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.

It's only outlawing keto diets marketed as general purpose meal replacements.

So they relabel it and it would be fine?

If you read the link these rules only apply to labeling for anything marked as a "Meal Replacement" product, like soylent.

So if Soylent changes the label, they're fine?

Even if this got them over regulatory problems, they're still in the business of selling meal replacements. What are they going to market their products, as? Dessert? Meal supplement? Their whole business is about selling you all you need to eat.

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]

---

[0] https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/som...

[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-ge...

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)

Sources: http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/1/138

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.

More recent sources: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canadian-researchers-fat-carbo...

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.

But the "fat is bad" idea is fairly recent as well, really only since the 70s.

OTOH, it's not like fat was so abundant before, neither from meat nor dairy.

That's only true if you have the peculiar western idea that meat is just the lean muscle tissue of the animal.

If you count bone marrow, brain, organ meats, blood, etc. an animal is pretty high fat.

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.

Not every culture in Europe, I'm afraid. English people have a pretty strong aversion towards "offal" (innards). I live in the UK (I'm originally from Greece) and it's impossible to find any trachea or lungs, let alone small intestines for some traditional dishes I really miss (g. kokoretsi, gardoumba).

You can find hearts, livers, kidneys and stomachs, but except for chicken livers, pretty much only in halal (i.e. middle easterner) butchers, as far as I can tell.

Edit: Most English also tend to find blood saussages disturbing. There's black pudding, a blood sausage they make oop north, in Yorkshire, but people under the north-south divide won't go near it with a ten-foot pole.

And you should just see the expressions of disgust towards haggis (a Scottish dish made with innards and quaker oats).

Black pudding is a central component of the "full English breakfast" that seems to be readily available all over London. Someone's gotta be eating it, and probably not just tourists like me.

There's a huge class component in eating offal, though. It might be that you're associating mainly with middle class people who find eating offal to be beneath them, or looking for it in middle class areas. Small intestines (chitterlings or "chitlins" in the US) is a good example - I'm a middle class white person in the northeastern US and I've never had them and no one I know has ever admitted eating them to me, but they're popular among poor people of all races in the rural south and among black Americans in northern cities.

I do enjoy kiska, though, along with a number of my friends - a Polish blood sausage flavored with marjoram. A lot of people here have Polish ancestors who came here for work in the steel mills, and it's a very working class sort of food.

Black pudding is part of the full English in Yorkshire, but not more southerly than that, as far as I know. It's not surprising to find it in London- you can find anything edible in London, including a restaurant that specialises in cooking animals whole and letting nothing go to waste. I forget the name, it's one of those trendy expensive ones so I've never been.

Where I live in the South, the full English is french toast, baked beans, hash browns, fried mushrooms, grilled tomatoes, eggs, bacon, sausage and spam (sorry, couldn't resist). I sincerely believe that a majority of English people would not touch their breakfast if it had black pudding in it.

Also, I'd think the middle classes would be more likely to eat offal, just to show they're superior to the plebs. But I might be wrong.

there are a lot variations (hungarians seem to consume a lot of chicken liver which I have _never_ seen in a supermarket in Italy, while beef liver is very common in Italy and seldom sold in Budapest), I just felt the blanket statement towards "the west" was wrong.

> overshadowed by plants

When? Only in the last 10,000 years of agriculture, I guarantee you hunter gatherers did not get the bulk of their calories from plants. Also, it's heavily dependent on what culture you're talking about. Some cultures relied heavily on animals, others on plants.

well, sure, but we were talking before '1970, rather than "before agriculture", and cultures in which the sugar lobby might have affected consumptions, not inuit.

I think he meant American bias when he said “western culture”. “Meat”, where I was raised, definitely didn’t include those (very tasty!) parts of the animal.

Mostly true. Beef liver was pretty common diner-type food though.

And it was the most awful tasting stuff too. It wasn't until later in life that I learned liver could actually taste good if it was prepared right.

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.

> unless you want to replace all meals

But that's a key point of Soylent marketing - a sole source of nutrition is something that comes up in every discussion of Soylent on HN.

Their marketing is also clear that it's not a replacement for every meal.

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.

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.

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.

Here's the full regulation :

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/c.r.c.,_c._870/pag...