Soylent recalls powder after dairy accidentally slips into 1.8 powder | Hacker News Reader

Soylent recalls powder after dairy accidentally slips into 1.8 powder

arstechnica.com

58 pointsironchief60 comments

I love the idea of Soylent, but this has happened so many times now. It's not just the mold and the lead and the manufacturing defects, but the fact that often these were the result of decisions-- like not putting a foil cap on a liquid food product-- that people with experience in the food industry would never have made. I hate to give in to stereotypes, especially of my own industry, but Soylent really gives the impression that they're a bunch of Valley brogrammers just barging into an industry to "disrupt" everything, but without knowing how to do so without killing people.

Does anyone know if there's a product that's "Soylent, but by people who know what the hell they're doing"? That's what I want to buy.

AFAIK Huel is produced by a qualified dietician, and hasn't had any issues.

Sorry but we don't currently ship to USA or Canada, but it's in the pipeline. Do you know of a US equivalent for a nutritionally complete bar not from Soylent?

Ah damn, sorry, didn't realise they were EU-only. Maybe Mealsquares?

Slim-Fast, Met-Rx...Carnation Instant Breakfast.

This shit isn't new.

I don't think that's quite the same thing though, at least not for Slim-Fast (I haven't heard of the others). Soylent claims to be nutritionally complete-- as in, you could theoretically live off it alone-- and Slim-Fast does not. I was looking for a competing product along those lines.

There are plenty of medical sole source of nutrition products available, catering to a range of different dietary needs.

That they don't advertise to the general public; or don't say "you can live off this and nothing else" says something about Soylent's unethical marketing.

The Ensure range is easiest to get hold of for the general public. (Ensure and Ensure Plus are sometimes used as sole source nutrition in forced NG tube feeding for hunger-striking prisoners or eating disordered patients.)

"Ensure and Ensure Plus are sometimes used as sole source nutrition in forced NG tube feeding for hunger-striking prisoners..."

Now there's a good brand differentiator...hang on, I have a Wikipedia page to improve.

"unethical marketing"? Please explain..

During the kickstarter they made a number of bullshit claims: "puts you in perfect health"; "perfectly safe for anyone"; they claimed rigorous testing which appeared to be one person living off it for a few months; they advertise it as a sole source of nutrition without any real testing.

This just seems to be a biased claim that Soylent hasn't done any "real testing". Do you have evidence of that? Soylent has been out for years and a lot of people have been drinking 100% Soylent for a long time now.

They hadn't done any testing during the kickstarter, and even if they had saying it was fine for anyone to use (the original recipe contained known allergens) and that it puts you into perfect health are clearly bullshit.

(EDIT: I don't know why you're being downvoted. I upvoted you to try to correct that.)

>Soylent claims to be nutritionally complete-- as in, you could theoretically live off it alone-- and Slim-Fast does not.

Soylent can claim what they wish. When it comes to my health, I think I'm going to hedge towards the side that doesn't purport to be everything your body needs for nutrition in powder form, crafted by people with little nutritional science background.

That's an interesting point of view. Sort of like, when it comes to wiring up my new house, I'm going to go with the guy who doesn't purport to be a licensed electrician.

...sarcasm?

purport: appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess.

Would you choose the guy who _purports_ to be an electrician, or the guy who _is_ a licensed electrician?

I would go with the guy who _purports_ to be an electrician, over the guy who specifically states that he is not an electrician. That is the comparison when you say "I am going to trust Slim Fast as a meal replacement over Soylent." I used purport because that was the word originally used, but the "falsely" part doesn't apply here, there is no evidence that Soylent isn't healthy, and lots of evidence that it is.

>I would go with the guy who _purports_ to be an electrician, over the guy who specifically states that he is not an electrician.

I wouldn't hire either without seeing some legitimate qualifications.

But it has what plants crave - electrolytes!

But I want cannibalism jokes with my meal replacement.

Medical food and meal replacement shakes existed well before soylent, they're usually intended for people who are on a feeding tube. There's a lot of common brands like Ensure, and you can find probably at least one decent option in a reasonably well-stocked grocery store. If you want to order online there's some interesting stuff like: http://www.functionalformularies.com/liquid-hope-information...

Soylent's main distinguishing features are marketing and sloppiness. They are also a little cheaper than other options, but here as with most things, you get what you pay for.

Ensure has way more sugar and doesn't claim to be nutritionally complete.

Ensure Complete.

My impression is that Ensure isn't marketed to the general public for use as a 100% meal replacement, but is commonly used that way in hospitals.

I drank Ensure fairly regularly in college when I had mismanaged my schedule too badly to eat a proper meal, and I never had any health trouble. I'd expect you can find as many anecdotes in favor of Ensure as in favor of Soylent.

From what I heard Ensure doesn't aim to be nutritionally complete. It's designed to replace unhealthy snacks with a healthier alternative.

Soylent on the other hand can replace most (possibly all) of your meals, if you want that. And if you don't get a moldy batch.

> From what I heard Ensure doesn't aim to be nutritionally complete. It's designed to replace unhealthy snacks with a healthier alternative.

The main Ensure product on the market does not, but there are versions that are used for literally this exact purpose. I forget whether Ensure (the brand) produces it or if it's under a different company/name, but it's definitely there. You just have to read the label - it'll indicate if it's meant as a complete food substitute or not.

This is 100% incorrect. Soylent is nothing like Ensure.

Ensure ingredients [0]: Water, Corn Maltodextrin, Sugar, Milk Protein Concentrate, Blend of Vegetable Oils (Canola, Corn), Soy Protein Isolate, Nonfat Milk. Less than 0.5% of: Magnesium Phosphate, Potassium Citrate, Natural & Artificial Flavor, Cellulose Gel, Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Calcium Phosphate, Choline Chloride, Ascorbic Acid, Sodium Citrate, Cellulose Gum, Potassium Chloride, Monoglycerides, Soy Lecithin, Carrageenan, Potassium Hydroxide, Liquid Sucralose, Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Sulfate, Acesulfame Potassium, dl-Alpha-Tocopheryl Acetate, Niacinamide, Manganese Sulfate, Calcium Pantothenate, Copper Sulfate, Thiamine Chloride Hydrochloride, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Vitamin A Palmitate, Riboflavin, Chromium Chloride, Folic Acid, Biotin, Sodium Molybdate, Potassium Iodide, Sodium Selenate, Phylloquinone, Vitamin D3, and Vitamin B12.

Nutritional Facts [0]: Amount Per Serving % Daily Value Calories: 220 Calories from Fat: 50 Total Fat, g: 6 9% Saturated Fat, g: 1 5% Trans Fat, g: 0 Polyunsaturated Fat, g: 2 Monounsaturated Fat, g: 3 Cholesterol, mg: <5 <2% Sodium, mg: 200 8% Potassium, mg: 370 11% Total Carbohydrate, g: 32 11% Dietary Fiber, g: <1 <4% Sugars, g: 15 Protein, g: 9 18%

Conclusion: Drinking 9 of these a day to reach 1980 calories does not make the % daily values add up to 100, so it's not balanced/complete. By the way, one bottle is only 220 calories, which won't come close to filing you up.

[0] https://ensure.com/nutrition-products/ensure-original#vanill...

Throw in a daily supplement, vitamin needs solved. Probably a bit light on the fats, though.

> one bottle is only 220 calories, which won't come close to filing you up.

This depends greatly on your age, your body, and your expectations. If you eat many small meals, 220 calories might be a perfect meal.

"a little cheaper"? That product you linked to is more than twice as expensive even compared to the Soylent 2.0 bottles. Whenever Soylent comes up there's always the "soylent is nothing new, it's just marketing" claims. But I have yet to see a link to a comparable product. Is there a pre-existing product that is a nutritionally complete meal replacement in the same price range?

This website shows all popular products that were spawned from the Soylent "craze": https://www.blendrunner.com/

Personally I use Joylent (I think it's the most used brand in Europe; also they now call themselves JimmyJoy/Plennyshake) and as far as I am aware they never had any issues like Soylent did. It's also a bit cheaper than Soylent, but sadly doesn't offer a liquid version. Just powder that you have to mix with water and a snack bar.

Though it won't be shelf stable or non-perishable, it's easy to make a smoothie with far more nutritional value than Soylent. My go-to is a water-based combination of low-carb chocolate flavor protein powder, coconut oil, steamed lentils, and berries. It's the only combination I've found that gives me steady energy for hours on end. No idea why my girlfriend refuses to try it ;-)

Unfortunately while googling your recipe. I found out that lentils,beans and peas cumber though their alkaloids the absorption of nutrients and shouldn't be used in Smoothies.

Are you referring to their phytic acid content? If so, this concern is way overblown, unless you are eating eg a lot of brown rice.

OP, depending on how much protein you're adding, your smoothie is pretty great except it has the same problem of all liquid diets: very fast absorption, an insulin spike and all the problems that potentially come with it.

Thanks for the feedback. What proportion of protein would you say makes for a good balance in such a concoction? Also, please see my response to the GP regarding insulin spikes.

Got it, good that you are on top of it.

As for protein, it depends on your activity level and so forth. There is good evidence to suggest that everyone should strive for roughly 120 grams/day. If you are involved with eg a strength sport, say Olympic lifting, then at least 1 gram/lb of lean body mass is a good idea.

There are some great protein powders available these days that are sweetened with stevia too.

I read a scientific book on sports health a couple of years ago, but I can't remember the title. I've tried to remember the title before and have searched my library history, because it said that even if you do heavy strength training, the amount of protein you need is basically the same as any normal person. It said that 0.8 g/kg of body weight was enough for anyone, and that's only 0.36 g/lb of body weight. It's so much lower than what I typically see: your 1 g/lb is on the lower end, since people usually recommend 2-4 g/lb of protein for strength training or bodybuilding.

I've also read elsewhere that the average Western diet contains twice the amount of protein you need. Too much protein comes with its own problems, in addition to just being stored as fat if it's more than the body can utilize. Perhaps strength trainers and bodybuilders use the extra protein as energy to build muscle, so that you could get the same energy from fat or carbs instead?

The same book said that the caloric ratio of the recovery shake or meal following strength training should be 4:1 calories from carbs and protein. I use soy protein powder, Powder Dextropur Plus, and water for my recovery shake. The high amount of carbs is to kick the body back from stress mode to recovery, and is only advised post heavy training when your body can handle it.

I really should find the title of the book, as it goes against a lot of wisdom found on the net. I just looked up ExRx.net [1] which I find is based on referenced science and facts, and they say:

* Average consumption for U.S. is 100 grams/day * Protein requirements 40 grams/day for females 55-70 grams/day or 0.8 grams/kg body weight for males * Recommended protein intake for athletes or physically active people (Paul 1989) Protein and carbohydrate requirements increase somewhat more calories

They say that protein and carb requirements increase somewhat when you're active, but further down on the page they say that the protein requirements may increase quite a bit. But it seems like the main requirement is a higher calorie intake, and that the ratio of calories from protein is basically the same for high-activity individuals.

[1] http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Protein.html

Oh, messed up formatting and too late to edit. Here it is:

- Average consumption for U.S. is 100 grams/day

- Protein requirements:

-- 40 grams/day for females

-- 55-70 grams/day or 0.8 grams/kg body weight for males

- Recommended protein intake for athletes or physically active people (Paul 1989):

-- Protein and carbohydrate requirements increase somewhat

-- more calories

Thanks for the info, I'll have to look into it further. My blood sugar/insulin response is very sensitive to carbs, so the amount of lentils I use is very small. I add more if I'm going directly into a workout.

I ended up with this recipe after years of trial and error. It's designed to be high in protein, devoid of sugar, high in fat, and include a small amount of low-glycemic index carbohydrates. The high fat content seems to slow down the absorbtion of the other nutrients, moderating my insulin response.

I _hate_ the idea of Soylent, but they still advertise to me on fb. So I'm running an experiment where I click on it every time to see how their retargeting performs.

.. as if the world needs another shoddy protein shake, in the form of a disruptive startup, run by valley bros. tasty

Soylent is definitely not a "protein shake". Quite the opposite, which is one reason why it's not taken seriously by athletes.

Ensure Complete is one

I'm not sure how much better their quality control is (they are another SV startup), but I have been eating Mealsquares (http://www.mealsquares.com/) for about half of my caloric load for over a year now and couldn't be happier. I also like the fact that they are solid food rather than liquid, just as a preference. I'm sensitive to gluten, corn, and soy, so Mealsquares are a huge boon when I am in a rush or need to opt out of eating somewhere (e.g. traveling).

(I'm not affiliated with them in any way.)

For those who may be interested, Mealsquares do contain dairy.

Me too. Good solution to getting the convenience and complete nutrition benefits you'd get from a Soylent or Soylent-like product but with the additional hedge that there may be yet unknown beneficial micronutrients in whole food ingredients that you don't get from an isolated nutrient slurry like Soylent.

For those who don't know Mealsquares, they're made from mostly whole food ingredients (Whole grain oats, eggs, milk, dark chocolate chips (chocolate, sugar, cocoa butter, milkfat), whey, orange juice, rice bran, sunflower seeds, dates, sweet potatoes, apples, vegetable glycerin, chickpeas, carrots, coconut oil, extra virgin olive oil, xanthan gum, sunflower lecithin, xylitol, iodized sea salt, potassium citrate, cinnamon, aluminum free baking powder, Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), Vitamin D3, Vitamin K2, niacinamide (B3), calcium folinate, lactase, spices).

Only downside is the price but I don't try to replace home cooked meals with them, just some of those times when I'd go grab some fast casual food instead, or times when I'm busy and don't want to have to go get food.

Anyone who ends up trying them - be aware that they taste 500% better after 30 seconds in the microwave. They can be pretty dry and dense when you don't microwave them.

There are a number of meal replacement powders at some big chains (Krogers/Ralphs/King Soopers and Amazon at least):

    "Raw Organic Meal" by Garden of Life
    "All-in-One Nutritional Shake" by Vega One

I can't vouch for whether they "know what the hell they are doing" but I like the quality and really like the lack of sugar/carbs. A big problem though is they are low protein and calorie count so you still need to search for those.

But as a side note, and speaking for myself, I like Mealsquares better than any of the powders.

Good on them for a fast and voluntary response. It is terrifying as a business owner for a 3rd party to effectively have the have physical responsibility while you have fiscal responsibility. Not a huge story however, this happens to every food company.

What worries me most, and why I stopped Soylent, is that the quality is not in their hands, but in the hands of their suppliers. Do they test everything that they receive to confirm that it is what the supplier says it is?

>What worries me most, and why I stopped Soylent, is that the quality is not in their hands, but in the hands of their suppliers.

Yep. We kicked around startup ideas based on the supplement industry, but the liability surrounding selling products you can't fully control seemed a bit rough for a small business.

The amount of things that Soylent had plenty of control over and still got wrong worries me more, because that means they probably don't test everything :(

I'm mostly happy as a Soylent customer, but they definitely have some issues in their order fulfillment as well. I've had shipments charge on my card and show up as processing in the dashboard but never ship (usually they go from ordered to shipped in 24-48 hours). After contacting them a week later, they simply said that my order had "gotten lost". Others have discussed this on Reddit and it seems to be relatively common.

So this is something juicero's mixer would have caught easily (the recall aspect).

If only I had to scan each of my bottles with a 700 dollar device before I drank anything. Id be so much safer from dairy

The way some processed food categories are evolving places them close to drugs in terms of risk. In drug manufacturing they use so called batch topologies to trace back individual components for risk management, audit and process improvement.

Could be worse. I've found a piece of metal in a burrito and there was a recall for possible glass in a brand of ravioli I eat.

Interesting inadvertent test of how many people are lactose intolerant vs. say they are.

I'm missing the interesting and the test part.

From the article, it was cross contamination of whey powder which can be lactose free. IMO it's more concerning about their quality control and the fact that someone may be choosing the dairy free version for ethical reasons.

I'm pretty sure people who are lactose-intolerant tend not to annihilate on contact with lactose, but lactose is hard to digest for them and increasing amounts of lactose cause increasing problems. Same with gluten-intolerant / celiac people; "I told them this pasta was gluten-free and they didn't notice" doesn't prove anything other than you very slightly eroded their digestive tract.

As an analogy, I'm allergic to nuts but can usually successfully eat things with a small amount of nut content without even noticing, and foods fried in peanut oil are definitely fine. But if you tried to use that to claim I'm not actually allergic to nuts, you'd be wrong.

Peanut oil is a weird one, as a lot of people with peanut allergies react specifically to a protein in the peanut. Most of the cheap oil that the local Chinese restaurant orders in 55 gallon drums from Sysco has been refined so much there is no peanut protein left in it. As someone with a peanut allergy I have had no problems with strip mall egg rolls that I know have been fried in peanut oil but needed to use an epipen at Manressa because something was fried in some sort of organic, unrefined peanut oil.

Lactose intolerance varies widely and is totally non-binary. Some people will just have a rumbling stomach for a few hours from the amount of milk in a latte if they forget to take a few lactose pills while the opposite end of the spectrum will end up in the hospital and lactose pills will never be enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com