Soylent to feed the poor?


In your campaign you state, “1 in 7 people globally are malnourished, and 1 in 3 in the developing world suffer from deficiency. Countless others are living hand-to-mouth.” Is this still a common goal of the Soylent team to solve, or will your product end up on the shelves of stores like GMC, over priced and competing with the other so called "nutritional drinks?"What are your long term goals? What about the people who have to live on “food stamps,” will they ever be able to buy your product? Because the product is new and just starting out, I see why the price would be higher, but will it ever be low enough for the people that really need it?
One last question, does your product contain GMO products or harlequin?


What’s Harlequin? word limit


Harlequin is a natural seed and/or plant. Not a GMO.


No GMOs or jesters are contained in soylent.

Long term the Rob has expressed great interest in using this to fight world hunger, but as many have pointed out, Americans in general pay significantly more in amount but not percentage of income then a significant portion of the world.

Personally, I don’t see soylent ever being able to compete with food prices in 3rd world (and even in 1st and 2nd world with heavy food subsidies) countries. The only poor that could be resonably feed by soylent would be those in first world countries where soylent is currently competitive with and could likely beat food prices.

That being said, as far as philanthropic uses I could defiantly see soylent as disaster relief aid, as soylent can be stored for a long time to be brought out and used when the need occurs.

Edit: I would have sworn Julio or Rob said there weren’t GMOs back in one of the complainy threads about them. I was unable to find such a post, I must have imagined it. I don’t really have a strong opinion about GMO and as such haven’t been paying too much attention to it.


No one from the team has said Soyent is GMO free. If they have, could you share a link? I recall Rob being supportive of GMO.


Anti-GMO attitudes are a result of irrationality, propaganda and scientific illiteracy. GMOs is the most studied subject in human history and there is nothing wrong with it.
Please visit this site to get away from anti-GMO propaganda and foolish ignorance.

Every single negative thing you have heard about GMO is either false, made up or was thoroughly debunked.


I’m fine with that - many scientific advances have been greeted with suspicion at first. But while the scientifically illiterate may be expected to act irrationally, there’s no excuse for the scientifically literate to act the same way. And refusing to disclose, when asked, whether a food contains human-modified or scientifically improved components (specifically through manipulating genes), is simply irrational. It’s a simple question, along the lines of “Is that a Honda?” And all it needs is a simple answer, like “Well not exactly, it’s a Honda body but has a Porsche engine.” So, no debates - just yes or no is required.


GMO is a misnomer, though - if you’re asking if the food is transgenic, then I’d say definitely not. If you’re asking if the food has had it’s genes modified through hybridization or cultivation, then the answer is yes - but it’s a matter of degree. The term GMO doesn’t mean anything - it’s total newspeak. Just like the term “organic” doesn’t have any specific, real meaning. It’s a political tool used to direct unwarranted FUD.

Canola oil comes from genetically modified rapeseed, but that doesn’t have a practical impact on its nutritional value. No debates, but there’s not a simple yes or no answer to the question.

The answer is… it depends. What do you mean by GMO? You’ll find that the term is worse than useless, because it imposes a level of ignorance on the discussion that can only be escaped by using precise language that should have been the question in the first place.


I’ve always found it fairly easy to understand what GMO refers to. Hybridization and cultivation strains aren’t “genetically engineered” in the same sense - although genes are transferred (technically making even hybrids “trans-genic”), the manipulation is at the cellular level of gamete exchange. “Transgenic” is no more precise a term, since gene transfer occurs even during normal pollination and spring break partying. GMO is commonly understood as referring to manipulating genetic material directly by splicing, inserting, or otherwise modifying DNA. This distinction is what has allowed various countries to meaningfully discuss the term while passing legislation involving GMO.

Thus, corn that is tassel-free through hybridization is non-GMO. Corn that is herbicide-resistant through splicing DNA strands is GMO. Not all Canola is GMO - it was developed through selective breeding, with genetically engineered strains coming later. I think if even lawyers can understand the difference, Rosa Labs should be able to answer the question easily. :smile:


I don’t have a solid quote to draw from, but I believe that the Soylent team has mentioned something along these lines - that they hope to use some overhead from purchased Soylent in order to support providing it at-cost to supplement things like plumpy’nut, etc.



no I want to consume ALL the soylent. GIVE ME MOAR!!!

I will not let you give this fabulous product to poor peoople


Soylent contains GMO ingredients.

GMOs vs Organic

Good. Glad you’re not giving in to the anti-science hysteria of the anti-GMO crowd.