However, false advertising claims are handled by the FTC. I suggest you talk to them before the FDA.
edit: For a court case to be effective the plaintiff has to prove that the product does not work; the burden of proof is not on the manufacturer, according to FDA regulations. Depending on wording this could require a long testing period with many people for a judge to take it seriously.
General Mills got the smack down from the FDA for claiming that Cheerios lowered your cholesterol. [1]
[1]http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/u...
These claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia. Additionally, the claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in the treatment, mitigation, and prevention of coronary heart disease through, lowering total and "bad" (LDL) cholesterol. Elevated levels of total and LDL cholesterol are a risk factor for coronary heart disease and can be a sign of coronary heart disease. Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug within the meaning of section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321 (g)P)(B)]. The product is also a new drug under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(p)] because it is not generally recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease. Therefore,under section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)], it may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.
Isn't that the intent? Rob Rhinehart (creator) lived for a period of one month eating Soylent and nothing else. My understanding is that Soylent is intended to be a meal replacement, not a supplement of some kind.
While I'd love for this to be a safe, reliable option, and might even try it as a replacement for some proportion of meals if/when it becomes more widely available, their marketing claims far exceeds what they have evidence for so far.
Regardless of legality, they are making some very bold claims that would benefit from some scientific study. Preferably, expert, peer-reviewed, published scientific study.
[1] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRs...
As of the product, I join vast majority that says stay away. My personal thing is that after reading one of their interview where they were inviting people to clinical study, I send them long detailed email covering my willingness to participate and even pay all the cost from my own pocket. My email got ignored and I never got response. For that reason alone, I would stay away from something you have to pay for, because their customer support sucks from the get go.
Like what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#Fo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_food_and_dietary_...
"The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there are no approval requirements. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe. Manufacturers of dietary supplements are permitted to make specific claims of health benefits, referred to as "structure or function claims" on the labels of these products."