Differences in Arsenic Cadmium and Lead


#1

I noticed that there is a significant difference in Arsenic, Cadmium, and Lead between the Drink and Powder formulations.

Arsenic approximately 3.5 times greater
Cadmium approximately 5.5 times greater
Lead approximately 4 times greater

What is the reason for the increase in harmful chemicals in the drink formulations compared with the powder formulations?


#2

Good god man…harmful chemicals are being used in Rosa Food products?! :weary:

Someone have their people contact my people because being the artist type that I am I am finding as of late that the shavings of a finely sharpened pencil are the go to meal for the majority of most meals.

Would happily take the harmful chemicals any day of the week 24/7. :radioactive::biohazard::us:


#3

I totally don’t understand what your posting, but I wasn’t trying to be rude or arrogant or anything like that, I was just generally curious of the nature of the significant differences.

For example, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was just adding water that had PPM or PPT levels of those chemicals.


#4

Nitpicking only. It was the use of harmful, be it an accurate or not, for those considering purchasing something would be a description to reconsider the order before clicking.


#5

Certainly was not my goal. I can’t think of a better description but I’d be glad to modify to something that might be more appropriate. Any suggestions?


#6

Would you be an avid user of something harmful?


#7

It might have something to do with the different fiber sources. The drinks use oat fiber but the powder uses soluble corn fiber.

I’m having some trouble finding good data sources for arsenic/cadmium/lead content of oat fiber vs soluble corn fiber, so my guess could be wrong.


#8

I bet you’re right, maybe someone who knows the units of measure can calculate it for us. This is what the EPA says is an acceptable level of all those chemicals in tap water:

But I haven’t a clue how to convert those values from mg/L to the units shown in Rosa Labs’ image.

If tap water is a significant contribution to the levels, maybe they should consider adding that to the chart. @conor?


#9

@Conoristhattrue nothing was wrong with his question or how he worded it… and those numbers are from Soylents own site, so he isn’t trolling or fear mongering. It is a valid question to ask why the drink has more heavy metals than the powder.

Perhaps @Conor can answer the exact reason?


#10

Again…nitpicking but be it an accurate description or not would you be an avid consumer of something described “harmful”?


#11

But that isn’t what he is doing. He isn’t calling Soylent harmful or even hinting it could be, only asking why one product has more of something “bad” than the other. So please avoid ‘attacking’ someone for asking questions (even if they might seem critical of Soylent). We are suppose to welcome questions here, unless it is obvious baiting or trolling, which this doesn’t seem to be.


#12

[quote=“Tordenskjold, post:9, topic:27482”] He isn’t calling Soylent harmful or even hinting it could be
[/quote]
Seriously? By attaching the word harmful to any mention of a product you’re already raising concerns in those that know nothing about the product. I had concern when I first discovered Soylent 1.4

There’s your solution.


#13

But that is exactly what he asked… just worded differently… Soylent isn’t going to be harmed by him asking that question. But those heavy metals are harmful, there just isn’t “that much” in Soylent compared to some other foods.

Also: if you are overzealously protecting the product, you end up doing more damage than good… so please don’t.


#15

I can see how this could be concerning for you but you are missing the point on the original post. Both your suggestions will be taken into consideration, thank you for your input. :metal:t2: :v:


#16

I was just curious because I wouldn’t be surprised if using tap water to mix Powder increases the As, Cd, Pb content. So the drink would be net better unless a person uses distilled water at home.


#17

I would hope they didn’t use tap water for making 2.0 ;). In the industry, we normally use process water.


#18

Actually, I am talking about myself. I am using tap water right now, but I think I need to switch.


#19

The drink says it is less than the numbers listed, which implies that is the limit of detection for the assay. The powder probably has numbers because it is more concentrated than the liquid and can yield detectable levels.