Soylent Is Compliant With California Proposition 65

Hi everyone, Rob here,

There has been a bit of talk lately about metals and proposition 65, somewhat brought on by threat of litigation by a company who has made a business out of this stuff. Since safety and nutrition is critically important to Soylent I wanted to personally post our latest communication addressing the matter

tl;dr Soylent metal levels are completely safe and sustainable for casual and heavy users alike. this company is claiming that we don’t display a Proposition 65 statement trying to get some settlement money but we do.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about it. Conor and I will be around answering as much as possible but it is a Sunday night and I’d like to go to bed soon so some may have to wait for tomorrow.

I’ve also loved seeing our savvy community members doing their own analyses and showing the levels are fine. In the interest of transparency we are posting our un-edited COA since we have nothing to hide.



In this article, the CEO of “As You Sow”, the group that is threatening to sue you, is quoted as saying

He also claimed that Soylent had only added a Prop 65 warning to its website relatively recently (“We first noticed it in mid-June… several months after they first started selling Soylent”), and that the format and wording used was “not fully compliant” with Prop 65.

He added: “The warnings are also not on the packaging, so if you buy it on Amazon, for example, there’s no warning.”

You might want to respond to that in your blog post as well. (Since you don’t sell on Amazon I can imagine your response to that second part, at least…)

1 Like

I don’t know if we would be held responsible for unauthorized reselling but Amazon has a prop 65 warning


Thanks, Rob! As it happens I just tried my first batch of Soylent this morning about an hour ago. Great stuff! No worries about the lead and heavy metals - I read all about what you guys had to say about that days before AsYouSow made headlines.

1 Like

(b) To the extent practicable, warning materials such as signs, notices, menu
stickers, or labels shall be provided by the manufacturer, producer, or packager of the
consumer product, rather than by the retail seller.

Yes, the manufacturer is responsible, not the retailer. If you simply included the required warning in the Release Notes shipped with each package you’d avoid many problems.

1 Like

Is there a chance of this lawsuit slowing you down, or will everything remain on track?

Does the suit alleged that Soylent contains unsafe levels of these elements or only that you have levels exceeding the Prop 65 requirement to display the warning and then didn’t display it timely?

As You Sow’s legal claim is that we do not display the required Proposition 65 notice, which is false.

That is from your blog post.

Watchdog group says Soylent’s cadmium and lead levels violate CA law

While this is how it is being reported elsewhere.

Also, AYS seem to believe your lead levels are between 6-12.5 ug per serving, while I’m interpreting the .009982ug/ml to be equivalent to 4.991ug per serving, do you know what is causing that difference?

If you’re answering questions not related to the case or Prop 65 here:

  1. Any info you can share about this rumored price drop?
  2. Any info you can share about convergence plans for the powdered and liquid product composition?
  3. Any info you can share about future rumored product releases such as flavorings?
  4. What are you thoughts on near term and long term protein source for the products, and the negative perception of using soy protein isolate in version 2.0?
1 Like

Things are on track.


@codemaker this lawsuit is baseless and will not slow us down

@gambit I apologize I can’t address your other questions right now as I will have to stay on topic of prop 65, but they are good questions and I would love to dive in during my next AMA

Very important point: the suit does not allege unsafe levels of anything. They are purposefully conflating the labeling requirement of the law to imply our levels are high. What they are accusing us of legally is not posting the prop 65 text, which we do.

AYS has not released their testing data, but we have.


I agree that the release notes idea might be good, but people on Amazon and eBay often sell it in single pouches and three-packs. Hell, I used to buy one or two weeks’ worth from eBay while I waited for my subscription to kick in, and I maybe got the release notes twice because it was usually repackaged to drop the shipping cost. It would seem more than a little ridiculous to have to label every slab of mylar with a Prop 65 warning just to satisfy that possibility, though. There must be limitation on the requirements somewhere.

Thanks for responding, Rob, this was my understanding of the nature of the suit, but it’s good to get that confirmation.

I’ll do my best to bother you about the other stuff the next time you do an AMA (or if you want to hang out on here and do another fire side chat that would be cool as well). :wink:

1 Like

@rob or @Conor , are there plans to bring the lead and heavy metal content down further?