[Shorel]

> It is possible that the nutrient powder (and similar) industry hasn't given much thought to this idea because its radical and potentially risky, especially as a business venture where legal liability might be very, very high.

The stuff bodybuilders consume is not as well controlled as anything called 'food'. In fact, bodybuilding forums are full of 'I bought brand X and it was mostly filler, better stick to brand Y'.

[unix-dude]

Im not thinking about the FDA specifically here. I'm thinking about general wrongful injury (possibly death) lawsuits where someone becomes seriously ill from consuming nothing but their "magic soylentesque shake".

Marketing it as a food replacement would be very difficult because of subtle differences between people's bodies. I think they stick with supplements/protein powder because it reduces the possibility of wrongful death lawsuits (and similar) while still allowing leeway with federal regulations.

[papsosouid]

That's simply not true. They have to list the nutrition info the same as any other food. Protein powders that are "mostly filler" are actually ~20% filler, not mostly. And the label makes that quite clear as it both lists the ingredients so you even know what they are using as filler, but also the nutrition info. If 30g of powder is only giving you 20g of protein, obviously there's 10g of something other than protein there.

[Shorel]

My point is that the FDA doesn't rule this with the iron fist they rule over real food.

In other words, by declaring 'Soylent' as 'not food' he sidesteps lots of regulations and tests.

[papsosouid]

He isn't selling it, the FDA has nothing to do with it regardless of what he calls it. And just saying something is "not food" doesn't do anything to stop it from being regulated. The FDA does regulate dietary supplements and meal replacements, exactly the same way they regulate any other food.

[derleth]

Sadly, this is not the case:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/07/02/dietary-supplem...

> While on its surface this would appear to be a reasonable distinction, given that it doesn’t make sense from a policy or scientific standpoint to hold food to the standards as rigorous as the standards to which drugs are held, as implemented by the DSHEA this distinction has the pernicious effect of allowing manufacturers to label all sorts of botanicals, many of which possess pharmacological activity, as “supplements,” and supplements, being defined as food and not medicine, do not require prior approval by the FDA before marketing. In other words, supplement manufacturers basically work on the honors system when it comes to deciding what they will market as a supplement, and the FDA can’t do anything about a harmful supplement until after it has been on the market and caused harm.

> Some firms don’t even have recipes, known as master manufacturing records, for their products.

> Others make their supplements in unsanitary factories. New Jersey-based Quality Formulation Laboratories produced protein powder mixes and other supplements in a facility infested with rodents, rodent feces and urine, according to government records. FDA inspectors found a rodent apparently cut in half next to a scoop, according to a 2008 inspection report.

[papsosouid]

Did you even read that link? That does not apply to things like protein powder, or meal replacement drinks like this discussion is about.

>Others make their supplements in unsanitary factories

That's equally true of all sorts of food.

[derleth]

> That's equally true of all sorts of food.

No, it isn't, thanks to the FDA.