Sorry, the fact that Soylent uses less water, less energy and generates less waste means it is working to 'disrupt' world hunger (lose the buzzwords, lady). Every little bit helps.
Antihunger organizations use these products regularly in the case of micronutrient deficiency, disaster, or acute malnourishment—but they don’t believe replacing food with powder and shakes is a good idea.
Well then antihunger organizations are wrong.
Switching to a diet of Soylent in lieu of food (when that food is available) will only drop prices for these farmers and provide less incentive for necessary infrastructure development.
No it wouldn't.
To lower the incidence of malnutrition, countries need higher incomes, better infrastructure, and higher food production—not Soylent for all.
One of these is much easier to manage in a matter of years. One takes decades. This isn't a one-or-the-other situation. That's a very childish way to look at global dev.