These regulations are outdated.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.

For an explanation with much more detail and less cheesy acting, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6-v37nOtY

With what we know now, a cap on fat is ridiculous. The cap should be on carbs.

Crazy to think that they could just add lots of sugar and it will be allowed as a meal replacement.

Further down it says:

"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.

The legal way, and this is something that's been pointed out in every single Soylent thread, is to stop selling it as a sole source of nutrition

You can do that, but you then need to meet the regulatory hurdles.

Or you can market it for the way it's actually used by the vast majority of people - a meal replacement.

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.