
Soylent can no longer ship to Canada - thejacenxpress
https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005267426
======
HarryHirsch
The Canadian requirements look very sensible:
[http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/labelling/food-labelling-
fo...](http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/labelling/food-labelling-for-
industry/special-dietary-use/eng/1393627685223/1393637610720?chap=5)

Spit it out - which one did Soylent fail?

~~~
mful
The 30% cap on calories from fat is pretty ridiculous in my view. Even if you
don't buy into the idea that fat is healthful, there is plenty of science that
indicates it is, and so at least CIFA should not regulate fat content in this
way.

Sidenote: I don't drink Soylent and have no idea if it fails the fat content.
I'm in the "Soylent is not healthful" camp, if it matters.

~~~
3pt14159
Not to split hairs, but the cap is 35% unless you want to replace _all_ meals.

I know we're all avant guard around here, but until fairly recently it wasn't
accepted knowledge that fat wasn't as bad for you as first thought. It's
understandable that regulations would take time to adjust.

~~~
seiferteric
But the "fat is bad" idea is fairly recent as well, really only since the 70s.

~~~
riffraff
OTOH, it's not like fat was so abundant before, neither from meat nor dairy.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
That's only true if you have the peculiar western idea that meat is just the
lean muscle tissue of the animal.

If you count bone marrow, brain, organ meats, blood, etc. an animal is pretty
high fat.

~~~
riffraff
the problem is that "animal" was not the most common food anyway, overshadowed
by plants, not that it doesn't contain enough fat.

EDIT: I'm also not sure about this western culture bias you're talking about,
I am italian and we eat innards, blood and marrow. I am fairly sure every
culture in europe does.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Not every culture in Europe, I'm afraid. English people have a pretty strong
aversion towards "offal" (innards). I live in the UK (I'm originally from
Greece) and it's impossible to find any trachea or lungs, let alone small
intestines for some traditional dishes I really miss (g. kokoretsi,
gardoumba).

You can find hearts, livers, kidneys and stomachs, but except for chicken
livers, pretty much only in halal (i.e. middle easterner) butchers, as far as
I can tell.

Edit: Most English also tend to find blood saussages disturbing. There's black
pudding, a blood sausage they make oop north, in Yorkshire, but people under
the north-south divide won't go near it with a ten-foot pole.

And you should just see the expressions of disgust towards haggis (a Scottish
dish made with innards and quaker oats).

~~~
PeanutNore
Black pudding is a central component of the "full English breakfast" that
seems to be readily available all over London. Someone's gotta be eating it,
and probably not just tourists like me.

There's a huge class component in eating offal, though. It might be that
you're associating mainly with middle class people who find eating offal to be
beneath them, or looking for it in middle class areas. Small intestines
(chitterlings or "chitlins" in the US) is a good example - I'm a middle class
white person in the northeastern US and I've never had them and no one I know
has ever admitted eating them to me, but they're popular among poor people of
all races in the rural south and among black Americans in northern cities.

I do enjoy kiska, though, along with a number of my friends - a Polish blood
sausage flavored with marjoram. A lot of people here have Polish ancestors who
came here for work in the steel mills, and it's a very working class sort of
food.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Black pudding is part of the full English in Yorkshire, but not more southerly
than that, as far as I know. It's not surprising to find it in London- you can
find anything edible in London, including a restaurant that specialises in
cooking animals whole and letting nothing go to waste. I forget the name, it's
one of those trendy expensive ones so I've never been.

Where I live in the South, the full English is french toast, baked beans, hash
browns, fried mushrooms, grilled tomatoes, eggs, bacon, sausage and spam
(sorry, couldn't resist). I sincerely believe that a majority of English
people would not touch their breakfast if it had black pudding in it.

Also, I'd think the middle classes would be more likely to eat offal, just to
show they're superior to the plebs. But I might be wrong.

------
garyrichardson
Field Roast Vegan Sausages ([https://fieldroast.com/product-
family/sausages/](https://fieldroast.com/product-family/sausages/)) were
temporarily banned a couple of years ago ([http://fieldroast.com/blog/field-
roast-coming-back-canada/](http://fieldroast.com/blog/field-roast-coming-back-
canada/)).

I'm a vegetarian, not vegan, but I was pretty angry when they disappeared from
our shelves. There was also some scuttlebutt that Field Roast was reported to
the CFIA by a competitor.

As a left leaning Canadian. But don't tell me what to eat. On the other hand,
please keep poisonous or otherwise dangerous foods off of our grocery store
shelves. It's a fine line to walk.

~~~
KitDuncan
Completly off topic, but everybody should try the field roast apple sage
sausages. They are absolutely amazing.

~~~
throwaway413
The only meat alternative I can routinely get meat-eaters to not only try, but
enjoy.

~~~
InitialLastName
I started to love "meat alternatives" the moment I stopped expecting them to
taste like meat.

I'm a thorough meat eater, but I also eat loads of Morningstar Farms Original
Chik Patties because they fall in a pretty optimal place for me in the
price/nutrition/convenience/taste coordinate system. They don't taste like
chicken though.

------
earlyriser
I'm Canadian and drink Soylent regularly, maybe like 2-4 times per month.
Soylent is again doing a poor job on PR in that FAQ. The most important
questions are which requirements are the failing and why. That's all, but
again they're obscure and far from the public.

Same was when lots of their consumers wanted a non-edulcorated version (it was
very sweet some versions ago) and then there was no communication on their
side.

I still buy it, because it's convenient, but they could improve their
communication.

~~~
zzalpha
_I 'm Canadian and drink Soylent regularly, maybe like 2-4 times per month._

Random aside: Once every week or two is considered "regular" consumption to
you?

Isn't this product supposed to be the end-all and be-all of meal replacements?
What has curtailed your consumption?

~~~
dmix
> Isn't this product supposed to be the end-all and be-all of meal
> replacements?

I don't know why so many people think this is the case and then hate on the
product.

Taking too much of any one thing is bad for you. People were doing only-
soylent as an experiment. But for the most part 90% of the time I've read
people only using it for a single meal each day, or on days they dont have
time to cook, and eating regular food otherwise. Which sounds entirely
reasonable to me, especially given how often people substituted those moments
with junk food.

~~~
zzalpha
_I don 't know why so many people think this is the case and then hate on the
product._

Because that's how it's positioned in the market?

Like, literally what they claim it's for, and supposedly the reason they went
into business?

Heck, Rhinehart once claimed "I have not set foot in a grocery store in years.
Nevermore will I bumble through endless confusing aisles like a pack-donkey
searching for feed while the smell of rotting flesh fills my nostrils and
fluorescent lights sear my eyeballs and sappy love songs torture my ears."

------
discreditable
I find it funny that on their powder's product page[1], they champion
themselves for "Transparent Labeling", and right under that put the "bad"
stuff in barely legible grey.

1\.
[https://www.soylent.com/product/powder/](https://www.soylent.com/product/powder/)

~~~
nilved
This is simply disingenuous. That's perfectly legible. Especially compared to
the common practice of not posting it at all. I don't see how anyone can be
upset at this.

~~~
dragonwriter
I don't think anyone would find it noteworthy if they weren't claiming to be a
champion of transparency.

~~~
nilved
Which they are, for listing it at all. Complaining that the text is a slightly
lighter shade of grey betrays that.

------
alexozer
How about in the meantime, Soylent makes a "Canada edition" that is otherwise
identical but declared "NOT a meal replacement"?

~~~
api_or_ipa
That's probably what they'll do. "Not a meal replacement but sold in
convenient 2000kcal pouches... wink wink".

~~~
smnrchrds
I don't know about CFIA, but CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) can and does punish
violations of the spirit of the law. That is, if a company finds a loophole
that allows them to avoid taxes without violating the letter of the law, CRA
is legally allowed to prosecute them anyway for violating the spirit of the
law. It is not unlikely that such common sense discretions are given to CFIA
as well.

~~~
zzalpha
This is almost certainly about false claims/marketing based on usage of
regulated industry terms. Simply removing the offending labeling would bring
them into compliance.

------
RunawayGalaxy
From what I understand, Soylent severely underestimates the importance of
fiber in the human diet.

~~~
CuriouslyC
Fermentable fibers aren't just important, they're one of the key determinants
of how healthy your diet is. Mood, memory & cognitive function, immune
function, inflammation and leanness are all strongly influenced by your
microbiome. Not only does a high fiber diet promote an optimal microbiome, the
byproducts of fiber fermentation are actually the mechanism for most of the
benefits.

Soylent also fails due to a lack of health-promoting phytonutrients. Between
this and the lack of fiber, it is really a poor choice. You really need to get
one solid, plant based meal a day for proper health. A better on-the-go
alternative to soylent is a mixture of nuts and high phytonutrient dried fruit
like blueberries/cherries (without added sugar). Tempeh also works well on the
go and it is extremely healthy.

~~~
jm2721
Do you have any sources for how important fiber is? I usually eat keto, and
when I tried adding fiber to my diet I got stomach cramps, felt like I was
hungry all the time (which never happens), and grew extremely irritable. Over
the next few days I had two or three massive, green bowel movements, which was
also unusual since I generally only go twice a week. Previous times I've tried
taking some psyllium husk and even that seemed to lead to hunger pangs and
bowel movements.

I'm always interested in improving my health, so I'll definitely try it again,
perhaps more scientifically this time. That said, I don't want to struggle
through the annoying symptoms if it turns out that fiber doesn't do anything.

~~~
CuriouslyC
I'm not surprised you suffered gastro-intestinal upset when you added fiber to
a keto diet. Your gut biome was adapted to a low fiber, high fat diet. Rapid
changes in dietary composition will frequently cause this issue. One solution
to this problem is to consume your fiber along with a probiotic supplement, or
preferably a live culture fermented food such as unpasteurized
sauerkraut/kimchi/greek yogurt. Beans (particularly lentils) are the most
nutritious fiber source, but if you want to stick with the keto diet, you
should use inulin instead of psyllium husk, as there is more research
demonstrating its efficacy. You may still encounter some GI upset even with a
probiotic, but it should decrease as your gut biota adapts over the course of
a week or two.

For references, there are plenty. Specifically want to look for material
related to short chain fatty acids, particularly butyrate, and their role in
modulating the immune system, and as histone deacetylase inhibitors. Here are
a few reviews to get you started:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4259177/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4259177/)
[http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v39/n9/full/ijo201584a.htm...](http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v39/n9/full/ijo201584a.html)

Additionally, I should note that blue zone diets are all high in fermentable
carbohydrates, and increased concentrations of short chain fatty acids have
been observed in the stool of centenarian populations:

[http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/9/564/htm](http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/9/564/htm)

Which supports evidence in model organisms such as yeast and fruit flies that
butyrate (a short chain fatty acid) extends average lifespan:

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S2079057013010153](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S2079057013010153)

------
grandalf
I got a Soylent subscription and it's pretty good to have it around for those
times when you really don't want to spend any time preparing food and want
something moderately nutritious and fairly inexpensive, with near-infinite
shelf life.

------
mrleinad
A bit off-topic, but food related: visited the US a month ago and noticed that
almost _everything_ contains corn syrup. What's the deal with that? How come
most things (even a plain pot of honey) gets it mixed with the rest of the
ingredients? Is it because of cost saving for the manufacturers, or are there
some health benefits from consuming corn syrup?

Please ignore if this comment is too offtopic for this thread.

~~~
iraphael
The US produces a lot of corn, so it is cheap. And corn syrup is a sugar-
substitute, so including it in everything makes things taste more addictive.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_\(food\))

~~~
jsjohnst
One important fact to add is that corn is the #1 subsidized commodity in the
US, so it’s artifically inflated to being over produced. The subsidies are
like 2:1 to the next most subsidized commodity.

~~~
Siecje
I thought most of the corn is used for Ethanol fuel and corn for anything else
would be expensive. Why sell it to someone for corn syrup when you can sell it
to someone to make engine fuel?

~~~
jsjohnst
Only about 40% is used for ethanol and that's a very recent (as in this past
decade) change.

The argument you make though explains why we aren't using algae to produce
biofuel. Far more valuable for other purposes as called out in this Forbes
post[0]. Here's a choice quote:

> An acre of algae can produce almost 5,000 gallons of biodiesel. It does not
> compete with food crops for arable land or potable water and could produce
> over 60 billion gallons/yr that would replace all petroleum-based diesel in
> the U.S.

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-
final...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-
ethanol-is-of-no-use/#224a9c3d67d3)

------
simonsarris
Serious questions for people that drink this stuff:

My breakfast is often Siggi's 4% skyr (thick yogurt):
[http://siggisdairy.com/product/plain-whole-
milk-24oz/](http://siggisdairy.com/product/plain-whole-milk-24oz/)

Plus Organic valley heavy cream:
[https://www.organicvalley.coop/products/cream/](https://www.organicvalley.coop/products/cream/)

Ususally about 300g + 100g, then sometimes some granola (oats, almonds,
sometimes honey), for body.

Soylent is:

* 37g carb

* 21g fats

* 20g protein

What I'm eating is much healthier by my estimation:

* 16g carb

* 49g fats

* 35g protein

(Before granola, which you can use to moderate the carbs if you want.)

It is not hard to mix two things together, sometimes three. If you really want
to custom flavor it, buy a jam (I suggest Mymoune rose petal jam, from
Lebanon, but there are millions of flavors when you pick your own jam!)

What is so good about soylent? Why not just mix skyr and heavy cream if that's
the kind of meal you want?

Why eat a strange synthetic meal from a company that has trouble with rats and
mold when you could eat a couple simple whole foods? What problem is Soylent
solving, exactly?

And aren't you worried about the unfavorable omega 3:6 ratio in this stuff?
Just going off the ingredients they list, I can't find any literature they
give on the ratio. (If you're not up to speed, the latest:
[http://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/3/2/e000385.full.pd...](http://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/3/2/e000385.full.pdf)
)

(Diet Note: I'm 5'10 and 146 lbs male, 12-13% body fat. In my diet I aim for
~60-70% calories from fat, but don't always hit it.)

~~~
pumpaction
I suspect that long-term acolytes of Soylent are victims of marketing, rather
than having made rational nutritional choices. Their product does seem to be
targeted toward a particular psychological niche.

~~~
kazagistar
Soylent replaces pb&js, dominos and eating out. Continuing to attempt to
overcome my inability to care enough to sink more time into nutrition is the
irrational choice. A moving to a product with both a superior nutrition and
effort profile seems pretty rational to me.

------
rusty__
Maybe when it comes back to Canada they can do something about their
ridiculous Canadian pricing system where the same product for a Canadian
shipment is charged more in USD than a US shipment. 'Free Shipping' though
(-__-)

------
ssijak
I always hated Soylent. Their bold and false marketing (things like "We solved
nutrition.", "Complete nutrition no matter which flavor you choose."). If it
was me, I would ban them everywhere, not just Canada, because of that false
advertising.

It is one thing, making a drink and selling it, and another marketing it like
that. It was very painful from the start listening how 2 guys with no
background SOLVED NUTRITION. And their choice of ingredients is bad in my
opinion. Main ones are soy and sunflower oil. Really, find me at least one
balanced nutritionist who would recommend sunflower oil in large quantities
(hint : omega 3:6:9). Soy has it`s problems too. Then they mix some vitamins
and minerals in, but you skip on all of the micronutrients and anything else
from real food that is not in Soylent. Also very low fiber. Then your
digestion will have problems too eating liquid only for long term. Etc, etc.

If you need occasional meal replacement, there are dozens of well-established
companies which make one, with much better quality and price in both liquid or
powder form.

~~~
sandworm101
They aren't out to fix all the health problems associated with what people do
and don't eat, or about any lack of food. The "solve nutrition" stuff is more
about solving the "what shall I eat today" question. It's about providing a
product to lazy people. They throw some science in because they know that
sells to their target market, which isn't everyone. Like most other fad foods
the real product is the marketing hype. This news will help. It positions them
as another cutting edge company being trampled upon by notoriously evil
Canadian food regulators interested only in protecting their vast maple sugar
monopolies.

~~~
DanBC
> They aren't out to fix all the health problems associated with what people
> do and don't eat

That's not how the crowd funding went - it was a product suitable for
everyone, that would put you in perfect health.

The Canadians are saying Soylent can't be sold as a sole source of nutrition -
how is this useful to Soylent? Every soylent thread has people saying the
differentiating factor for Soylent is that it can be used as a sole source of
nutrition.

------
loufe
Got the email 6 hours after my Canada Post notification of shipment - lucky
me?

------
allanmacgregor
Well damn! I just got what likely will be my last shipment for a while now.

That sucks I been using soylent for months now.

~~~
zzalpha
I find it telling that you chose the verb "using" over, say, "eating"... :)

~~~
Tushon
Well, you don't _eat_ it ;)

------
YeGoblynQueenne
The post is vague enough about the specific regulations it's supposed to have
broken. This doesn't make the Canadian government's regulations look overly
stringent, it instead makes Soylent look like they're trying to not scare off
their customers, at best.

~~~
CodeWriter23
To me, not addressing the specific regs they are afoul of is a huge lie of
omission. Especially considering they are trying to cast those regulations as
"outdated". If they are outdated, then put it out there. I'm sure the geeks
who no doubt make up the lion's share of their customer base will be able to
vet the regulations vs. reality.

------
pumpaction
Perhaps Canadians with an interest in Soylent could use locally sourced
hospital-type meal replacements instead?

If obtained from medical suppliers, they'll probably be healthier and have
better quality control too.

------
loeg
Title: should be "CFIA."

------
aianus
Can we get around this by using a reshipping service from the US? Or would
those shipments be blocked as well?

------
cisanti
Are that kind of drinks popular in North America and if, then why..?

I'm having problems understanding why would anyone want to consume something
like that.

~~~
freeflight
> I'm having problems understanding why would anyone want to consume something
> like that.

Nothing of what Soylent Green does is new, companies like Fresenius, Nestle,
Abbot and whatnot have been manufacturing balanced liquid nutrition for
medical needs for decades.

I'm far more surprised these established players in the enteral nutrition
market haven't started their own push for something like this, trying to sell
their medical products as convenience lifestyle products. I guess they
wouldn't want to cannibalize their own profits from the medical sales by
offering a more affordable non-medical lifestyle alternative.

As somebody who works with this kind of stuff, parenteral and enteral
nutrition, I think there's a real market here. But I'd vastly prefer offerings
from established companies, rather than some random guys buying bulk
ingredients on Amazon and mixing them up in moldy warehouses.

~~~
d0lph
Do you have any examples of products that are meant to be a meal replacement,
and that contain all necessary nutrients?

> random guys buying bulk ingredients on Amazon and mixing them up in moldy
> warehouses

Is this based on something, because I highly doubt they are sourcing
ingredients from amazon, this is needlessly inflammatory. And moldy
warehouses, do you really have so little to say about Soylent you have to make
things up?

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
Soylent has had multiple, well publicized problems with mold and at least one
instance of journalists finding rats running around the factory floor.
[https://www.google.com/search?q=soylent+moldy](https://www.google.com/search?q=soylent+moldy)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=soylent+rats](https://www.google.com/search?q=soylent+rats)

~~~
d0lph
There was one journalist that found rats in the kitchen, during the beta phase
of soylent. Presumably when they hit production they used standard
manufacturing techniques.

The mold is unfortunate, but only with Soylent 2.0, the pre-made bottles. As
soon as they found out they issued a recall, like any responsible company.

------
nether
Huel (another powdered food) is running into this. They just started shipping
to the US, but are delayed with Canada because they say the regulations there
are "much more stringent." Canada outright banned rBGH.

~~~
pumpaction
"Huel" sounds like an onomatopoeia for vomiting. Unfortunate name choice.

~~~
kawsper
The idea they had was: HUman fuEL = HUEL.

------
nilved
This is fairly ridiculous. I'm once again ashamed to be Canadian.

~~~
andyana
Without knowing what the issue is, your statement is very idiotic.

------
retox
Pure nanny state behavior, this is people in power wanting to control what
their subjects are allowed to do because they think they know best. Smaller
government can't come soon enough.

~~~
ovao
Regulation of food products to some degree is critical to help prevent
contamination and illness. In this case, Canada's regulations appear to be
simply outdated and, perhaps, overly draconian.

~~~
retox
I understand the need for regulations, especially in food and drugs, but when
it comes to things like regulating the amount of fat/sugar/fiber I can't think
of any reason other than an attitude of 'mommy knows best'.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

~~~
ovao
I'm usually the first to blast excess regulation, but note that this is only a
labeling issue — the CFIA is not telling you what you cannot eat, but what a
product can be described as. I can understand the appeal of a government
mandating that a product for sale in that country, that is labeled as a 'meal
replacement', have some reasonable distribution of macronutrients. The goal is
to reasonably ensure that someone would not consume meal replacements that
grossly lack nutrition a person actually needs to live.

The issue as I see it is that the definition of what would be considered
reasonable today is not in line with the CFIA's. I don't see the intent of the
regulations as unsound.

