A poll regarding Coffiest


Rosa Labs shipped Coffiest to consumers deficient in vitamins A and C. Rosa Labs is reported to have a quality control team in place testing their products. However, a product went to market deficient in vitamins A & C before it was discovered.

Do you think it was ok that consumers received a production of Coffiest deficient vitamins A and C?

  • Yes, I believe this is fine.
  • No, this is not ok.
  • I don’t know how I feel about it.

0 voters


Do you feel that Rosa Labs should be issuing a recall and offering a refund to its customers?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • I don’t know.

0 voters


Have you lost confidence in Rosa Labs quality and control?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • I don’t know.

0 voters


Are you ok with Rosa Labs relabeling the current Coffiest production with lowered nutritional value?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • I don’t know.

0 voters


Did you find Rosa Labs response to the situation acceptable?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • I don’t know.

0 voters

  1. Coffiests nutrition probably hedged on how it was stored (under direct sunlight VS. fridge or anything in between)

  2. Vitamin A and C deficiencies are rare and nobody in the world is LIVING on Coffiest

  3. If you are living solely on coffiest, seek help


I get the impression that you have an axe to grind over this subject.


It reminds me of something…

Or maybe this is more appropriate.


Honest question - why are you so willing to cut RL slack, again and again? Do you think they will get better, and stop making so many mistakes?


I appreciate Rosa Labs disclosing that it had a problem with its nutritional values in Coffiest.

What I don’t understand is @Conor responses regarding the issue behind Coffiest. I understand he is a community moderator for discourse, so his responses are his own and not necessarily representative of the company. At least that is what a lawyer would say.

My next question is, when was your first test of Coffiest conducted, when did you receive the results of that test, what were the nutritional values of that test.

My concern being is they shipped before they received the results of the nutritional values of Coffiest. As @Conor has said: “As we are a food product as such we do our legal due diligence.” I would assume this would include nutritional value testing on a bottle of a production run Coffiest before shipping to the consumer, which I will give RL the benefit of the doubt that they did do this.

Further more, they now posted about the problem. I would like to know what happened. How and why were the nutritional values lower on Coffiest than anticipated, this is still unclear.

I would like to know when Rosa Labs plans to ship Coffiest as intended. Are they continuing production with the nutritional value “as is” until they can figure out a solution? Or have they figured out a solution and will be depleting their current inventory?

Just for the record, I have received my refund for my Coffiest order and have canceled my Coffiest subscription.

I do and will continue to consume Soylent 1.6. I am expecting to receive my next shipment soon, I am a big fan of this product. Perhaps this is why I feel that they let me down this time.


Just FYI, I got an email that gives me $5 off my next Coffiest as compensation.

Though I would still like to know how far off the label was. Assuming it’s within 90% of the advertised value, that’s enough.


Personally why not cut them slack? Mistakes happen. No person or organisation is perfect.

I don’t recall them making this mistake before, and it seems like they want to fix it.

“Quality control” doesn’t means “we test everything coming out of our factory, and no-one will ever receive a sub-standard product”.


The definition of quality control is ‘a system of maintaining standards in manufactured products by testing a sample of the output against the specification.’ - this clearly was not done prior to release as the products didn’t match the specification they stated. As such they did not subject the batch to correct (or indeed, any) quality control prior to release. That is absolutely unacceptable for any company, let alone one that specialises in nutritionally complete foods. It genuinely blows my mind how many of you are completely unphased by this (judging by the poll) because even the most basic of standards were simply not maintained.

It is irrelevant whether or not people are living purely off Coffiest or not - it doesn’t matter at all. What matters is the fact that adequate quality control was not in place, which begs the question if this is the case for their other products too (especially as new releases come out).


Once in a while it does, but the customer pays for it.

That’s why there are all the memes about NASA paying $50k for a toilet seat. They probably don’t, but those screws that hold the seat in place? A consumer pays $.12 per screw, for screws that the factory QC’d maybe one in every 10,000 off the assembly line. A company that needs more certainty in the product may pay $.50 for the same screw, in exchange for the factory running QC on one in every 500 screws off the assembly line. Then NASA pays $5 per screw, because every single flipping screw off the assembly line gets QC’d. (Note: all prices are examples only.)

Which only validates what @pauldwaite said – if you want every bottle of Soylent (or Coffiest) QC’d, you’re going to pay a lot for it. And because of the nature of the product, every bottle you get will be short by a milliliter or two, for the volume that was sent to the lab.

ETA: Plus, your order will be delayed by a couple of weeks, while each of those lab samples comes back. Labs can’t give instant turnaround on every test, assuming you’re paying for priority service to start with.


I totally take the majority of your argument. But this:

You think they didn’t subject it to any quality control? Really? Because as far as I know, the problem is that there’s less vitamin A and C in it than they thought.

Sure, that’s not great, but within the scope of possible problems with a food product, I think this is towards the shallow end.

For me, “basic standards” would be doesn’t kill you, doesn’t make you sick. Maybe I’m not being demanding enough, but I think you’re implying quite a lot beyond the actual problem observed.


The reason I’m saying there was no quality control prior to release is because, as you say, we know the issue is with vitamins A and C. Vitamin C is known to be degraded by heat, and Conor has said that heat is involved in the process of producing Coffiest. Vitamin A is known to oxidise in acidic conditions (such as those in coffee) when subjected to a high heat. These two things are fairly common knowledge, so it was predictable there would be an issue. The fact that they were released with this issue and it took a matter of weeks to identify it shows that the output bottles were not checked against their specification. I highly doubt they would quality control certain micronutrients but not the two most prone to breaking down in high temperatures, baring in mind the manufacturing process uses those temperatures.

Basic standards of quality control would be ensuring that tested samples (prior to release) contain what you say they contain. This was not met, and it seems like no testing on micronutrient quantity was done before at least 2 weeks after they started selling. I may be wrong, and if I am wrong in that, I offer my sincere apologies to Rosa Labs, but from the information we have available (as we haven’t really been told much at all), I don’t think my argument makes particularly many assumptions. Now granted, no one’s health would have been negatively affected in this time period, even if people were living solely on Coffiest - but my point is that that isn’t relevant. If I am correct and quality control checks on micronutrients were not performed for a matter of weeks despite it being common knowledge that temperature and pH could break down those two nutrients, it seriously brings into question the knowledge of the scientists they have working for them.

In short, this is a problem that should have been identified weeks, if not months, before release. The fact it wasn’t until after release is a big issue, regardless of if anyone’s health suffered as a result.

With that said, I’ll obviously retract everything I’ve said if we get word from RL that it’s only a few bottles that have the issue, but they’re holding back sales to ensure none of them do. This opinion is entirely based on the idea that these issues are widespread, and again, if that is incorrect, RL have my sincere apologies.


Gotcha, thank you, that makes sense.

Totally with you that it seems like they didn’t check the vitamin A and C levels before shipping. I’m not bothered about that, but I can understand that people are.


I’ll tell you why it isn’t: because everyone upset by this hiccup will still buy and consume Soylent as soon as they can.

With any other company this would be off-putting, but by virtue of the quality of RL’s products and the price/calorie index of the two main products (1.6 and 2.0), people just don’t care as much. Rosa Labs is different from other companies. In the recently locked thread, one user complained that Rosa Labs “only” made a blog post about this (which isn’t true). They asked who honestly reads the blogs of Nestle or other companies. They sort of unintentionally made my point here. We do read Rosa Lab’s blog, quite a lot of us. Because they’re not like other companies, when they aren’t having issues they’re posting about interesting cost calculations or shipping logistics, or meta-nutrition.

I’m not saying they did nothing wrong (or rather did everything right) but this is hardly grounds for boycotting etc.


A) None of that stops it being unacceptable. Having a loyal customer base is fantastic for a company and RL have a very good one, but that doesn’t mean the mistake is ok.

B) Based on the ingredients used and the price charged, I wouldn’t say the products are of that high a quality and they certainly aren’t that good when it comes to price/Calorie. I can go into detail about my opinions on this if you wish, but I doubt I’d convince you.

The thing is though, if Nestle made a mistake with nutritional labelling, it’s likely they’d either be sued or issue a total recall - someone else has said to me on the subreddit this is ridiculous, but that’s certainly how the law is in the UK. And whilst it’s true that many posting on discourse or the subreddit read the blog, we are not the majority of RL’s customers - the majority would not see the blog post, and that’s why I personally don’t feel the reaction was appropriate.

I must say though, I do think RL, like many of the other -lent product companies, are very transparent with their products, and it’s something I love to see. I don’t dislike RL as a company at all - I just feel they’ve made some choices recently (namely the price of recent products and the way of a) testing and b) dealing with the Coffiest scenario) that are questionable at best.

And I’m sorry if it came across that I believe people should boycott - I don’t. What I do believe is there will be some that do as a result of the lack of quality control. Personally I think RL will learn from this as opposed to continuing to make the same mistakes, but there will be those who are still shocked their team of scientists didn’t realise the heat would degrade some of the vitamins. It’s not exactly reassuring, but then, companies and products grow with time and experience. I don’t think people should boycott, but I am shocked how few people seem to care about this, because without some form of negative reaction, there is no pressure to prevent these mistakes in the future; and next time it may not be so harmless.


People don’t care as much.

As you can see as a response to this thread, people do care, I care. People seem to find it acceptable at a community where, by its nature, are fervent fans of the product.

I am a fan of Rosa Labs and its products, by showing my concern I hope Rosa Labs puts methods in place for this not happening again. As others and myself have stated, some don’t feel it was acceptable to find out about the nutritional deficiency after they shipped.

Having an issue is not the concern, shipping with the issue is.