The 30% cap on calories from fat is pretty ridiculous in my view. Even if you don't buy into the idea that fat is healthful, there is plenty of science that indicates it is, and so at least CIFA should not regulate fat content in this way.
Sidenote: I don't drink Soylent and have no idea if it fails the fat content. I'm in the "Soylent is not healthful" camp, if it matters.
I don't drink Soylent either or think it's that great of a product, but the 30% fat cap is totally ridiculous. It's basically outlawing the ketogenic diet.
In general, it's been pretty well accepted in Canada that fats should take a higher priority and we should reduce our overall carbohydrate consumption in a healthy diet. [0]
The alternative to this being athletes. We had to carbo-load the night before a game/race/etc -- but not on the regular.
I think those caps are meant to nudge people in the direction of getting their nutrients from non-processed food sources. It's somewhat more reliable to maintain a healthy intake of nutrients by eating food versus supplementation. [1]
I do not understand how the sources you provided result in the conclusion that 'fats should take higher priority' in a healthy diet. Much of the recent literature suggests that too much fat in the diet can result in a higher concentration of Intramyocellular Lipids (fat in the cells), this has been shown to increase insulin resistance (resulting in +ce instances of type 2 diabetes) [0].
In addition, the blue zone study (largest epidemiological study ever conducted on human health) concluded that diets rich in whole grains, starchy root vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts and seeds proved to result in the lowest instances of diet related diseases (heart attach, stroke, diabetes, alzheimers) and was found to increase longevity.
"From this There is abundant evidence that increased levels of plasma lipids, predominantly free fatty acids (FFAs) and triglycerides, are causally involved in IR" (insulin resistance)
It was more an example of the fact that it's been in Canadian health groups' consideration for at least the past 7 years, as one of the posters above asserted that Canadian food groups still favoured carbohydrates and didn't have updated information on fats consumption.
To wit: there is a dramatic difference between the types of fats that should increase in our diets, versus the types of fats that should decrease.
It certainly isn't about reducing the proportion of whole grains, nuts, and seeds to the proportion of other sources of carbohydrates. If anything, when talking about fats, nuts and seeds are included in that argument. I spend more on my breads these days precisely because of this -- as part of my diet I require the increased iron and fats contents of whole-grain breads that include nuts and seeds. I've also taken to eating less of that bread, and spend more time snacking on nuts -- especially at work.
I can't however speak from the perspective of somebody with insulin issues or diabetes. I'm closer to anemic in my dietary needs.
Not to split hairs, but the cap is 35% unless you want to replace all meals.
I know we're all avant guard around here, but until fairly recently it wasn't accepted knowledge that fat wasn't as bad for you as first thought. It's understandable that regulations would take time to adjust.
the problem is that "animal" was not the most common food anyway, overshadowed by plants, not that it doesn't contain enough fat.
EDIT: I'm also not sure about this western culture bias you're talking about, I am italian and we eat innards, blood and marrow.
I am fairly sure every culture in europe does.
I have heard stories from my parents and grandparents that my great-grandparents from Germany would save all types of animal fat (Goose, Pork, Beef etc) and use it for cooking and soap making. It was a precious commodity and was not thrown away. Also I think butter was pretty available. It wasn't until WW2 I think that it became scarce and vegetable oils and margarine came on the scene.
Fat calories would be one reason. 47% in soylent vs 35% max allowed. Their announcement mentions that it failed more than one requirement, so there must be something else in addition to this.
These regulations are outdated. The push against fat calories and towards carbohydrates was largely motivated by the sugar industry, see: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g
In addition to this, fat calories are more “filling” than carbohydrate calories. Something useful for a meal replacement (assuming unsaturated/“healthy” fats)
I hope Soylent sticks to their guns with the best knowledge available, and I hope interested/concerned Canadians push for reform here.
I used to live in Canada, now back in UK. Canadians won’t push for reforms. They’ll accept it. Incredibly docile population. Also they have more pressing issues, online purchases from outside Canada are charged duty if the purchase is over CDN $20. In the US the duties apply only after USD $800. See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/duty-free-limit-america-1.34... There are countless other ‘controls’ of this sort in place across a range of issues.
> Canadians won’t push for reforms. They’ll accept it.
If you think duties on personal purchases from outside the country are a 'pressing issue' your priorities are way out of whack there bud.
I'm confused that you criticise Canada for having 'controls' on the population (bit melodromatic) but chose to move back to the UK with its ubiquitous CCTV.
I'm just going to leave that docile comment where it lies (in more ways than one) because it's an obvious provocation. Sorry you didn't enjoy your time here.
"When a meal replacement is represented as a replacement for all daily meals, the maximum amount of energy from fat is reduced to 30 percent, of which no more than 10 percent may be from saturated fat. For complete composition requirements, refer to B.24.200 of the FDR."
So it's actually 47% vs 30%, plus probably the additional composition requirements.
Soylent marketing clearly states that it's not intended as a replacement for all daily meals.
Though it seems slightly open to interpretation whether "all" here means "replaces every meal" or "could replace any type of meal breakfast/lunch/dinner" etc. I'm guessing the former.
I can sympathize with keeping the public safe, but there must be some legal way to promote non-traditional nutrition regimes, in this case as simple as increasing fat consumption.
There are many diets suiting many different lifestyles in Canada, from the traditional Inuit meat & fat heavy diet to many 'fad' diets extolled in magazines. It seems strange to me why it's legal to advocate a diet in media but illegal to label a product as such.
Advocating a diet (or any other opinion) is protected under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Actually selling a product with potentially misleading labels is not.
From the article: "There is nothing wrong with the Soylent product you are consuming, this issue emerged from regulatory compliance, not product quality."
Is that not what regulatory compliance is about? I wonder what Soylent thinks regulatory compliance is for.
Sidenote: I don't drink Soylent and have no idea if it fails the fat content. I'm in the "Soylent is not healthful" camp, if it matters.