What is not complete nutritionally in 1.5

I hope he (EDIT: or she) gets paid a decent amount. Being the attorney for RL sounds incredibly stressful…

1 Like

“Done.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

1 Like




Its not magnesium dude, its manganese that could be a concern.

1 Like

Already been cleared up for me, but thanks for the notice

1 Like

from what I could tell, Magnesium DV is 400 mg, and I could only find the value of 253.53 mg of magnesium oxide, I assume there is more in the oats and such. but could you point me to where you found the 92% of DV? (I noticed the value is only 300 mg for women ofc.)

edit: nevermind I just found it on their front page where it actually says “Magnesium 513 mg”

So stepping away from parsing the letter of the law and arguing about what the definition of the word “is” is for a second…

If as a result of drinking a days worth of Soylent, your body absorbs 100% of its needed Manganese, why does one care whether the other 600% that just passed through and wasn’t absorbed is listed accurately on the packaging?

It’s interesting to me in a “wow that’s an inefficient delivery system” way. But I care about accurate reporting of chemicals in Soylent that aren’t absorbed about as much as I care about accurate reporting of the chemicals in the pouch it comes in.

Put another way: If you took a vitamin that claimed 100% DV of Vitamin C, but after taking it your body only ended up absorbing 10% of what it needs, would you be happy about the accurate reporting?


No we wouldn’t. But what some of us are worried about is the opposite problem. Our bodies absorbing more than the UL (upper limit) of manganese. Getting too much over a period of time can lead to some nasty neurological problems.

And THIS EXACTLY RIGHT HERE is what it all comes down to. Put the labelling reg semantics to bed because you’re totally missing the point. People who are consuming this product need to be able to make safe and informed decisions. Mislabelling the contents of the product subverts peoples ability to make decisions that can greatly affect their long term health and well being. Have we been provided with any research regarding the bio-availability and absorption rates of the unlisted amounts/sources of manganese? No? No. Then the default assumption is always that it is unsafe until proven otherwise and RL has a duty to provide a product that is as knowingly safe as possible.

But at this point:

On the one side it’s being said that the unlisted manganese is not bio-available and mostly just passes through our systems. Okay. lets see some research to back it up.

On the other side it is being said that there are serious long term health implications of the overconsumption of manganese that could well be occurring by consuming Soylent in it’s current form. Lets see the research on manganese toxicity.

Compare the data and move forward from there.

Everything you said applies to any food. Why should Soylent be subject to stricter labeling requirements? Or do you think the FDA rules should be changed?

  1. It’s obviously a highly contentious issue with people taking it very seriously, dominating multiple threads.

  2. I am providing possible solutions.

  3. You are simply being obstructionist and providing no solution or progress.

  4. From what I have read of the sources provided on both sides, it seems they are in violation of labeling reg’s. But I’m not going to get into semantics, because as I already stated that’s not the point. If that’s where you want to dig in, your problem. However if that were the case, Is it too much to expect for more than the government enforced bare minimum? You are free to live a life at the bare minimum. No one is stopping you. You have no basis for demanding it of others. Believe it or not some companies even thrive on doing more than the bare minimum, going above and beyond to give their customers products and services they want and are exceptional. Imagine that.

  5. This is an asymmetrical problem. If you have no issue not knowing exactly what your consuming then there really is no effect to you. You can inherently take it or leave it either way and you can carry on happily with your existence without conflict. However, for those that do care what they are consuming and want/need to make informed decisions about their health (which we definitely have a right to demand) it can not be taken or left either way. The information has to be provided or our ability to make an effective decision has been compromised.

  6. Provide a good reason the label shouldn’t be rectified that wouldn’t conflict the sound decision making process of the consumer?

  7. Just as in the other thread, you frame your questions using strawmen and false assumptions.

  8. You are clearly in the 1st (carry on happily) group. You are not affected in either outcome. So why do you choose to waste both of our time following me around on threads proposing no solutions; simply buzzing around and making noise? That is troll territory.

Yes. That’s why it’s required and what you are asking is not. Your beef seems to be with the FDA; posting here isn’t going to change FDA labeling regulations.

Did you read this thread before adding to it? You make a lot of claims about me but this isn’t my first post to the thread.

Like what?

With current nutrition labeling laws consumers can’t make informed decisions about most micronutrients. Food manufacturers are simply not required to inform us about intrinsic nutrients. Forcing Soylent to do something without forcing everyone to do the same thing is silly. I wish the laws were different but they are not. So as interesting as this thread is it’s completely moot.


I’m going to take your lack of address to pretty much any point in my post to mean you don’t have one. So to that I have to say, enjoy living at the lowest common denominator. My posts aren’t for you. They’re for others capable of making salient points and for the makers of this product.

This is the label for Nutribiotic Rice Protein, the first hit I got on Amazon for rice protein:

As a rice protein, it almost certainly contains a relatively high amount of manganese, however, they don’t add manganese to the formula, and they are not required to list it. They meet regulations.

If this product is blended with oat flour and resold as Mentallent, I, likewise, don’t need to list any manganese.

If I blend it with oat flour and add a vitamin tablet to resell it as Nomadlent, and the vitamin tablet contains manganese, you believe I’m suddenly violating federal law by not listing the manganese content of the rice flour?

I agree with the general point that more disclosure is better, and RL has made more disclosure than other companies already, by publishing the spreadsheet for those who want to dig into the detail. But there is a discrepancy, and I, personally, would like to hear RL clarify their choices about this discrepancy and their position, and have said so. However, when you go around accusing them of violating federal law by failing to disclose details about an ingredient that even the producers of that ingredient don’t have to disclose when selling it, and which other resellers of that ingredient don’t have to disclose, you sound pretty rabid, and the rest of your arguments lose weight in the public’s eye.


This person’s name alone screams anti-Soylent troll, even without reading all the misdirection, circular arguments and flawed premises.


That’s your opinion, @AgentSpiff .

But I believe that if he consistently makes the same point (four times and counting), ignoring the number of responses pointing out his labeling issue falls more with the FDA than Soylent, but at the same time insulting people, well, I’m more prone to be swayed by his faulty premise.


And the reason it’s such a highly contentious issue is because they published a spreadsheet that they didn’t have to publish. People made uninformed assumptions that the amount of Mn listed in the spreadsheet should correlate 1:1 with the DV% on the label, and started accusing RL of conspiracies to coverup the amount of Mn and violation of federal laws.

Now you want them to provide more information about Mn bioavailability to “prove” that they aren’t lying. But there is not enough information you can provide to get unreasonable people to rethink their unreasonable positions. If I was RL, I’d be thinking what a mistake it was to provide the spreadsheet in the first place…

1 Like

I just had a full physical & bloodwork done, and FWIW all organ function and blood etc. levels are 100% / ideal, with the lone exception being slightly high cholesterol, but with a ratio of 3.2.

I consume Soylent 100% Mon, Tue, Wed, Thurs, and I eat pizza/fast food/ice cream on Fri, Sat, Sun. Beer every day. Relatively physical job, hike and mountain bike on weekends in summer, hibernate all winter, middle aged. Possibly most important is that I always smile & never stress about anything at all, ever. (unless I run out of beer)

#victoryismine :sunglasses: :sunrise_over_mountains:


Please don’t feed the trolls. :smile: