't really need to see how they made the product. If you have the money you can send it for independent testing; or you can ask regulators to do so for you.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  As far as I know, Soylent had a DIY variety. They encouraged hacking/reverse-engineering. And you're right about Oracle. Google must respond to it timely, or they have accepted the argument.
DanBC 11y ago
They found some lead. There's a bit of Californian law that requires warnings to be put on anything that contains certain chemicals if those chemicals are present in anything more than very small amounts. If there were unsafe levels the product is outright banned. Soylent is not accused of selling a product with dangerous levels of lead, but of selling a product with normal levels of lead but without the warning sticker. At least, that's what I can make out. Maybe I'm wrong. EDIT: this is a proposition 65 lawsuit. The eco group is not trying to get Soylent withdrawn; they're trying to get Soylent to include the legally mandated warning "this product contains chemicals known by the State of california to cause cancer".

hvs 11y ago

Here are the California Safe Harbor levels for [1]: Lead: 15 micrograms/day Cadmium: 4.1 micrograms/day The EPA's safe water regulations for lead are [2]: If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the lead action level of 15 parts per billion Which is 15 micrograms/liter. Cadmium is 5 ppb. [1] http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf [2] http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/lead.cfm http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/lea... [3] http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/ioc/cadmium.pdf http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/ioc/cadmium.pdf

anonbanker 11y ago
FTA: Test results commissioned by As You Sow, conducted by an independent laboratory, show that one serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer to a concentration of lead that is 12 to 25 times above California's Safe Harbor level for reproductive health, and a concentration of cadmium that is at least 4 times greater than the Safe Harbor level for cadmium. Two separate samples of Soylent 1.5 were tested.

3327 11y ago

Ouch... Well whatever this is its how a startup goes under- Fast

Erdos6 11y ago

Soylent has responded http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Manufacturers/Soylent-hits-back-at-legal-threat-We-display-Prop-65-warnings http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Manufacturers/Soylent-hits-... and has a prop 65 page up here: https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-California-Proposition-65 https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-Californ... But it doesn't much reassure me. It compares Soylent to a tuna fish sandwich meal, which due to heavy metal concerns you are not supposed to eat multiple times per week, much less 3x per day. The source is likely rice protein. There was a big uproar about arsenic levels in rice a while back, and rice protein in large quantities is much more concentrated than eating plain rice. I typically avoid products that rely on rice and soy protein.

kevinpet 11y ago

The organization opposes GMO foods: http://www.asyousow.org/our-work/environmental-health/gmos/ http://www.asyousow.org/our-work/environmental-health/gmos/ So I value their opinion about as much as I do Dr. Jenny McCarthy's pioneering work on vaccinations.

eropple 11y ago
You don't like what they think about GMO foods. OK. And that relates to lab-tested lead and cadmium levels...hhhhhow?
pbreit 11y ago
A lot of smart people have legitimate concerns about unnecessary GMOs.
- robobro 11y ago
  And a lot of smart people don't believe in global warming, and believe in ghosts.
DonaldFisk 11y ago
You're entitled to your opinion, and I share your views on Jenny McCarthy, but there are plenty of health, environmental, and economic reasons to oppose GMO food, none of which are the issue here. It's alleged that lead and cadmium levels are too high, which is verifiable and so not a matter of opinion. Even if they were within safe limits, I still wouldn't want to take a food replacement. I like food, and don't think time eating it is time wasted. YMMV.
- eosrei 11y ago
  I find the argument "I like food" against Soylent confusing. Most people who eat Soylent like food IMO. I eat Soylent and LOVE food. I don't like having to spend so much of every day sourcing, cooking, eating, and cleaning up after food. I've removed all of the rushed, low quality, and/or boring meals from my life while saving money and getting better nutrition(except perhaps my lead intake!) Now I only eat the delicious, interesting, and slow-paced meals. Not attempting to change your mind, just informing it's not just food hating people. Haha!

easong 11y ago

The soylent forums have discussed this quite a lot in the past and people who seem to know what they're talking about have come to the conclusion that the levels are both nothing to worry about and also significantly under a lot of traditional food. http://discourse.soylent.com/t/question-about-proposition-65-warning-in-faq/22132/18 http://discourse.soylent.com/t/question-about-proposition-65... Also, As You Sow appears to be a woo-peddler, so I would be less than inclined to take their word without independent confirmation. Edit: And their CEO doesn't seem to be taking their complaint terribly seriously either - he issued the following statement recently. "Andrew here. Most of what I was trying to do is get a conversation going around food safety, and it worked. I smile at every in depth analysis on lead or cadmium that I triggered. Oh no! You just proved me wrong and educated all the readers of your comment, as well as learned more yourself."

gnoway 11y ago
I have never in my life seen the term 'woo-peddler'. For anyone else in a similar situation, it's roughly equivalent to snake-oil salesman.
easong 11y ago
Since I can't edit this comment any more, the quote from their CEO is wrong - it's actually based on a quote from the CEO of Soylent somebody from reddit changed. That's what I get for not checking...

gnoway 11y ago

The stated reason for replacing rice protein with soy in their 2.0 formula was texture/mouthfeel, but I bet it has something to do with this as well. Why does rice tend to have such high heavy metal content? Is it simply coincidence w/ where rice tends to be grown?

Animats 11y ago

Here's As You Sow's own site info on this.[1] The info is about the same. They're using the California act because a private party can bring an action under that act. "One serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer to a concentration of lead that is 12 to 25 times above California's Safe Harbor level." That would mean 12 * 15 micrograms per day. Soylent's suggested serving size is 0.5 liter, so that would be a lead level of 90 micrograms / liter. The EPA's action level for lead in water is 15 micrograms / liter. So they're 6x over the allowed maximum level for water. (That's the maximum level allowed for water; the desired level, according to the EPA, is zero.) On the other hand, heavy metal levels are routinely higher in foodstuffs than in water, because plants and animals concentrate them. It gets worse as you go up the food chain; mercury in shark and swordfish is a real issue. The EU and WHO allow a level of provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 25μg/kg body weight. US male mean body weight is about 85kg, so that would be 2125μg/kg/week, or 101μg/kg/serving, or about 200 micrograms/liter (1 liter water masses 1kg, so assume that density). So Soylent, at 90 micrograms/liter, is about half the usual limit. That's pushing it, though; a small person drinking four servings a day of the stuff could go over the limit. Because Soylent wants to be the only dietary component, they need pharmaceutical grade quality control. They should be running a sample of every batch through a mass spectrometer, and testing their raw materials. Given their emphasis on how "online" and "digital" they are, you ought to be able to view the analysis for your batch on line. [1] http://www.asyousow.org//?s=soylent http://www.asyousow.org//?s=soylent [2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02006R1881-20100701&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...

sajal83 11y ago

Is this comparing allowed levels in drinking water to whats allowed in food? if so then its apples and oranges. I would like to see if it compared to whats allowed in food.

11thEarlOfMar 11y ago

If they haven't already, Soylent will do their own testing and release the results. If it turns out to be true, they will fix it and take their lumps. If it is false, they can counter-sue, should they choose.