3 ms·

Soylent seems like an ecommerce dev firm with a food product on the side. This article is more detailed than anything they've released about their actual Soylen

by nether 11y ago

Soylent seems like an ecommerce dev firm with a food product on the side. This article is more detailed than anything they've released about their actual Soylent formulation development and testing procedure.

Animats 11y ago
That's what bothers me about those guys. Their product testing is inadequate.[1] Their outsourced fulfillment operation loses orders.[2] They only do a few sales per minute. No major distributor stocks their product. Yet they're always talking about how elaborate their computer operations are. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9171521/soylent-prop-65-labeling-unsafe-chemicals http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9171521/soylent-prop-65-la... [2] http://readwrite.com/2014/07/22/soylent-food-replacement-bad-customer-service http://readwrite.com/2014/07/22/soylent-food-replacement-bad...
- thatswrong0 11y ago
  > Their product testing is inadequate.[1] Did we read the same article? That article has _nothing_ to do with their product testing. It has everything to do with Prop 65 and labeling. To quote TFA: > But legalities and press releases aside, from a practical health perspective, none of this may matter: as Soylent notes, Prop 65's guidelines are notoriously stringent, pulling many everyday products into its labeling regime — and outside California, there are other more broadly accepted sets of lead and cadmium guidelines that the product meets. ...? > Their outsourced fulfillment operation loses orders.[2] Present tense.. they _had_ major shipping and supply problems at launch. They don't seem to anymore.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    They didn't put prop 65 stickers on the product, even though the absurdly low limits of prop 65 required the warning. That might be because they didn't test the product well enough to detect those very low levels; or because they think prop 65 is bogus; or because they just didn't realise it was a thing. None of those are great for a food product. (Although I agree the prop 65 labelling is so strict it becomes worthless.)
- DanBC 11y ago
  I loath Soylent, but the prop 65 thing is a distraction rather than evidence of anything wrong. That same warning is on a bunch of stuff because the limits are absurdly low, far lower than any safety threshold.

by nether 11y ago

Animats 11y ago

That's what bothers me about those guys. Their product testing is inadequate.[1] Their outsourced fulfillment operation loses orders.[2] They only do a few sales per minute. No major distributor stocks their product. Yet they're always talking about how elaborate their computer operations are. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9171521/soylent-prop-65-labeling-unsafe-chemicals http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9171521/soylent-prop-65-la... [2] http://readwrite.com/2014/07/22/soylent-food-replacement-bad-customer-service http://readwrite.com/2014/07/22/soylent-food-replacement-bad...

thatswrong0 11y ago
> Their product testing is inadequate.[1] Did we read the same article? That article has _nothing_ to do with their product testing. It has everything to do with Prop 65 and labeling. To quote TFA: > But legalities and press releases aside, from a practical health perspective, none of this may matter: as Soylent notes, Prop 65's guidelines are notoriously stringent, pulling many everyday products into its labeling regime — and outside California, there are other more broadly accepted sets of lead and cadmium guidelines that the product meets. ...? > Their outsourced fulfillment operation loses orders.[2] Present tense.. they _had_ major shipping and supply problems at launch. They don't seem to anymore.
- DanBC 11y ago
  They didn't put prop 65 stickers on the product, even though the absurdly low limits of prop 65 required the warning. That might be because they didn't test the product well enough to detect those very low levels; or because they think prop 65 is bogus; or because they just didn't realise it was a thing. None of those are great for a food product. (Although I agree the prop 65 labelling is so strict it becomes worthless.)
DanBC 11y ago
I loath Soylent, but the prop 65 thing is a distraction rather than evidence of anything wrong. That same warning is on a bunch of stuff because the limits are absurdly low, far lower than any safety threshold.