Intestinal discomfort


#1

Just curious if there has been any problems regarding intestinal/digestive problems like one can get with soy or other vegetable based foods.

Thanks!

Eric


#2

So just as a point of clarification - Soylent isn’t actually based on soy. I think it may have some derived soy lecithin somewhere in it, but it’s not a main ingredient by any stretch.

As for the main question, I usually suggest the Ars Technica series for a view on “how it feels”. It’s a pretty good article, and reasonably unbiased. (regarding your point, the cliff notes version is that he has some gas early on, and feels sort of bloated until Rob clarifies partway in that he doesn’t have to eat a whole bag each day - after that it goes generally smoothly.)


#3

I do believe there was a forum or blog post that said they where using so lecithin as an emulsifier, due to some legal issues of having the word ‘soy’ in Soylent and their formula having no soy products.


#4

The first part, yes. The legal thing was, I am almost completely certain, a rumor. After all, it doesn’t have lentils in it either. :smile:

Edit: also, if that were how it worked, I have some “cheese” doodles, a "ham"burger and many “fruit”-flavored candies to sell you :stuck_out_tongue:


#5

Yea, I don’t know where I saw the legal issues part, but their blog post ( http://blog.soylent.me/post/62461423076/9-27-weekly-recap) does say “… the final formula will contain 1% Soy Lecithin, which is a highly processed derivative of soy which is generally considered safe for people with soy allergies.” if that provides the information you need @Bonearzt, although if it has changed since that post, they haven’t said.


#6

Legal thing was true:
https://tsdrsec.uspto.gov/ts/cd/casedoc/sn85855749/ROA20131120182413/2/webcontent


#7

As far as I can tell through the legalese and some googling, that says their initial trademark was refused because it could be confused with TM#3133689 (“Soylent Green”), and they didn’t file a section 8 statement of “excusable nonuse” to allow them to make a new one with that name. The document does say “will contain soy”, but I think that was just a detail whose disclosure was required, not the cause for the TM refusal.

Essentially, it looks like the legal issue was about the existing “Soylent Green” TM - at that point they may have already had soy lecithin, and wanted to add the information as full-disclosure clarity to avoid further tie-ups.

Considering the number of foods that can get by with fine-printing “may not contain actual ___” (if even that), it seems unlikely that they’d be ‘required’ to add an ingredient because their name sounds like it would have it.

On the other hand… this is sort of massively off-topic, so if it goes over a few back-and-forths, it should probably spawn off to a new thread…


#8

What type of world do we live in where a bureaucrat whose job it is to produce, review, and affirm crap like that is considered anything but a leech on sane civil society?