The article addresses your concerns. First - the author lives almost entirely on Soylent for the past year and half. The reporter wrote that he looked and behaved really healthy. Sure, there could be some side effects that will manifest much later, but to this date it seems that there are none. Second - he doesn't believe that Soylent will, or should, replace food entirely. He calls everything else "recreational food" and says that Soylent is a replacement for frozen stuff that you eat because its cheap and gives you calories, not for meals in restaurants that are meant to socialize.

> First - the author lives almost entirely on Soylent for the past year and half.

In other words, a sample size of one.

I haven't an opinion on the safety of the product, but a sample size of one only proves it's not an outright poison. It's likely not actively harmful, but still, nutrition is a complicated thing.

I just think the whole idea of it couldn't be more depressing. People who don't get enjoyment out of food freak me out a bit. There are few things I enjoy more than cooking and eating well prepared food.

Whether or not it's a sample size of one, it's the longest soylent trial I've read about so far. You have to start somewhere.

We barely know the long term effect of traditional food items out there.

We know for certain that it's possible to live to 100 years old with traditional food items. As of right now, we can't say the same for soylent.

I know this is a bit of an extreme comparison to make, but the "risk" between soylent and traditional food should be quite a lot.

Agreed. Soylent looks like a cool company with a great product (as long as it's not people) but the title of the article elicited a hearty groan from me. Why these kinds of articles get so much attention around here I'll never know.