I'm usually the first to blast excess regulation, but note that this is only a labeling issue — the CFIA is not telling you what you cannot eat, but what a product can be described as. I can understand the appeal of a government mandating that a product for sale in that country, that is labeled as a 'meal replacement', have some reasonable distribution of macronutrients. The goal is to reasonably ensure that someone would not consume meal replacements that grossly lack nutrition a person actually needs to live.

The issue as I see it is that the definition of what would be considered reasonable today is not in line with the CFIA's. I don't see the intent of the regulations as unsound.

This is specific regulation related to food/meal replacements which are historically closer to medicine than food. I am not saying they are great, but all Solent needs to do is change their marketing not their product.

Also, I suspect these regulations have more backing than what you are assuming. They may not be correct, but they are good enough for people survive indefinitely on which is a solid track record.

PS: Used soylent for months 1.x and 2.0, swapped to Meal squares.

> like regulating the amount of fat/sugar/fiber

But only for products marketed as meal replacements. Soylent is not only advertised as a meal replacement, but as a sole source of nutrition.

These are moving towards products with medical use, so obviously there's going to be some regulation.

This seems to be a issue with health/food regulating government agencies all around the world. Here in Sweden the National Food Administration is constantly criticized for outdated dietary advice and are often accused to be influenced by food industry giants.

Also, I can go into any grocery store and buy all kinds of snacks, candy and soda which really are 100% garbage "food", so I'm not sure why anyone would think that regulating the percentage of fat would matter in term of health.