I don't know why people downvoted you, but it's true that you need testing to explore these things. Unfortunately, it's one of those things where you can't just

I don't know why people downvoted you, but it's true that you need testing to explore these things. Unfortunately, it's one of those things where you can't just prove the absence of something (in this case: danger). I found the preceding comment equally odd: > We can nonetheless have a strong presumption that the body does best on whole foods. Not really. The commenter even said it himself: "we don't know what we don't know about food". We can acknowledge that 'whole foods' are adequately sustainable for humans, but extrapolating any additional meaning from their traditional role is baseless without further study. Thus, saying that 'adequate' == 'best' is making a huge leap of logic in an area that we haven't even figured out enough to begin optimizing it yet. I don't support soylent, and I don't believe any other MRPs are fully adequate either, but that doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater here...