Health Watchdog To Bring Legal Action Against Soylent Over Lead, Cadmium Levels 135
An anonymous reader writes: We've previously discussed Soylent, the self-proclaimed "meal replacement." The product has not been without controversy, and now it's likely to see some more: As You Sow, a non-profit foundation dedicated to corporate responsibility, plans to bring legal action against Soylent for failing to provide sufficient warning about the amount of lead and cadmium in it. They allege that a serving of Soylent contains 12 to 25 times the concentration of lead at which point consumers in the state of California must be warned. The concentration of cadmium, they say, is four times the current maximum. Soylent has acknowledged the results of heavy metal tests but says the levels present in Soylent are not toxic. As You Sow maintains that Soylent's marketing focus on replacing food suggests chronic exposure, which is more of an issue than an occasional indulgence.
Huh (Score:1)
I never knew people were made of lead and cadmium.
Re: Huh (Score:5, Funny)
Only because those people ate soylent. Which was made from other people who ate soylent. Yup, it's soylent all the way down.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Funny)
I never knew people were made of lead and cadmium.
People are really high on the food chain. Similar to swordfish and sharks, humans tend to accumulate high concentrations of heavy metals.
The FDA recommends that pregnant women avoid eating people at all, and most others should limit themselves to one or two servings per week.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Funny)
People are really high on the food chain. Similar to swordfish and sharks, humans tend to accumulate high concentrations of heavy metals.
No wonder people are so dense most of the time.
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (Score:3)
True, we are apex predators, and thus apex toxin accumulators.
But heavy metals and other accumulative toxins are not the reason that pregnant women -- or anyone, for that matter -- should not eat people. I haven't run the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that you won't ingest that much cadmium and whatever, even if human flesh is your primary food source.
The real peril is Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy [wikipedia.org] -- "Mad Human Disease" -- which begins with a single strand of broken protein.
Also, social-evolution
Re: (Score:2)
a non-profit foundation dedicated to corporate responsibility, plans to bring legal action against Soylent
What part of that is confusing you?
Re: Let the free market work it out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The free market fetishists prefer a system were your only hope after being permanently maimed or killed by a product is to sue for compensation after the fact. Saner people prefer a system that at least attempts to prevent people from being maimed or killed by products beforehand. Market apologists cling to the belief that businesses would produce products that maim and kill their customers in the face of liability despite centuries of evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
Market apologists cling to the belief that businesses would produce products that maim and kill their customers in the face of liability despite centuries of evidence to the contrary.
This is such a horrible sentence. I think you're missing a "not".
Re: (Score:2)
Both free market and big government regulators enact punishment after the fact. Both do this, not only to punish wrong-doing but to deter future actions. There is no law that prevents action without punishment. And punishment is done after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess if you want to sell a medicine that you will be able to until the FDA or the Feds punish you? Of course not there are approval processes which mean that dangerous products are weeded out before they are sold.
As a chemist, I have something to say. (Score:3, Interesting)
| "Nobody expects heavy metals in their meals," said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow.
As a chemist, I can tell you that heavy metals are everywhere. If you don't expect that in your food, you are not good at chemistry. It is the concentration that matters. Even table salt at too high concentration is toxic. I don't care much about the California's safety standard. As long as the heavy metal concentrations are lower than our local standard, I am fine with it.
Re:As a chemist, I have something to say. (Score:5, Interesting)
Except, unlike table salt which is water soluble and excess is quickly eliminated from your body, heavy metals tend to accumulate. Small, repeated doses over a long period of time can accumulate toxic levels in your body tissues.
You're right that exposure is unavoidable, but they set exposure limits for a reason.
=Smidge=
But this is California, so of course it's stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
but they set exposure limits for a reason.
These are based on "exposure limits" set by the state of California. California requires warnings about metal concentrations on virutally ALL FOOD, making these warnings stupid and useless. Read the related links and you will learn something.
Re:But this is California, so of course it's stupi (Score:5, Interesting)
California requires warnings about metal concentrations on virutally ALL FOOD
Good. I don't see why that makes the warning useless; the effects are cumulative and people need constant reminders that they are being exposed. It keeps manufacturers and third party groups on the ball for monitoring levels to catch cases where exposure is unreasonably high.
=Smidge=
Re:But this is California, so of course it's stupi (Score:5, Insightful)
People do not respond to constant reminders - they blank them out as irrelevant background noise. As such they are then more useless than appropriate warnings. As an example: there are no foods in the UK that are not labeled "may contain traces of nuts".
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada, peanuts are labeled "may contain traces of nuts".
I know that peanuts are not technically nuts but I still find it funny.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only because he has a sense of humour. It's a common mistake to get the two confused. When in doubt remember: correlation does not imply causation.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, foods that are labeled that they may contain trace amounts of tree nuts are treated as poison by my wife, and deservedly so because of a strong allergic reaction to tree nuts that has required hospital-level treatment. While it's not literally true that there are no foods not so labelled, it is becoming alarmingly rare to find packaged food without allergy warnings. There are a few manufacturers that do keep their equipment nut-free and market their products as such at premium prices.
I conta
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, it's terrible behavior on the part of food manufacturers, and I'd much rather have legislation that requires manufacturers to properly clean their equipment instead of simply labeling their food as poison.
In the case of tree nuts, it's poison for less than 1% of the population, according to the first link [foodallergy.org] I found. For everybody else, it's a harmless trace of food. It's really a question of how much expense you want to force everybody to go through to cater to a tiny percentage of the population. If food allergies can kill you, wouldn't it make more sense to only eat food catering to your specific needs?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Just No. I'd equate that heartless comment to the bitching about the cost of ADA compliance. Safe food is a basic human need. We're not eating at the damned Fountainhead Cafe. You seem to think that it's just economically cheaper to kill all people with allergies, but that's just too cruel to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, just yes. Just how much does the rest of the world have to adapt to the needs of the tiniest few? When does it end? Is it really so much to ask that the tiny few seek out services that cater to them? It's "heartless" in the same manner you don't give all your money to charity and live on a subsistence income.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why Godwinning a thread is stupid unless it's a spot-on analogy. I'm not advocating shoving 15 million people into an oven. Rather, I'm advocating that the less than 1% "seek out services that cater to them" -- you know, take personal responsibility for their special needs instead of asking the rest of the world adapt to their needs. If anything, your 15 million number shows a business opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, not only are you suggesting that people who through no fault of their own develop an allergy should accept an economic punishment they did nothing to deserve
The alternative is that you force an economic punishment on the 99% that they did nothing to deserve. Life isn't fair.
but then you add insult to economic injury by suggesting that businessmen should exploit those people and their handicap for personal gain, doubling the economic burden they face
Oh no, you're "exploiting" somebody by selling something they need. Damn you free market! If only the wise government, who totally wouldn't screw up allocation of resources, decided who should be able to purchase what and for what price in a completely "fair" manner: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Somebody should really try that system.
This is what's wrong with the world today; instead of helping each other succeed, we seek out the weak to bleed them out
What's wrong is th
Re: (Score:1)
> there are no foods in the UK that are not labeled "may contain traces of nuts".
I did a quick check of food in my cupboards. The majority of items were not labelled as potentially containing nuts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They do warn people, its on their site and everything: https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-... [soylent.com]
So why are these heavy metals in the stuff? Is it ayurvedic medicine or something??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Warnings belong on food labels, not websites.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it doesn't. There are two requirements for labeling. Individual food items that require labels have to have them, and anyone shopping can see that only a tiny fraction of the items are labeled. There's also a requirement that the entrance to the store have a label if any food item requires one. Since most food stores carry at least one item that requires a warning, almost all stores require one. That might make you think t
Re: (Score:2)
Small, repeated doses over a long period of time can accumulate toxic levels in your body tissues.
Yes, and I think it's potentially a much bigger issue in something like Soylent. If the doses are a bit high in one particular meal that you eat one time, it may not be a very big deal. Soylent, on the other hand, is basically marketed on the idea that you can eat it for every meal, every day. If there's anything in it where repeated doses can be dangerous to your health, then consuming Soylent as it's being marketed is dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the doses are higher than you'd get in the average diet. It's not clear to me that that is the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Or it's possible that the doses are higher than in "the average diet", but still safe.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't contradict him eh, he's a Chemist! The dude MUST know what he is talking about =p
Re:As a chemist, I have something to say. (Score:4, Interesting)
You are correct that heavy metals are everywhere. However, we can't trust corporations to self police, so we have government set limits. It is reasonable for the limits to be more strict with respect to a product that is marketed as a replacement for all of your meals, such as Soylent. Contrast this with tuna fish and mercury content, which is considered to be at acceptable levels when eaten occasionally.
Re: (Score:3)
I find this comment hysterical because it wasn't the FDA that found this out but a private watchdog company. That's how the free market works. You don't have to trust companies to self regulate. The best sources of wrong doing will always come from competitors, disgruntled employees, or consumer advocates.
Re: (Score:2)
And I find your comment hysterical considering that the cornerstone of this action is the laws and regulations of California.
That's not to say that I find the FDA to be all that effective as a regulator(they manage at the same time to make the regulatory process outrageously expensive and fail to protect the population from harm).
Re: (Score:2)
I find this comment hysterical because it wasn't the FDA that found this out but a private watchdog company. That's how the free market works.
It's a non-profit, reporting on state regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't give a fuck what you care about, prick.
Re: (Score:2)
No. What I would expect to happen is their customer base will vanish long before the authorities get around to fining them or forcing them to remove their product. Kind of like the whole BPA or trans-fat issues. Companies felt the pressure and responded to consumer demand. I'm sure eventually long after the fact there might be some regulations against those products.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean inhaling smoldering plant matter into your lungs is not healthy? Who would have thought?
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that heavy metals are everywhere. However, we can't trust corporations to self police, so we have government set limits. It is reasonable for the limits to be more strict with respect to a product that is marketed as a replacement for all of your meals, such as Soylent. Contrast this with tuna fish and mercury content, which is considered to be at acceptable levels when eaten occasionally.
They could probably market it as being beneficial; Ayurvedic medicine makes extensive use of heavy metals... (and can also make people very sick).
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware, that companies that produce lead-free solder in Europe, must have their product labeled with "may contain lead" in California?
Because California's lead restrictions are something like 9X (1 part per billion) where as Europe's standard is at 6X (1 part per million)... even though both of them can be described best and most easily with homeopathic dilution values...
Re:As a chemist, I have something to say. (Score:5, Funny)
nobody expects toxic heavy metal! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and density...density and surprise.... Our two weapons are density and surprise...and ruthless toxicity.... Our three weapons are density, surprise, and ruthless toxicity...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as density, surprise.... I'll come in again.
Re: (Score:1)
Since I never seem to get mod points, here's a fake +1 Funny to you.
Re: (Score:3)
You want to eat more heavy metals!!! Strange person, I personally would go with the stricter standard until I knew exactly how those st
Re: (Score:3)
As a chemist, I can tell you that heavy metals are everywhere. If you don't expect that in your food, you are not good at chemistry. It is the concentration that matters. Even table salt at too high concentration is toxic. I don't care much about the California's safety standard.
Here's the chart that shows the levels. [soylent.com]
For perspective, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain has set 2.5 micrograms/kg body weight as a tolerable weekly intake for humans. If you eat soylent for every meal, you have exceeded the recommended intake unless you weigh 400 pounds or something.
Re: As a chemist, I have something to say. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's why most people have water filters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: As a chemist, I have something to say. (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you want to do this as relative amount (0.1 meaning ten percent, etc.), then raising it to the ninth power makes it smaller, which isn't exactly what you intended.
The More You Know...
Lead in Soylent? That explains a bit. (Score:5, Funny)
There was an article about the founder's cockamamie personal habits, such as ordering new clothes from China constantly (and never washing anything) as well as other eccentric behavior.
Lead poisoning might explain it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's slipping in some Mercury in his drinks? It would explain so much.
Re:Lead in Soylent? That explains a bit. (Score:5, Funny)
2. The warning should be Charlton Heston saying "Soylent is lead and cadmium! IT'S LEAD AND CADMIUM!"
Well I Guess Charlton Heston was Wrong (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Soylent Green is made of heavy metals, not people. Though admittedly the latter made for a better movie.
Lead lined coffins?
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to remember that Soylent doesn't contain soya.
Re: (Score:3)
"Soy Milk" is just milk saying its name in Spanish.
why not eat dog kibble? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not eat dog kibble? I mean that is what this stuff is, "human" dog kibble.
Good luck on your bringing your date over to your flat for dinner as well. Especially when she asks you what is for dinner and you bust out your soylent. That is when your date laughs at you, goes across the road to the bar and finds a man that you know, can actually cook a meal.
There is no reason to eat this garbage, learn how to prepare a meal for yourself. I know your mother never let you near the stove until you were 25 or something, but now is the time to learn how to use a kitchen knife as well as vi and stop over processed poisons.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would want to eat it? It's expensive, probably tastes like crap and it's not for hippies because it's not organic or GMO - free. I bet it doesn't contain 100% of the minerals, enzymes, proteins and vitamins that the body needs to remain healthy long term.
â- Taste Test: Could Soylent Replace Food? | The New York Times - YouTube [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck on your bringing your date over to your flat for dinner as well. Especially when she asks you what is for dinner and you bust out your soylent.
I think the point is to eat it when you are in a hurry, but mature people realize it doesn't need to be eaten for every meal. When your boyfriend comes over to your flat, you can still cook for her.
Re: (Score:3)
some people choose to get their nourishment from something different than the same old type of shit humans have been eating since the stone age... baw.
We co-evolved with our food. It's been optimized for us, and we for it. You can experiment with changing over to something that only slightly resembles it, but don't expect that experiment to go well. We consider ourselves to be some of the most adaptable creatures on the planet, and we might be right, but major adaptation (such as to significantly different temperatures, or elevations) tends to take generations at a minimum — even when it's not very many of them.
Re: (Score:2)
We co-evolved with our food. It's been optimized for us, and we for it. You can experiment with changing over to something that only slightly resembles it, but don't expect that experiment to go well.
We didn't evolve to eat pizza, pasta, donuts and all the rest of the crap that the average person brings home from the store.
The idea to design foods that are closer to a nutritional optimum is a good one. Though Soylent is a primitive step in that direction.
Re: (Score:3)
We didn't evolve to eat pizza, pasta, donuts and all the rest of the crap that the average person brings home from the store.
Yeah, and that makes everyone fatter.
http://www.livescience.com/468... [livescience.com]
Damn right we didn't evolve to eat all that crap.
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't evolve to eat pizza, pasta, donuts and all the rest of the crap that the average person brings home from the store.
Yeah, and that makes everyone fatter.
http://www.livescience.com/468... [livescience.com]
Damn right we didn't evolve to eat all that crap.
People always get that backwards. We never evolve to eat something, we evolve from eating something.
So the question is, what evolutionary changes will a pizza heavy diet produce in humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Obesity, bad health, sickly offspring. :)
Please reply here 100 years from now if I was wrong in my assumption
Re: (Score:2)
Pizza, pasta, and donuts are mostly agricultural commodities that we've been eating as a species for as long as we've been civilized. They're really not terribly interesting (or scandalous) from a dietary perspective.
They're just contrary to one or more recent diet fads.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep telling yourself that fat boy.
Re: (Score:2)
So what ingredient has all that cadmium? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be a lot from the spreadsheet so I wonder how it gets in. What ingredient has all that cadmium?
Maybe they use recycled NiCd batteries?
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to be a lot from the spreadsheet so I wonder how it gets in. What ingredient has all that cadmium?
People?
Re: (Score:1)
The brown rice protein, which has been replaced with soy in Soylent version 2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
The brown rice protein, which has been replaced with soy in Soylent version 2.0.
Funny how it shows this processed food thing has traps for newbies just like other technical fields.
12-25 atoms? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Targets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nobody, it's a suppository.
never mind the amount of heavy metal (Score:2)
what's the percentage of human-sourced protein?
Some actual data (Score:2)
The EPA recommends no more than .001 mg/kg/day of cadmium in food. [cdc.gov]
The average male adult in the US weighs 195 lb [cdc.gov] (88.5 kg). For that person the limit translates to .09 mg/day. [google.com]
It is an open question whether that is really a safe long term limit, as these things do tend to accumulate in the body.
Soylent 1.5 has 21.39g (.021 mg) of cadmium per 500 calorie serving. [soylent.com] So, as per the EPA standard, if that person ate mostly soylent, 4 servings per day (2000 calories), you would have .084 mg of cadmium, right
Soylent (Score:1)
Soylent is RADIOACTIVE PEOPLE
Unless... (Score:2)
"Nobody expects heavy metals in their meals," said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow.
Unless you like to eat Megadeth-O's, part of a nutritious breakfast!
Yaz
Finally - a use for vegans (Score:2)
"Our Soylent is free range, wild-caught vegans! No GMOs!
wait, what? (Score:2)