I'm not surprised that products created by people who don't know what they're doing, in a kitchen, using god knows what ingredients, mixed in unsuitable ways, to be cheaper.
The problem comes when they use misleading dubious claims on the fundraising page. They had no need to use those claims; as you point out in another post the initial blog-post created a lot of buzz.
The reason I dislike Soylent so much is that it is a scam, advertised using dubious (and possibly illegal) claims.
Plenty of people were interested in it as an experiment - see the interest after his initial blog post. I thought it was a stupid idea then, but at least they weren't claiming it to be anything it wasn't.
They could have released it as an experimental product and been fine.
But they didn't. They chose to make a bunch of claims that have no basis in fact.
Plenty of people on HN dislike scams. Soylent is marketed in a dishonest, scammy, way.
First, the minor dishonesties:
> Suppose we had a default meal that was the nutritional equivalent of water: cheap, healthy, convenient and ubiquitous.
Soylent tries to say it's something new; that this product doesn't exist. That's just not true.
> Soylent will be personalized for different body types and customizable based on individual goals.
This is the most interesting part of the Soylent claim. If they could make access to testing easier and cheaper they'd have a useful product.
> 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.
They had to change the main source of protein because many people are lactose intolerant. Despite the disclaimer later on in the page this paragraph is making clear medical claims. They have no evidence to support those claims. They also have no need to make those claims! People would have bought Soylent if those claims were not there.
> Soylent [...] puts you in excellent health,
Another dubious unsubstantiated medical claim.
> and vastly reduces your environmental impact by eliminating much of the waste and harm coming from agriculture, livestock, and food-related trash.*
This is an important point. But, like most of the Soylent stuff, they make the claim but have no evidence to support it. I can't find any kind of ecological assessment on any of the various Soylent blogs and websites.
> 50% of the food produced globally is wasted, and food makes for the largest component of municipal garbage. If not for this waste there would be plenty of food to adequately nourish everyone alive.
Food waste is not the reason for global malnutrition.
> 1 in 7 people globally are malnourished, and 1 in 3 in the developing world suffer from deficiency. Countless others are living hand-to-mouth, subsistence farming, hindering economic development. Even in the developed world, agriculture is the most dangerous industry to work in by occupational injuries and illnesses, and obesity is on the rise.
This is laughably ignorant. i) Soylent is very expensive when compared to the existing FRPs and FSPs used by WFP and UNICEF. (20% of the world lives on less than $1.25 per day) ii) Soylent needs clean water. About one billion people don't have access to clean water. Soylent make no mention of this, even though water is a crucial ingredient of the product. iii) Soylent appears to do nothing to increase local independence and resilience. How does Soylent help local farmers?
> By taking years to spoil,
I really need to see how they've tested that. I can't see how it's true. Especially in the context of food aid, where ideal storage conditions may not be available. Perhaps they mean "sealed packs last six months in less-than-ideal conditions" - that's a fine claim to make (if true), they don't need the untested exaggeration.
> dramatically reducing cost, and easing transportation and storage, soylent could have a dramatic effect on hunger and malnutrition.
Soylent is considerably more expensive than the products being used by WFP and UNICEF. I guess transportation and storage are similar.
> Proceeds from the purchase of soylent enable us to work with aid partners and reduce hunger and environmental impact both in the United States and the developing world.
This is great. I wish more companies would do it. Soylent don't mention who they're going to be working with. I'd have thought that with the $800,000 they've raised they would have made a few initial donations. Perhaps they're researching who to give some money to? WaterAid would be one choice. WFP would be another.
> Imagine everyone having a customized,
So far, two options. i) Male. ii) Female. It's a great idea - what do they mean by it? Do they know what they mean?
Then there are a bunch of user testimonials and quotes from the press.
They actually do a reasonable job of the risks and challenges section, better than many other crowd-funders do. They don't mention the risk of people becoming ill after using Soylent.
> there is much evidence that is considerably healthier than a typical diet.
They don't define a typical diet. There is not any evidence that Soylent is considerably healthier than any diet, because there's no evidence for Soylent at all yet.
So that much at least is being done by professionals.
Have they actually shipped any product from the factory yet? Where has all the product they've shipped so far been made?