Risk vs reward. Very little risk in tech companies, quite a few in biotech.

Unless you are claiming that these guys are likely to put dangerous, non-FDA approved substances in their product?

The comment you respond to makes the point that while there's plenty of possibilities for dangerously deficient diets at any grocery store, and lot of people do choose diets - from regular grocery stores - that are extremely limited, most of us do ok.

And that is what Soylent needs to match or beat in order to avoid doing harm. The bar is extremely low considering some of the stuff I've survived on for extensive periods of time, and the type of diets I see others manage on.

That's not to say that they shouldn't aim higher, but there are a lot of people here that seems to be completely oblivious to just how shitty diets a lot of people live on.

That said, I think their marketing claims are well in excess of what they have evidence for, and it saddens me a bit that they feel that hyperbole is necessary. I also hope they put a lot more effort into testing.

Yeah, because before 1906, people were constantly dying from bad food. There wasn't any safe food to eat. In the whole world. For all of history. Until the FDA came along to save us in 1906.

I mean, it's demonstrably true that people aren't capable of caring for themselves. We need the government for force us to take care of ourselves.

P.S. The Jungle is a piece of left-wing propoganda.

Which is precisely the reason your fear-mongering is nonsense. The FDA isn't going to suddenly disappear because these guys are selling the same thing tons of other companies sell: meal replacement shake mix.