People should have a reasonable expectation that when they buy a product, it will work as expected and as advertised. And they should have recourse if this turns out not to be the case.
> For anyone who struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't have the means to eat well, soylent is for you.
> Soylent frees you from the time and money spent shopping, cooking and cleaning, puts you in excellent health,
> By taking years to spoil
> The founders and scores of DIYers have been living on Soylent for months and there is much evidence that is considerably healthier than a typical diet.
There's no mention on the crowd-funding page that this is an experiment.
I tend to agree with you - people can do what they like with their bodies and this product would fit a lot better if it was sold as an experiment, with access to discussion forums and etc.
I notice they now have a disclaimer on that page.
It definitely doesn't look like an experiment. There is no data collection, no controls, no clear or explicit warning that the product is untested.
They're selling it as tested, as safe, as suitable for anyone, and as something that will put you in optimum health. It's sleazy and scummy.
If he had some powerful degree in nutrition or a medical degree, it would be mentioned in this sentence. It's not. He doesn't.
And he's not experimenting on himself. He's selling a product that he's advertising as a food replacement with all sorts of health benefits.
As far as "it's cool if a few people get sick..." Are you insane?
> As far as "it's cool if a few people get sick..." Are you insane?
They know what they are getting themselves into. I don't have any problem with people who choose to binge drink or the alcohol manufacturers that sell that product. If people know what they are getting themselves into -- and they'd have to go out of their way to not know with this product -- I'm normally OK with the outcome. Especially if the probable worst-case outcome is a few months of suboptimal nutrition followed by a return to a normal diet. Nope, not insane.
My point is merely that I'm fine with people choosing to do risky things as long as the risk involved is obvious. I'd be a little more comfortable with this campaign page if they made slightly less grandiose promises, but for the most part I think the people ordering it will be aware of the shallowness of the testing so far and can decide for themselves if that is a risk they are willing to accept.
They're passing this off as a cure. That's what really irks me. None of the presentation I've seen so far communicates "participate in our experiment!" It's all stuff like "For anyone who struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't have the means to eat well, soylent is for you." That's a health claim they simple can't back up in any reasonable way. And it's a claim that many people are likely to assume is true! Not everyone will dig into the site and see that Rhinehart has a background in engineering, not nutrition, and that these claims haven't actually been backed up at all. You and I might know to do that, but many people won't. Which is why we have food labeling laws in the first place.
Can you show me where "experimental" is used on the crowd-funding page? (https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body)
Whats the value here? This is just another proprietary nutrient slurry. We already have those.