4 ms·

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 produ

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. Soylent lists the ingredients on the box. That the consumers were unaware of their sensitivity to algae is not evidence of misconduct on the part of Soylent.

Pitarou 10y ago
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, because they know that this is how people eat Soylent. Indeed, Soylent was heavily hyped as something that could be 100% of your diet, and they can't pretend that never happened. The FDA actually DOES require that novel ingredients are tested to the point where 0.1% problems are detectable. I know that the algae isn't a novel ingredient, but if Soylent add it to their formula, it will suddenly comprise a large part of the diet of a large number of people. That is a novel thing in itself, so I would argue that Soylent has some responsibility to make sure what they're doing is safe. If FDA rules say its okay not to, the FDA rules need to catch up. I might be inclined to give Soylent the benefit of the doubt if I thought they had a better attitude. But when they made themselves sick because they forgot humans need selenium in their diet, they didn't say, "Wow! How could we have been so dumb? We need to take more care with people's bodies." It was more like, "Hey, no problem. Nobody died and we fixed it now. Let's move on." These are just the screw ups we know about. What are the odds there are plenty more they managed to hush up? Nobody has been killed or injured so far, but if they don't change their attitude and people continue to live off their swill...
- cthalupa 10y ago
  If I release a product containing lactose, clearly state it contains lactose, and a bunch of people have stomach problems after ingesting it because they are lactose intolerant, is it my fault? Regardless on whether or not it was meant to be a 100% meal replacement? 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.
  - Pitarou 10y ago
    Your analogy is inappropriate. You know as well as I do that common ingredients such as flour and milk are regulated differently from novel ones.
6nf 10y ago
> The percentage of people who 'got sick' by Soylent was less 0.1% of all consumers. If that happened to any other manufacturer's food product, there would be an immediate recall and a long intense search for the culprit before a single unit is sold to consumers again. This is people's health you're talking about, not some tech product with a dead pixel.
- intopieces 10y ago
  From the FDA's website: "Food producers recall their products from the marketplace when the products are mislabeled or when the food may present a health hazard to consumers because the food is contaminated or has caused a foodborne illness outbreak." Soylent is not mislabeled. Soylent is not contaminated. Soylent has not caused a foodborne illness outbreak. At the moment, it appears that a small group of consumers discovered they have a sensitivity to algae. They were not hospitalized. No one has died. I'm not even sure anyone missed work. Let's not turn this into an Upton Sinclair novel. Humans are not particularly fragile creatures. http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/ http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/
  - Pitarou 10y ago
    I've tried to explain in another thread why I think Soylent should be regulated differently from other food products.

Pitarou 10y ago

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, because they know that this is how people eat Soylent. Indeed, Soylent was heavily hyped as something that could be 100% of your diet, and they can't pretend that never happened. The FDA actually DOES require that novel ingredients are tested to the point where 0.1% problems are detectable. I know that the algae isn't a novel ingredient, but if Soylent add it to their formula, it will suddenly comprise a large part of the diet of a large number of people. That is a novel thing in itself, so I would argue that Soylent has some responsibility to make sure what they're doing is safe. If FDA rules say its okay not to, the FDA rules need to catch up. I might be inclined to give Soylent the benefit of the doubt if I thought they had a better attitude. But when they made themselves sick because they forgot humans need selenium in their diet, they didn't say, "Wow! How could we have been so dumb? We need to take more care with people's bodies." It was more like, "Hey, no problem. Nobody died and we fixed it now. Let's move on." These are just the screw ups we know about. What are the odds there are plenty more they managed to hush up? Nobody has been killed or injured so far, but if they don't change their attitude and people continue to live off their swill...

cthalupa 10y ago
If I release a product containing lactose, clearly state it contains lactose, and a bunch of people have stomach problems after ingesting it because they are lactose intolerant, is it my fault? Regardless on whether or not it was meant to be a 100% meal replacement? 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.
- Pitarou 10y ago
  Your analogy is inappropriate. You know as well as I do that common ingredients such as flour and milk are regulated differently from novel ones.

6nf 10y ago

> The percentage of people who 'got sick' by Soylent was less 0.1% of all consumers. If that happened to any other manufacturer's food product, there would be an immediate recall and a long intense search for the culprit before a single unit is sold to consumers again. This is people's health you're talking about, not some tech product with a dead pixel.

intopieces 10y ago
From the FDA's website: "Food producers recall their products from the marketplace when the products are mislabeled or when the food may present a health hazard to consumers because the food is contaminated or has caused a foodborne illness outbreak." Soylent is not mislabeled. Soylent is not contaminated. Soylent has not caused a foodborne illness outbreak. At the moment, it appears that a small group of consumers discovered they have a sensitivity to algae. They were not hospitalized. No one has died. I'm not even sure anyone missed work. Let's not turn this into an Upton Sinclair novel. Humans are not particularly fragile creatures. http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/ http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/
- Pitarou 10y ago
  I've tried to explain in another thread why I think Soylent should be regulated differently from other food products.