4 ms·

Fat calories would be one reason. 47% in soylent vs 35% max allowed. Their announcement mentions that it failed more than one requirement, so there must be some

by raquo 9y ago

Fat calories would be one reason. 47% in soylent vs 35% max allowed. Their announcement mentions that it failed more than one requirement, so there must be something else in addition to this.

pmarreck 9y ago
These regulations are outdated. The push against fat calories and towards carbohydrates was largely motivated by the sugar industry, see: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g In addition to this, fat calories are more “filling” than carbohydrate calories. Something useful for a meal replacement (assuming unsaturated/“healthy” fats) I hope Soylent sticks to their guns with the best knowledge available, and I hope interested/concerned Canadians push for reform here.
- DiThi 9y ago
  For an explanation with much more detail and less cheesy acting, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6-v37nOtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6-v37nOtY With what we know now, a cap on fat is ridiculous. The cap should be on carbs.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
  I used to live in Canada, now back in UK. Canadians won’t push for reforms. They’ll accept it. Incredibly docile population. Also they have more pressing issues, online purchases from outside Canada are charged duty if the purchase is over CDN $20. In the US the duties apply only after USD $800. See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/duty-free-limit-america-1.3467632 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/duty-free-limit-america-1.34... There are countless other ‘controls’ of this sort in place across a range of issues.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - DKnoll 9y ago
    > Canadians won’t push for reforms. They’ll accept it. If you think duties on personal purchases from outside the country are a 'pressing issue' your priorities are way out of whack there bud. I'm confused that you criticise Canada for having 'controls' on the population (bit melodromatic) but chose to move back to the UK with its ubiquitous CCTV. I'm just going to leave that docile comment where it lies (in more ways than one) because it's an obvious provocation. Sorry you didn't enjoy your time here.
- whazor 9y ago
  Crazy to think that they could just add lots of sugar and it will be allowed as a meal replacement.
saalweachter 9y ago
Further down it says: "When a meal replacement is represented as a replacement for all daily meals, the maximum amount of energy from fat is reduced to 30 percent, of which no more than 10 percent may be from saturated fat. For complete composition requirements, refer to B.24.200 of the FDR." So it's actually 47% vs 30%, plus probably the additional composition requirements.
- tedmiston 9y ago
  Soylent marketing clearly states that it's not intended as a replacement for all daily meals. Though it seems slightly open to interpretation whether "all" here means "replaces every meal" or "could replace any type of meal breakfast/lunch/dinner" etc. I'm guessing the former.
api_or_ipa 9y ago
I can sympathize with keeping the public safe, but there must be some legal way to promote non-traditional nutrition regimes, in this case as simple as increasing fat consumption. There are many diets suiting many different lifestyles in Canada, from the traditional Inuit meat & fat heavy diet to many 'fad' diets extolled in magazines. It seems strange to me why it's legal to advocate a diet in media but illegal to label a product as such.
- kijin 9y ago
  Advocating a diet (or any other opinion) is protected under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Actually selling a product with potentially misleading labels is not.
- DanBC 9y ago
  The legal way, and this is something that's been pointed out in every single Soylent thread, is to stop selling it as a sole source of nutrition You can do that, but you then need to meet the regulatory hurdles. Or you can market it for the way it's actually used by the vast majority of people - a meal replacement.

by raquo 9y ago

Fat calories would be one reason. 47% in soylent vs 35% max allowed. Their announcement mentions that it failed more than one requirement, so there must be something else in addition to this.

pmarreck 9y ago

These regulations are outdated. The push against fat calories and towards carbohydrates was largely motivated by the sugar industry, see: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g In addition to this, fat calories are more “filling” than carbohydrate calories. Something useful for a meal replacement (assuming unsaturated/“healthy” fats) I hope Soylent sticks to their guns with the best knowledge available, and I hope interested/concerned Canadians push for reform here.

DiThi 9y ago
For an explanation with much more detail and less cheesy acting, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6-v37nOtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6-v37nOtY With what we know now, a cap on fat is ridiculous. The cap should be on carbs.
ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
I used to live in Canada, now back in UK. Canadians won’t push for reforms. They’ll accept it. Incredibly docile population. Also they have more pressing issues, online purchases from outside Canada are charged duty if the purchase is over CDN $20. In the US the duties apply only after USD $800. See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/duty-free-limit-america-1.3467632 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/duty-free-limit-america-1.34... There are countless other ‘controls’ of this sort in place across a range of issues.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DKnoll 9y ago
  > Canadians won’t push for reforms. They’ll accept it. If you think duties on personal purchases from outside the country are a 'pressing issue' your priorities are way out of whack there bud. I'm confused that you criticise Canada for having 'controls' on the population (bit melodromatic) but chose to move back to the UK with its ubiquitous CCTV. I'm just going to leave that docile comment where it lies (in more ways than one) because it's an obvious provocation. Sorry you didn't enjoy your time here.
whazor 9y ago
Crazy to think that they could just add lots of sugar and it will be allowed as a meal replacement.

saalweachter 9y ago

Further down it says: "When a meal replacement is represented as a replacement for all daily meals, the maximum amount of energy from fat is reduced to 30 percent, of which no more than 10 percent may be from saturated fat. For complete composition requirements, refer to B.24.200 of the FDR." So it's actually 47% vs 30%, plus probably the additional composition requirements.

tedmiston 9y ago
Soylent marketing clearly states that it's not intended as a replacement for all daily meals. Though it seems slightly open to interpretation whether "all" here means "replaces every meal" or "could replace any type of meal breakfast/lunch/dinner" etc. I'm guessing the former.

api_or_ipa 9y ago

I can sympathize with keeping the public safe, but there must be some legal way to promote non-traditional nutrition regimes, in this case as simple as increasing fat consumption. There are many diets suiting many different lifestyles in Canada, from the traditional Inuit meat & fat heavy diet to many 'fad' diets extolled in magazines. It seems strange to me why it's legal to advocate a diet in media but illegal to label a product as such.

kijin 9y ago
Advocating a diet (or any other opinion) is protected under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Actually selling a product with potentially misleading labels is not.
DanBC 9y ago
The legal way, and this is something that's been pointed out in every single Soylent thread, is to stop selling it as a sole source of nutrition You can do that, but you then need to meet the regulatory hurdles. Or you can market it for the way it's actually used by the vast majority of people - a meal replacement.