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.
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.
With what we know now, a cap on fat is ridiculous. The cap should be on carbs.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.