6 ms·

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 PRNewsw

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 The eco group is not trying to get Soylent withdrawn; they're trying to get Soylent to include the legally mandated warning "this product contains chemicals known by the State of california to cause cancer".
- anonbanker 11y ago
  "Some" lead? It was 12-25 times over the limit. 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.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    But those California Safe Harbor limits are not normal safety limits. Those safe harbour limits are when you need to put a sticker saying "contains chemicals known by the state of california to cause cancer" (or birth defects). This law suit is not about supplying a product with dangerous levels of lead, (because if it had dangerous levels of lead the regulators would have intervened and recalled all stocks and yu wouldn't still be able to buy it) but of supplying a product that contains some lead and not putting a warning sticker on the product.
    - anonbanker 11y ago
      The fact that "25 times the legal limit of lead allowed to prevent reproductive damage" is being downplayed in any way is slightly disturbing. If this notice is not addressed, you will see regulators intervening.
      - ams6110 11y ago
        Pretty much everything is known to the state of california to cause cancer. The furnace in my basement has this label (and I don't live in california).
      - DanBC 11y ago
        But the only difference after regulation is the inclusion of a sticker! You seem to think the safe harbor limits are realistic safety limits, but the safe harbor limits for lead are 5ug per day. That's much lower than any other regulation. WHO have here http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec12.htm http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec12.htm > (Annex 1, reference 30), when a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 3 mg of lead per person, equivalent to 50 µg/kg bw, was established. This PTWI was reconfirmed by the Committee at its twenty-second meeting (Annex 1, reference 47). At its thirtieth meeting (Annex 1, reference 73), the Committee assessed the risk posed by lead to the health of infants and children and established a PTWI of 25 µg/kg bw for this population group. The Committee again evaluated lead at its forty-first meeting (Annex 1, reference 107), (PDF so not able to copy and paste) but current PTWI is 25ug per kg for all people. The prop65 level of 5ug is much lower than that.

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".

anonbanker 11y ago
"Some" lead? It was 12-25 times over the limit. 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.
- DanBC 11y ago
  But those California Safe Harbor limits are not normal safety limits. Those safe harbour limits are when you need to put a sticker saying "contains chemicals known by the state of california to cause cancer" (or birth defects). This law suit is not about supplying a product with dangerous levels of lead, (because if it had dangerous levels of lead the regulators would have intervened and recalled all stocks and yu wouldn't still be able to buy it) but of supplying a product that contains some lead and not putting a warning sticker on the product.
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    The fact that "25 times the legal limit of lead allowed to prevent reproductive damage" is being downplayed in any way is slightly disturbing. If this notice is not addressed, you will see regulators intervening.
    - ams6110 11y ago
      Pretty much everything is known to the state of california to cause cancer. The furnace in my basement has this label (and I don't live in california).
    - DanBC 11y ago
      But the only difference after regulation is the inclusion of a sticker! You seem to think the safe harbor limits are realistic safety limits, but the safe harbor limits for lead are 5ug per day. That's much lower than any other regulation. WHO have here http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec12.htm http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec12.htm > (Annex 1, reference 30), when a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 3 mg of lead per person, equivalent to 50 µg/kg bw, was established. This PTWI was reconfirmed by the Committee at its twenty-second meeting (Annex 1, reference 47). At its thirtieth meeting (Annex 1, reference 73), the Committee assessed the risk posed by lead to the health of infants and children and established a PTWI of 25 µg/kg bw for this population group. The Committee again evaluated lead at its forty-first meeting (Annex 1, reference 107), (PDF so not able to copy and paste) but current PTWI is 25ug per kg for all people. The prop65 level of 5ug is much lower than that.