That he is wilfully avoiding the advice of the experts who study this full time, has demonstrably already made dangerous errors and could reasonably do so again.
He continues to hint that Soylent will be a total meal replacement while using paper-thin disclaimers to try to excuse himself from wrongful death and preventable illness lawsuits by relatives and insurance companies.
He is aware, because numerous nutritionists have now explained these facts to him, that a total meal replacement is not possible in the long run. Actual food contains a wide variety of nutrients, only some of which are known about, some of which are essential to life in differing degrees for different people.
At the point where your product + blood panels is only breaking parity with the standard western diet, then you need to rethink the development and plausibility of such a product.
If I was selling flying cars right now that did no more than eventually catch fire, I would be dragged into prison for fraud and being a danger to the public. But because this bloke is selling it as a "supplement" while all the press is about total meal replacement, it's A-OK. Hunky freaking dory.
It's unethical. But people want to believe.
That's the basis of marketing: a person willing to believe an impossible claim and another person willing to lie.
Well -- you win by default. His mixture doesn't provide unknown nutrients that can't be identified or tested for... I will call them "god nutrients" or "magic nutrients"... take your pick... that is an insane standard to hold anyone too.
How can I ensure I get my daily allowance of "magic nutrients" via my normal diet... now I am worried. Do you have can full of "magic nutrients" that I can use to supplement my diet?
Any expert who tells me there is a "magic nutrient" that can't be tested for and isn't known (then how do they know it exists?) about... well... I won't be taking a lot of advice from them, I will stick to my trusted palm reader.
There are enough experts with differing opinions that anyone who does anything will always be ignoring the advice of a few of them at any given time. That doesn't him right, but participation isn't compulsory in any way.
>has demonstrably already made dangerous errors and could reasonably do so again.
That is the nature of research. By adding analytical feedback to his dietary intake, he can correct mistakes. Groundbreaking discoveries are often made by young researchers who are not prejudiced in their thinking. This guy may be disadvantaged by his greater lack of knowledge in some ways, but it may turn out to be an advantage in the end. It is also a kind of sad commentary on the state of the field that this stuff isn't either: known to a high degree of confidence or if it were then, isn't communicated to non-experts in an effective way.
In fact, nutritional technology, and medical practice surrounding nutritional technology is eff-ing pathetic. (Medical technology is pathetic too, for other reasons.) We ought to have toilets that will do quasi-medical diagnostics for us by now. There is no good reason why that tech can't exist. But instead, it is far more common that people wait until they are unwell, often partially disabled in the case of dietary ailments before medical intervention is available. Dietary tech. is relatively unchanged for most people even, in affluent societies since the end of subsistence farming. If anything, many people are worse-off.
>while using paper-thin disclaimers to try to excuse himself from wrongful death and preventable illness lawsuits by relatives and insurance companies.
I'll just assume he's hired legal counsel, and said what they told him to say.
>If I was selling flying cars right now that did no more than eventually catch fire, I would be dragged into prison for fraud and being a danger to the public.
You'd be the subject of a Popular Mechanics article once or more times per year, and you might even get a cover.
>But because this bloke is selling it as a "supplement" while all the press is about total meal replacement, it's A-OK. Hunky freaking dory.
The problems with FDA regulation, food labeling, media coverage of products, advertising industry practice, are numerous and neither do they start nor do they end with Rhinehart.
>It's unethical.
I'd argue not according to most peoples' ethics.
>But people want to believe.
So, let them. It will be a learning experience, either for them, or for you. Maybe both.
>That's the basis of marketing: a person willing to believe an impossible claim and another person willing to lie.
Nothing new about that.
except the ones that take years to present, and are things that we don't necessarily understand well yet.
>Some people's health is at risk simply by maintaining their normal eating habits.
Just because people have bad nutritional habits doesn't mean that soylent is the answer. Surely better education and a redistribution of farm subsidies to nudge people towards healthier lifestyles is a more complete and safe route?
But yeah, soylent does allow people to feel that sense of achievement of playing armchair scientists.
>What ethical problem? Don't participate if you don't like the terms. It is not as though the stuff is being tested on schoolchildren, or anyone who is unwilling.
There is an assumption amongst educated and knowledgeable people that others are equally so. Some of the people who participate in the soylent trials wont be knowledgeable enough to be able to make good meaningful decisions about what they put in their bodies.
Sure, it's their choice, hell they can suck lead paint off walls if that's their thing, but the whole point of food and supplement laws and safety regs is to prevent people doing themselves harm, particularly when they are not themselves cognisant of the harm they might do.
Add to that the hubris of those who know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be cautious, and something is going to go terribly wrong eventually. Perhaps not for the originator of the idea, but certainly one or several of the participants.
This problem is not also not currently addressed by standard dietary practice.
>Just because people have bad nutritional habits doesn't mean that soylent is the answer.
Okay, don't participate. Or wait and see. Or seek out some expert you trust.
>Surely better education
Never hurts
> and a redistribution of farm subsidies
No point in arguing that the Nanny State can't do a better job. It can and should. Is that Rhinehart's responsibility? Or is it even within the set of things that an individual could affect?
> to nudge people towards healthier lifestyles is a more complete and safe route?
Government intervention hasn't worked well yet. It is anybody's guess as to how much better/worse it could be.
>But yeah, soylent does allow people to feel that sense of achievement of playing armchair scientists.
Some people do like control of their lives. For some people, any action, even though there is potential for harm, is better than inaction.
>There is an assumption amongst educated and knowledgeable people that others are equally so.
Other people are free to do as they wish, so long as they don't bother me. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins
>Some of the people who participate in the soylent trials wont be knowledgeable enough to be able to make good meaningful decisions about what they put in their bodies.
Their mamas ought to have taught them better.
>Sure, it's their choice, hell they can suck lead paint off walls if that's their thing,
But, you've just been arguing that someone ought to save them from themselves!
> but the whole point of food and supplement laws and safety regs is to prevent people doing themselves harm, particularly when they are not themselves cognisant of the harm they might do.
Is it? Maybe that was the point, that's certainly the way it gets sold to us. Would you argue that those laws and regs are particularly effective to that end?
>Add to that the hubris of those who know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be cautious, and something is going to go terribly wrong eventually. Perhaps not for the originator of the idea, but certainly one or several of the participants.
How many? Half? A quarter? A percent? Less than that? People makes similar policy compromises all the time, the gov't does it for us too. None of these people are abandoning medicine, they will get medical checkups (if they don't, they really are fools!) It obviously isn't acutely poisonous, people who don't react well will either discontinue, or consult a physician. I bet most will abandon drinking goop even absent any negative outcome.
So? Once you add feedback (blood tests, medical supervision) to your dietary "loop", these mistakes have the potential to sort themselves out.
>Ignorance of such a broad field should not be seen as heroic when you are potentially placing people's health at risk.
Some people's health is at risk simply by maintaining their normal eating habits.
>Placing a legalistic figleaf over the top does not make the ethical problem go away.
What ethical problem? Don't participate if you don't like the terms. It is not as though the stuff is being tested on schoolchildren, or anyone who is unwilling.